Blog

Maintaining progress is hard. Not only are there different protocols to help athletes achieve their goals, but athletes respond differently to the protocols—especially in sprint training. During my playing career, the most common advice I received was: “If you want to get fast, run fast.”

While true, this type of thinking will only take an athlete or coach so far. After improving for a time, the athlete will inevitably reach a training plateau, which may be caused by suboptimal technique, a lack of joint stiffness, or general strength. At this point, the training focus needs to be clarified. This clarification often comes with an increased specificity, whether through drill selection or coaching cues. These drills and cues are often derived from the teachings of elite sprint coaches who train sprinters and can then be insufficient for field sports athletes who, generally speaking, have different body types or experience levels when compared to a traditional sprinter. If the drills and cues are not effective for some athletes, how do we help them continue to progress when they have seemingly leveled out?

One way is to apply a horizontal load to the athlete with a weighted sled or tools like the Run Rocket, Vertimax Raptor, or KATN Strength Engine, which can provide external feedback that makes the cues more effective, manage the athlete’s technical deficiencies, lack of coordination, or deficient strength qualities.

Technical Proficiency

Field sport athletes are not required to master sprinting technique to become better at their sport. However, a proficiency can be helpful in achieving higher velocities, which if relevant, can increase sports performance. More importantly, proficient sprinting, when prescribed effectively, exposes the athlete to high rates of force development and higher contractile velocities which can be helpful in preventing injuries.

Now the question becomes how do you start developing proficiency when you are tasked with introducing the athlete to positions that they are not familiar with? Often, the coach is forced to rely on external verbal or tactile cues to encourage the athlete to find the correct positions, i.e., “Push harder into the ground” or “Keep the foot dorsiflexed.”

During my 10 year NFL career, I was coached by dozens of coaches and experienced firsthand the frustration with being unable to improve past a certain point based solely based on the coach-provided cues. And, as a coach in my post-playing career, I now understand the frustration from the other side: you feel you are communicating clearly, but the athlete is still unable to internalize the cue (thus, stunting the athlete’s progress).

One way to circumvent the language barrier—and in my experience the most effective—is to help the athlete feel the position associated with the cue. This allows the athlete and the coach to speak the same language—especially because athletes tend to be kinesthetic learners.

The question then becomes what is the best way to allow the athlete to feel the position? Isometrics, yielding or overcoming, are tools that not only help the athlete coordinate their position but also help with joint- and angle-specific motor unit recruitment and rate coding (the rate at which the motor unit discharges action potentials).

Perhaps the most common isometric exercise for sprinting are wall drills, which are often used to reinforce the position and tension required during the acceleration phase. While these exercises are outstanding, they can fall short. Often, young athletes get so infatuated with the wall they leave their hips behind, let their chest collapse, or lose postural integrity. One way to get a similar effect is to anchor the athlete from behind like they are pulling a sled—I use the KATN Strength Engine for this, but an anchored chain or cord would also work.

This technique differs from traditional wall drills in that the athlete is held from the back with a cord connected to a belt or chest harness. This different modality allows the athlete not only to feel the correct angle and tension, like a wall drill, but also forces them to stabilize through the hip and midsection in a way that is specific to sprinting. When prescribing this to new athletes, it is often helpful to have them use a dowel or a hurdle to help with balance.

These exercises are also fantastic because they don’t require a lot of space. At the end of most college or professional workouts, there is the required midsection work. Often coaches program anti-rotation exercises like Pallof presses. Now, the Palloff press is an outstanding exercise, but why not use this opportunity to program single leg isometric holds and help your athletes get acclimated to positions relevant to sprinting while working midsection strength?

Once these foundational positions have been established, the athlete can move on to dynamic exercises such as heavy marches or sled pushes. These next exercises allow the athlete to work dynamically through sprint-relevant positions that have been coached isometrically, allowing the athlete to reinforce the specificity of the movement while also learning how to forcefully interact with the ground. This progression helps the athlete learn the tension and rhythms required for sprinting at slower contractile velocities.

Practical Solutions

As the athlete becomes stronger and more proficient in the required positions, you can reduce the load and determine if the athlete can maintain the correct positions at higher velocities. Once the athlete has reached a competency in the sprinting positions, the coach can work on triaging the elements of the athlete’s sprint.

Let’s look at three examples:

1. The athlete has a long amortization phase. The amortization phase is isometric in nature, occurring when the eccentric phase (or the force absorbing phase) of the ground contact is over and the concentric (or the force application phase) has not yet started. The athlete’s ground contact time will be long; it might look as if they are running in sand. It is important to verbally cue the athlete, i.e., “Be more reactive off the ground.”

However, some athletes—younger or larger athletes—have a difficult time internalizing this cue. To help the athlete internalize the reactive element, providing them with a physical cue can be beneficial. In this case, loading the athlete can be helpful. Often, coaches will prescribe reactive jumps such as pogos or skips to help coordinate the athlete’s reaction off the ground. This is fantastic, because they can show the athlete the requisite tension required when sprinting by increasing ground contact times. Just like the verbal cue, this might not be enough. Having athletes do these reactive jumps under a grounded, moderate horizontal load helps them feel the level of joint stiffness required but also helps condition the athlete’s motor unit patterning and encourage the appropriate rate coding.

The line of force should be vertical and horizontal, meaning the line of force should not be directly at the athlete’s waist. It should be anchored to the athlete’s waist or torso and have a line of force that works towards the ground at approximately 45 degrees. This force angle helps the athlete feel the vertical and horizontal force needed while sprinting.

Once they have physically experienced this feeling, the verbal cue is internalized and becomes more effective.

2. The athlete is not imparting force effectively during top end mechanics. Once they are out of the transition phase, it may look as if they are running in place. A common prescription for this issue is alternating bounds. Amongst high level track populations, this is almost an immediate fix. However, with field athletes who are looking to increase speed or athletes who do not have high transmutation ability, bounds under load not only help them feel the vertical and horizontal force required for propulsion, but the added load—whether light or heavy—helps with increased motor unit recruitment, which would be beneficial for coordination and force output. This prescription, in conjunction with an effective coach’s eye, can help the athlete understand the level of focus and force required to be effective at end mechanics.

3. The athlete is exhibiting a large amount of back kick while sprinting. Wickets often serve as an excellent corrective exercise in these situations. However, it is not applicable to all athletes. For novice athletes or athletes who are not efficient sprinters, another intervention may be appropriate.

One such intervention is loading a “Running A” or a repetitive high knee exercise, while coaching a cyclical heel action. With a weighted sled this would be jarring, but a device that provides smoother resistance, such as the Run Rocket or the KATN Strength Engine, would be extremely beneficial. The added tension, though light, helps the athlete feel the stacked position—shoulders over hips, hips over knees, knees over ankles—while also having tension on the leg which, like the loaded bounds, helps with the correct motor unit recruitment pattern.

My experience

My philosophy as a coach is largely shaped by my time as a player. I spent countless hours trying to get faster. I was privileged to work with some of the best coaches. They helped me but I didn’t see a true breakthrough until I was retired and started my own journey in pursuit of speed.

These coaches did everything they could for me. The issue was on my end—I could not internalize what the coach was saying. The coach would prescribe some type of plyometric to build ankle stiffness or a rhythm building exercise to help my coordination and I would do them to the best of my ability, but I know now I was not getting the desired response from the exercise. This is where horizontal loading entered my life. I started loading A-skips, bounds, pogos, broad jumps, and single-leg broad jumps and suddenly I could feel the tension and intent the exercises required.

If I were reading this article and heard a former NFL player talking about his personal experience, I would need more convincing. But let me assure you, I have seen these same principles work with the athletes that I now train. It helps all my athletes—young, old, professional, amateur, big, or small—understand how to coordinate their bodies in a forceful way and find the tension needed to sprint faster. While loading prescriptions are not the best solution for every athlete, they are another tool in the toolbox to help the coach effectively communicate with the athlete and help push past those pesky coaching plateaus.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

While there are many great coaches putting out helpful information on sprinting and how to run faster, I think we should simply look at what goes into sprinting. There may be others putting out this information in different terms than I do, but this is how my brain works and hopefully it makes sense to some of you as well. Let’s determine what aspects go into sprinting and how to improve them.

I think of sprinting as being made up of three components, which is obviously very simplified. The three buckets I use are:

1. Strength
2. Elasticity
3. Technical

This is not necessarily a way to profile athletes, like neuro-typing or pushers versus pullers or many of the other ways we categorize athletes. I think pretty much all of these are useful as long as we realize most individuals are not just one thing or another but instead are on a spectrum. These tools can be used to identify an athlete’s strengths and weaknesses, and the way I break down sprinting can potentially be a useful tool as well.

1. Strength

Strength, or force, is needed in sprinting to horizontally displace our center of mass. Literally, you need some type of strength to push or pull your body forward. The person who can produce 10 Newtons of force into the ground will move faster and move their body more than the person who can only produce 1 Newton of force into the ground, assuming these two have the same body mass. I could bore all of you with some basic laws of physics, but I think we should all understand that if there is no force being produced, the runner will not move.

One important thing to consider is this should focus more on relative strength. While running, the athlete is fighting gravity pulling on their body mass. If you decide an athlete needs to get stronger, but they gain weight and muscle mass in the process, is that going to be beneficial? Are they going to be able to push their body mass better now, or did it really remain the same?

Barry Ross’ book Underground Secrets To Running Faster might have been the first time I heard this expressed. He wrote at length of the need to improve mass-specific force. You have to be able to move your body weight against gravity. Strength training is great for helping to produce more and more force. Now, a heavy squat might take five seconds from start to finish—a long time to produce force—but while sprinting, the athlete only has fractions of a second to produce force into the ground.

So, being able to produce high amounts of force relative to body weight is definitely important, but only the amount of force that an athlete can produce in one-tenth of a second really matters. An important strength quality to look to develop is power. Power is equal to force multiplied by velocity and takes into account strength and the amount of time the strength is produced.

The main production of force will come from the hip while sprinting, but the knee and ankle both need to be strong and stiff to transfer that force from the hip into the ground. I think of this like I think of playing pool. All of the power used to push the pool cue into the cue ball comes from your arm—specifically, your shoulder. The pool stick itself needs to be strong and stiff in order to transfer that force into the cue ball and move it. If the pool stick is stiff, but not strong—like a dry spaghetti noodle—it will transfer force well but break easily. If the pool stick is resilient, but not stiff—like a cooked spaghetti noodle—then it will not transfer much force, but it will be more difficult to break.

Some of the best methods I use to improve power pair together a strength movement and a speed movement. In the weight room, this could look like a heavy trap bar deadlift for 2-3 quality repetitions—moving as fast as possible—followed by a vertical jump. Use a movement that focuses more on strength and pair it with a movement that focuses more on moving quickly. On the field, for a more running-specific pair of exercises, I like to pair heavy sled or prowler pushes with free sprints. In my experience working with NFL Combine athletes, both of these examples have been staples in our program to help improve power and ultimately improve sprinting speed.

To be a fast sprinter, athletes need to be strong relative to their body weight, produce force quickly, and be strong and stiff down their whole leg in order to transfer that force into the ground.

2. Elasticity

Being elastic typically refers to the stiffness of tendons—elastic athletes are your bouncy, long, and thin athletes. You can see their Achilles tendon pretty much climb from their ankle all the way up to the back of their knee. Strength and elasticity are two common ways we coaches categorize and profile athletes. I think it is, overall, a decent way of doing it; again, realizing they are all on a spectrum and need a balance of training both strength and elasticity.

How do you train elasticity? It is done primarily through plyometrics. Any bounce type of exercise will favor working the tendon over the muscle. Faster movements = more tendon, slower movements = more muscle. Low-level plyometrics like pogo hops, skipping, and line hops are a great way to build a foundation of elastic strength. More advanced exercises like bounds and depth jumps are great to maximize elastic strength.

It is a good idea to utilize low-level plyometrics early in the training cycle to prepare the tissues for the more advanced plyometrics yet to come. Then, progress your athlete from a simple A-skip to alternating bounds and even into assisted alternating bounds. Each progression will increase the amount of force put into the ground and have decreased ground contact times. The faster the ground contact time, the more the athlete is relying on elastic components of their tissue to transfer force into the ground.

Elasticity is important for maximizing sprinting speed because tendons help to transfer force into the ground effectively and efficiently, and they give you “free energy.” Tendons are like rubber bands. A brand-new, straight-out-of-the-pack rubber band is tight and stiff and can get shot across the room by stretching it an inch. That is what you want out of your tendons, minimal stretch or effort needed to go far. An old rubber band found between the couch cushions that is stretched out and loose needs a lot of pulling in order to get shot just to the other side of the room. The more we can improve tendon stiffness and elasticity, the more the athlete can take advantage of the free energy of the tendons and put force into the ground quickly, which we already know the importance of.

3. Technical

The last component I think about when coaching sprinting is technical. One part of this is how running should look, or the shapes an athlete should make while running, and the other is the direction in which they apply force. These two pretty much go hand and hand.

We all have an idea of how sprinting should look. Whether it’s the first step of a sprint or once an athlete is 40 yards down field, we coaches should have an idea of what the sprint motion should look like. I think we all agree that in the start and early acceleration, we should see more of a forward torso angle and more of a piston-like action in the lower leg; then, as they reach max velocity, we should see more of a cyclical motion in the leg and upright torso. Throughout the entire sprint, we want to see a relatively big arm swing, at least behind their body. You may have different ideas or more specific motions you want to see in your athletes, but I think we can agree on these.

Using something as simple as your phone camera to record sprints to more easily see the positions your athlete achieves while sprinting is an effective tool. After you determine what positions need improvement, use drills that get the athlete into these motions. Want more knee lift? Try A-skips. Need more cyclical motion? I like butt kick skipping drills or any clawing and pawing type of techniques. Something as basic as a standing arm drill, working on swinging the arms like they would while running with an emphasis on throwing the hand behind them, is effective to improve that motion.

If there is a certain range of motion you want the athlete to be able to achieve while running, but they cannot get into position, the best way to help them achieve it is with a medical professional: a physical therapist, athletic trainer, massage therapist, or whatever discipline you believe in. Let them assess the issue and what techniques are needed to open up the desired range of motion. Yes, maybe stretching, foam rolling, isometrics, or other strategies may work, but I have always been a big believer in using medical professionals and different specialties when needed.

The reason certain ranges of motion are important to sprinting is that they help provide the direction in which force is being applied. Meaning, if you want the athlete to move forward, they better be able to apply force in such a way that it moves them forward and not in a different direction.

We know that, especially in the start of a sprint, force needs to be applied horizontally, but if an athlete does not have the ankle dorsiflexion range of motion to maintain a forward lean and push backward into the ground, then they are going to stand straight up. If you want a big hip flexion range of motion so the leg has more time to travel back toward the ground forcefully, then they better have adequate hip flexion ROM. You can apply all the relative force you want and as quickly as Usain Bolt, but if it is not being applied in the correct direction then it does no good.

Performance Outcomes

By improving strength and power, elasticity with plyometrics, and technical mechanics, you can expect to see improvements in sprinting speeds in your athletes. In this most recent NFL Combine and Pro Day season at Bommarito Performance, we saw an average improvement of .3 seconds in the 40-yard dash, with the best improvement being .6 seconds.

I hope this makes sense to you all. I believe these concepts not only carry over to sprinting, but also jumping, throwing, swinging, punching, changing direction, and pretty much every sport movement. The athlete needs to be able to produce adequate force in the necessary amount of time and in the proper direction.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Part of the allure of coaching is that every season is unique. In narrowing the focus to high school track and field, we do have a portion of our athletes who are with us for four years and go through a “typical” progression. However, there are always new athletes in every class at the start of the season. In addition, maturation can make a returning athlete completely different than the year prior—for better or for worse.

Due to the variance in clientele, there are items we choose to emphasize that are specific to the needs of the group. These decisions tend to be made after the first couple of weeks and then are monitored throughout the course of our season. All this being said, the demands of the sprint, hurdle, and jump events remain constant, so the vast majority of what we do year to year is consistent. We tend to follow an 80/10/10 model.

I believe I’ve heard the following breakdown from ALTIS’ Stu McMillan, although his percentages may have been different:

• 80% of items on your training menu should consist of what you know are effective.
• 10% should be items you are confident will be effective.
• 10% should be items you have a hunch will be effective.

What I’ve Added

Here are the items I’ve added over the past few years.

1. Crescendo Plyometrics

Carl Valle did us all a favor by producing numerous pieces on the Scandinavian Rebound Jump Test (SRJT).

After obtaining a MuscleLab Contact Grid, I began to utilize it and really liked its simplicity and how effective it was at getting athletes to learn to bounce. A lightbulb then clicked for me that it would be a fantastic option to use the same methodology of increasing intensity with all plyometrics. Crescendo skipping, bounding, galloping, and run-run-jumps have become a staple within our weekly programming. There are many reasons why I love them:

• The lower intensity at the beginning of the rep allows for athletes to focus on a technical aspect (such as foot contact), and ideally, it gets locked in before the higher intensity found at the end of the rep.

• Working through a bandwidth of intensities creates an athlete with better awareness of their outputs. I think it is common in track (and training in general) to be hyper-focused on maximal outputs—I certainly love watching athletes sprint and jump maximally! However, I think there is value to exposing athletes to a spectrum of intensity.

I often reference the Rewzon long jump study, brought to my attention by Joel Smith, in which exposure to sub-max efforts allowed for a higher degree of improvement in maximum capability when compared to maximum effort-only training. Working through crescendo reps has the ability to take care of either sub-max-only efforts or sub-max to max efforts!

• I find that they are a more logical way to manage intensities. For example, instead of having an athlete dive right into bounding maximally for eight contacts, a coach could have them focus on being maximal on the last two, then the last four, the last six, and then all eight over a four-week period.

2. Asymmetric Locomotion

I picked up the idea of asymmetric skipping from Nick Newman about two years ago, and like the crescendo plyometrics, I have applied it to a variety of other forms of locomotion. The asymmetric label comes to be because the goal is to focus on operating at a high intensity on one side and an easier intensity on the other.

Here are the reasons I believe asymmetric locomotion has staying power in my programming:

• It is a fantastic bridge between skills. Asking a novice athlete to bound or skip for distance often leads to unattractive visuals. Asking them to focus on pushing hard on one side and easy on the other tends to make for a much more appealing visual. Once they have the feeling of each side, they usually are more able to link the two sides together.

• It is more specific to what they see within their event (referring to the unilateral jumps found in track and field). If I have an athlete who is struggling with projecting their hips to create quality hip displacement, an asymmetric skip or bound for distance is a fantastic way to drill the feeling they need. If any athlete has too shallow of a takeoff angle in long jump, asymmetric skips for height (along with gallops and run-run-jumps for height) would be part of the prescription to help correct that issue.

• If an athlete has a nagging injury on one leg, but the other is fine, asymmetric locomotion is an option that can be considered to ensure there is not a big detraining effect on the healthy leg. Proceed with caution here!

What I’ve Dropped: Minimum Effective Dose

Before the haters of this phrase celebrate—and the lovers throw shade at me—I encourage all to walk down this path with me. First and foremost, this is highly specific to me, and my hope is that those on both sides of the issue can see where I am coming from.

I think the first time I heard the phrase “minimum effective dose” was around 2015. It was a concept that fit the trends I had noticed within the context of training female high school track and field athletes. (I was the head girls’ track coach at the time—the main events I coached were sprints, hurdles, and high jump.) I wrote about this trend in great detail here. I was all-in on the concept, and to this day I feel it is something that the majority of coaches of any sport at all levels need to hear, as junk volume is probably the biggest deterrent to high performance after mental health, diet, and sleep.

In 2016, I made the transition to being an assistant on the boys’ track and field staff, with an emphasis on coaching the long/triple/high jumps and the overlap that occurs with sprinters. I took the idea of minimum effective dose with me to the jumps, which was based on what I saw with the girls I coached and my own personal experience as a jumper (primarily high jump). Simply put, I knew that I never performed well in high jump if I was not feeling bouncy. There was no way for me to just grind through it—and as an athlete, I was a grinder.

The male athletes I coached trained at a very high intensity with low volume, and they performed well. However, if we fast forward to right now, seven years into the position I have with the boys, I can say with 100% certainty that the athletes I coached early on in my current stint were substantially undertrained.

While the ideal is to train every athlete the perfect amount, this is of course a challenge at the high school level, as we are only in direct contact with our athletes for around 5-10% of the time. A few athletes win the “other 22 hours” away from us, but the majority leave a lot of potential gains left on the table. I also subscribe to the Vern Gambetta and Harry Mara idea that I’d rather have an athlete trained at 90% of what is ideal than 1% over what is ideal. My personal problem was I may have trained some of the athletes I coached to 75%.

Here is an example, discussing flying sprints and the horizontal approach. But before that, I will outline some terminology:

• 10-meter fly—A timed 10-meter window preceded by a 20- to 30-meter run-in.
• Approach pop-off—A full approach rehearsal close to realistic penultimate and takeoff steps (rolling contacts). The jumper jumps off the board but lands in the pit upright (not undergoing a full landing).
• Approach run-through—A full approach where the jumper simply runs through the board into the pit. Here, the penultimate and takeoff steps tend to be much less realistic (if they happen at all).

Early on in coaching jumpers, I equated long jump approach rehearsal to a 10-meter fly. So, if the sprint workout of the day was 3-4 x 10m fly, I would have jumpers run 2 x 10m fly and try to get approaches knocked out in three or less. I currently believe the fly-to-approach ratios are:

• Pop-off – 1:1.5 or 1:2
• Run-through – 1:2.5 or 1:3

When the jumper “pops off” the board and takes close to realistic penultimate and takeoff steps, there are greater braking forces than when compared to just “running through” the board. Most of the time, I prefer the jumper to “pop off” in the rehearsal. This is more like an actual jump, and the spacing of those last two steps can vary when compared to when the athlete just runs through. (I’ve seen up to an 18-inch difference.) However, for athletes who need reps to develop consistency in the body of the approach, running through the board makes sense at times to minimize the load presented on the last two steps. It is easiest to do this away from the jump pit, so the athlete is not tempted to pop off into the sand!

The reason that I feel more approaches can be accumulated than 10-meter flys is because a high school athlete typically attains 80-95% of their maximum velocity on the runway. This is due to the steering component from having a takeoff target. The trade-off for greater accuracy is submaximal velocity. Since the velocity is submaximal, the approach is less demanding from a neurological standpoint. Because of the jumper attaining submaximal velocity on the runway (unless there is a huge tailwind), I tend to classify either approach’s rehearsal style as acceleration work instead of maximum velocity work.

Circling back to eliminating minimum effective dose as a descriptor of my training, I have found that athletes are able to tolerate quite a bit more acceleration volume than maximum velocity volume. By using minimum effective dose as an identifying descriptor of training, I was unintentionally undertraining athletes. I can say with certainty that this impacted their ability to become technically proficient. I could also argue that key metrics would have been better with a slightly larger training stimulus.

• Old Long Jumper Maximum Velocity Workout
  • 2 x 10m fly
  • 3-4 approach rehearsals

• Current Long Jumper Maximum Velocity Workout A
  • 3 cycles
• 1 x 10m fly, rest 4 minutes
• 2 approach pop-offs, rest 3 minutes between each
• Current Long Jumper Maximum Velocity Workout B
  • 2 cycles
• 1 x 10m fly, rest 4 minutes
• 2 approach run-throughs, rest 3 minutes between each
• 1 cycle
• 1 x 10m fly, rest 4 minutes
• 3-5 approach run-throughs, rest 3 minutes between each
• A current “C” option could be a hybrid of “A” and “B”

Although it is not always possible, I prefer to toggle the maximum velocity work with the approach work (which I view as acceleration work) in this style whenever possible. I think it provides a challenge in coordination, which makes athletes more aware of their different gears. It also helps them deal with the demands presented to them during a meet: two jump attempts, sprint event, back for more jump attempts.

This training toggle-style was a carryover for me from coaching hurdles. Prior to the start of a meet, hurdlers would look great in warm-ups over the hurdles (utilizing a great shuffle technique). Then, they would run in the 4x100m relay and come back to hurdles with normal sprint mechanics, destroying the hurdles (and their bodies) in the process because their stride length was too great between the hurdles.

What Might Be Right for You, May Not Be Right for Some

The above example is how I let the phrase “minimum effective dose” have a negative influence on my training design. I firmly believe that I am in the minority here. Overtraining is certainly more common than undertraining at the high school level, and most likely also at levels below and above. There are no doubt coaches out there who need to hear the minimum effective dose message!

As a math teacher, I often find myself instructing students to keep in mind where they need to go before they dive in and complete work. This bird’s-eye view often saves them from going down a suboptimal path. We can all better serve our athletes by being as vigilant as possible in seeing the entire picture.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

The posture debate has grown among healthcare practitioners, with arguments being made for and against the validity of “poor postures” and their true impact on an individual. Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on this topic, two chronic postures have become increasingly notorious amidst a growing sedentary population—forward head posture (FHP) and rounded shoulder posture (RSP). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed work and study environments for a large number of us, and thus, there is a greater need to investigate rehabilitation specifically for these two postures.

For what has now become a staple of lower extremity rehabilitation, the implementation of neuromuscular integration techniques is considered the standard of care. Regardless of specific diagnosis or injury site, neuromuscular integration (NI) principles are adhered to with exercises designed to challenge an individual’s balance, proprioception, and coordination. Testing methods have even been developed to measure these attributes (which I will discuss later). Yet, we rarely see such emphasis placed on the rehabilitation of upper body dysfunctions.

Specifically, this post will be about the implementation of NI principles for the rehabilitation of these two common upper body postural dysfunctions—forward head (FHP) and rounded shoulder posture (RSP)—targeting the presentation, etiology, traditional treatment methods, and implementation of potential NI techniques.

Defining the Problem

FHP is typified by weakness in the deep cervical flexor muscles, namely the:

• Longus capitis.
• Longus colli.
• Rectus capitis anterior.

Together, these muscles function to create flexion at the atlantooccipital joint and through the cervical spine. This weakness is accompanied by overactivity of the semispinalis cervicis and capitis muscles, in particular, which leads to an anterior head protrusion, whereby an individual’s head extends forward and in front of their torso. This is colloquially referred to as text neck.

RSP presents as an upward and rounded shoulder presentation of the individual, almost causing the chest to appear concave from the elevation and anterior tilt of the scapular, and internal rotation of the scapular and humerus. This is caused by weakness in those scapular downward rotators, such as the middle and lower trapezius, as well the serratus anterior, which helps to posteriorly tilt the scapular to keep it attached to the thoracic cavity. A common compensatory component of RSP is overactivity of the:

• Upper trapezius.
• Levator scapulae.
• Pectoralis major/minor muscles.

We see these postures showing links to common presentations such as increased pain, decreased strength and range of motion, decreased upper extremity stability, reduced respiratory function, and muscle activation issues that impact the scapular kinematics. And, etiologically speaking, these postural abnormalities can be a precursor to pathologies such as temporomandibular joint dysfunction, chronic neck pain, thoracic outlet syndrome, scapular dyskinesis, and shoulder overuse injuries.

These two postural ailments present in a large number of individuals. FHP has been reported to affect 66% of healthy individuals aged 20-50 years of age, with RSP impacting anywhere from 66%-73% of individuals. The increase in sedentary lifestyle habits is often cited as a causing factor, with individuals hunched over screens and keyboards for large lengths of time. Couple this causation with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has altered the way many of us go to work or school, and the need for heightened awareness on this topic is paramount.

Identifying Solutions

Traditional rehabilitation techniques have focused on treating the presentations in isolation—strengthening the underactive muscles and stretching the overactive muscles. For FHP, this meant strengthening exercises such as the chin tuck (or “double chin”) and stretching the cervical extensors that cause that stooped head posture. The RSP treatment commonly saw strengthening of the periscapular muscles and humeral external rotators, while stretching the aforementioned overactive muscles present in RSP.

And that was it.

No postural cueing or training, no integration with functional movements, and no addressing of global muscles groups. Although positive results have been seen with this method, treating in isolation has long fallen out of favor in lower extremity rehabilitation, and I believe upper extremity postural rehabilitation should follow suit.

Neuromuscular integration approaches have clinicians adopt a more holistic approach to rehabilitation by:

• Optimizing an individual’s ability to stabilize joints and posture.
• Improving muscle activation patterns.
• Better reacting to proprioceptive changes.

This training philosophy has been shown to improve proprioception and stability and induce improvements in isokinetic strength while being used extensively in lower extremity rehabilitation.

Lower Extremity Work

Lower extremity work has routinely incorporated neuromuscular principles into rehabilitation protocols for a variety of injuries. Take anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures, for example. For exercise prescription immediately post-op, patients are often prescribed a series of open-kinetic chain exercises where they will have no weight-bearing limits. As strength, range of motion, and activation patterns improve, the patient will be progressed to weight-bearing activities such as assisted gait and balance exercises—early-stage neuromuscular integration implementation. Eventually, patients will progress to a variety of single leg tasks and plyometric exercises with a heavy focus on proprioception and limb/joint awareness—particularly, limiting knee valgus patterns.

Fast-forward to end stage rehabilitation, where many return-to-play requirements involve specific neuromuscular control tests such as the Y-balance test. The Y-balance test is an objective neuromuscular control measurement test consisting of an individual utilizing a single-leg stance to reach in three different planes of motion while satisfying certain performance requirements. The test is repeated on both involved and uninvolved limbs, and depending on the clinic or testing facility, a certain percentage of limb symmetry is required for clearance. Research has been done linking these neuromuscular asymmetries as predictors of future injury and even linking lower limb neuromuscular control to upper extremity injuries.

Upper Extremity Work

As you can see, there are clearly defined stages and instances where neuromuscular control is both trained and assessed in lower extremity rehabilitation protocols. Upper extremity neuromuscular protocols, on the other hand, are in their infancy.

An obvious limitation here is that the lower limb is used for gait and weight bearing due to our bipedal nature; as such, we cannot compare apples to apples. However, a level of stability and proprioception is required to complete activities of daily living and other sporting and performance tasks. Scapular dyskinesis testing is common to measure scapula-humeral rhythm to assess activation patterns during arm elevation tasks, and this test has specific criteria for qualification, although interpretation of these criteria is subjective in nature.

The upper quarter Y-balance test, which was developed by Gray Cook and Phil Plisky at Functional Movement Systems, is a more objective measure. It evaluates an individual’s ability to perform reaching movements while in the up position of a push-up. Similar to the lower extremity Y-balance test, participants must reach in three directions—medial, inferolateral, and superolateral—but we have to question the applicability of this test for the assessment of daily functionality and athletic performance.

Circling back to posture-based rehabilitation protocols for FHP and RSP, exercises have generally been isolated in nature, focusing on a single plane of movement and often a single muscular group to perform the movement. As such, further investigation into the implementation of neuromuscular principles for the treatment of upper extremity postural-based rehabilitation was necessary to probe the efficacy, applicability, and scope of these techniques.

Measurement Standards in the Research

Dr. David Anderson (San Francisco State University) and I performed an extensive literature search to examine this exact issue; these broad literature searches yielded 392 potential papers, which we then put through a variety of inclusion/exclusion criteria guidelines to finish with six eligible articles: four reporting on FHP and two on RSP.

Articles had to incorporate rehabilitation principles that were deemed to constitute neuromuscular integration, which was defined as utilizing rehabilitation methods that were more than just isolated strengthening and stretching techniques. This could include techniques such as proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) exercises, methods incorporating proprioception or stability training, and even core stability exercises to make rehabilitation more global in nature.

FHP is commonly measured by a technique called craniovertebral angle (CVA), which involves a subject having their photograph taken from a lateral angle, and the resultant photo is analyzed. This analysis involves two important landmarks:

1. The seventh cervical vertebrae (C7).
2. The tragus of the ear.

Once the photo is generated, a perpendicular line is drawn through the C7 vertebrae, and the angle from that intersection point to the tragus of the ear is measured. This process can be done manually or through a free software program such as Kinovea (used in image 1 below). CVA has been shown to be valid and reliable, and it is considered the gold standard of FHP measurement.

Unlike FHP, RSP has no gold standard measurement for practitioners to use. We have used various methods to analyze RSP, each with their own flaws. The plumb line method doesn’t account for forward torso lean originating in the lower extremity and provides a cue for participants to use and address their posture. This is referred to as the Hawthorne effect—the notion that an individual will modify their behavior when they know they are being observed. An individual can use this plumb line as a reference point for their own posture, ultimately changing their natural stance, which will impact shoulder measurement marks.

Research has also incorporated supine techniques using a table to measure the distance in which the shoulders come off the table. Obvious flaws here include the table providing a resting position for the participant whereby gravity assists them into a “better” posture, and also that this technique does not measure a posture in a way that reflects daily life.

One method that does have promise, though, is the scapular index (SI) method, which uses a tape measure to measure two distances:

1. Sternal notch to coracoid process (A).
2. C7 vertebrae to posterior, lateral acromion (B).

Distance (A) is divided by distance (B) and then the answer is multiplied by 100 for a raw score. This method is obviously prone to the Hawthorne effect—whereby participants know they are being measured—but from an anatomical and functional standpoint, I believe it holds the most potential to accurately measure RSP without the use of expensive or motion capture equipment.

For FHP, a combination of stabilization and strengthening exercises^1–3 and a denneroll traction device were used in conjunction with neuromuscular integration techniques⁴. The RSP studies utilized two different methodologies: one saw investigated single bout neuromuscular stretching techniques⁵, and the other implemented FHP techniques to measure their effects on RSP⁶.

There is one key limitation to this study’s findings: we have an established method of posture measurement for FHP, but no gold standard for RSP. There is a large need for universality when it comes to accurately and reliably measuring this posture.

The Results

Neuromuscular integration approaches were shown to be beneficial for the treatment of FHP in three out of four studies, regardless of the delivery style for the neuromuscular integration principles. One study saw improvements in CVA and respiratory function through the use of McKenzie techniques, another saw improvements in CVA with a combination of neuromuscular techniques and traction, and the third successful study used DNS techniques to yield CVA results (with the unsuccessful study being the shortest intervention period of only four weeks).

The two studies looking at RSP, however, varied in their methods for measuring RSP. One study was an acute intervention with post-testing occurring immediately after the single bout of exercise, and the other study implemented FHP-specific exercises to see the impact they had on RSP. The immediate intervention group split 40 participants into four groups with varying stretching and release techniques. Of these, the group that utilized contract-relax PNF techniques saw significant variance in pectoralis minor index scores (a measure of RSP).

Takeaways

A neuromuscular integration approach to the treatment of postural disorders provides mixed results and needs to be investigated further. Evidence suggests that such techniques are effective for FHP, but such efficacy is left to be desired for RSP. The lack of results for RSP interventions could at least partially be explained by the limitation listed earlier: lack of uniformity in testing procedures.

Examining the correlations postural dysfunction can have on physiological components, such as breathing and cardiovascular measures, further highlights the importance of correct diagnosis of these postures separate to the functional ramifications. Promising results for FHP patients provide the rationale to further investigate the role neuromuscular integration techniques can play on the alleviation of upper body disorders. As more valid and reliable RSP measurement techniques become available, we envision similar trends.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Bae, W.-s., Lee, K.-C., and Lee, D.-Y. “The Effects of Dynamic Neuromuscular stabilization Exercise on Forward Head Posture and Spine Posture.” Medico Legal Update. 2019;19(2):670–675.

2. Kim, S., Jung, J., and Kim, N. “The effects of McKenzie exercise on forward head posture and respiratory function.” The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy. 2019;31(6):351–357.

3. Szczygiel, E., Blaut, J., Zielonka-Pycka, K., et al. “The Impact of Deep Muscle Training on the Quality of Posture and Breathing.” Journal of Motor Behavior. 2018;50(2):219–227.

4. Moustafa, I.M., Diab, A.A., Hegazy, F., and Harrison, D.E. “Does improvement towards a normal cervical sagittal configuration aid in the management of cervical myofascial pain syndrome: a 1-year randomized controlled trial.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2018;19(1):396.

5. Birinci, T., Mustafaoglu, R., Kaya Mutlu, E., and Razak Ozdincler, A. “Stretching exercises combined with ischemic compression in pectoralis minor muscle with latent trigger points: A single-blind, randomized, controlled pilot trial.” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practices. 2020;38:101080.

6. Do Youn Lee, C.W.N., Sung, Y.B., Kim, K., and Lee, H.Y. “Changed in rounded shoulder posture and forward head posture according to exercise methods.” Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2017;29(10):1824–1827.

This episode of Facility Finders visits a Mount Rushmore of strength coaching—located just outside of Boston, Massachusetts, Mike Boyle Strength and Conditioning is owned and operated by Coach Mike Boyle. His gym now has two locations, one in Woburn and the other in Middleton.

For this installment, Coach Boyle takes us on a tour of his Woburn location. His gym is in the private sector of strength and conditioning, and he works with hundreds of athletes spanning beginner-level youth to Olympic gold-medal athletes.

Design

Coach Boyle moved to this 22,000-plus square foot facility because he had a vision of his system in this facility. Anytime you build/remodel a space, you have to think about your system of training. For Coach Boyle, his specific training flow has to accommodate the masses, including starting different sessions every 30 minutes or so to allow them to train a high number of clients in one day.

The facility is sectioned off into the main weight area with sprinting strip, the functional training turf space, and the conditioning room. Each has its own space, which is unique compared to what we often see nowadays with monster wide-open facilities—but Coach Boyle has his system set up in a way that can overcome the split of the spaces. Considerations all the way down to where to situate the bathroom and hallway offer value, according to Coach Boyle.

“It’s pretty simple,” he says. “One large open room with offices and locker rooms/bathrooms off a long hallway. The hallway was deliberately ended at a point so people could not enter the gym from the center.”

This is important to him because they have athletes sprinting in his facility—that closure allows athletes to not have to worry about trucking another client walking in to start their session. Coach Boyle also mentioned that he has designed three collegiate weight rooms before, so that experience was helpful in deciding what he wanted and what he didn’t.

Purchasing

This is something that I think a lot of coaches miss out on: purchasing equipment from companies that, even if you are only spending $20,000 because that’s a huge renovation for you, treat you in a similar way to those purchasing in the multimillion-dollar range.

“Number one was the relationship,” Coach Boyle says, talking about his connection with Perform Better. “When you build a facility, people you don’t know come out of the woodwork. I went with Perform Better because they had always treated me like I was important, even when I didn’t have a big budget and wasn’t spending a lot of money. Number two was cost. In the private sector, it’s your money.”

This 22,000-square-foot space is something that most coaches only dream about, but the success of Boyle’s practice over time shows in the space he now trains in. For private sector gyms, make sure the facility you are in is fully maximized before investing in a new space. A move won’t necessarily save a struggling business—but it can surely sink it.

Specialty Equipment

At Mike Boyle Strength and Conditioning, the main focus is obviously on helping clients get stronger and faster, so over the years, specialty equipment has come and gone. Mainly because of the issue of flow, Coach Boyle has focused on not “cluttering” the gym with those specific use types of equipment. When I asked him about these issues, he mentioned hex bars, Arena Sports timing gates, and Keiser air-pressured “cable machines,” and then the plethora of conditioning equipment they have at MBSC.

“The big thing with Keiser is velocity capability—with no weight stack, you can move weight concentrically,” he said, explaining why they don’t use cable stacks and why they decided on the conditioning equipment they bought. “Keiser doesn’t have the ‘pull back’ that normal cable stacks do.”

“We bought the three types of equipment for this room—treadmills so we can train ‘running muscles’ and get conditioned, bikes are used for the athletes with groin/hamstring issues, and slide boards to help stress the muscles not used as much in the sagittal plane.”

Takeaways from Coach Boyle

This gym tour is something different because a lot of facilities are built for as wide a number of uses as possible, whereas this gym was designed to fit the exact training method followed by Coach Boyle.

“Facility design is all about traffic flow,” Coach Boyle said, when explaining the thought process behind his setup. “The big key is to have open space and multi-use equipment. Too many coaches buy machines that they can use for one exercise. We never do. We bought racks, benches, pulley systems, and lots of dumbbells. You need to think about the gym as a factory. The assembly line needs to be smooth!”

Coach Boyle trains hundreds of athletes a day, so that assembly-line setup is something many small colleges and high schools could think about within their facility. Most schools can afford one weight room for all of their athletes, but without the assembly-line setup, it becomes clustered and dangerous.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

I use Exxentric’s flywheel devices, and I use Vmaxpro on my barbells—that the two companies would join forces to integrate their products sounds too good to be true, like a watch that can accurately measure blood lactate levels or a vertical jump program that will add 20 inches. But it is real, and I’ve collected all the details you’ll need to get started.

Just before I get into all the steps, let me show you what you’re missing.

If you already have a Vmaxpro, then you just need to drop a small fortune on an Exxentric product.

Are they worth it? Yes.

Are they high-end equipment? Yes.

Are they critical to develop an athlete? No, but your athletes will like using them.

If you own a kBox or kPulley, then the financial investment is much less to pick up a Vmaxpro. And remember that it has many other uses besides what I will describe here.

If you have neither product, I strongly recommend both companies and have found customer service for each to be stellar. They are friendly, helpful, and competent, and they set a high standard. Now, after saying all that, if you are against performance metrics and dislike precisely engineered machines that provide a novel training stimulus, then reading about the unity of both might mean you like to suffer. In that case, a competitive flywheel environment is just right for you.

There’s one more thing: in order to attach the Vmaxpro to your Exxentric product, you’ll need to purchase the interface bracket for a price that you won’t like. The tiny, plastic clip runs about $60, and if you order from the Exxentric website, they will ship it from Sweden for a high cost. To avoid this, order directly from SimpliFaster if you are in the U.S.

I use flywheel training on a weekly basis with my athletes. It’s fun, and compared to barbells, it’s a radical change. A serious limitation has been quantifying progress and intent since there is little intuitive grasp of the meaning behind switching from a flywheel with an inertia constant of 0.005 kg∙m² to one of 0.025 kg∙m². Owners of a kBox have the option to add a kMeter, and I have used this solution successfully, but I have also damaged one and had to replace it. It’s a finely tuned instrument that works, but I have been hesitant to redeploy it.

Setup (App and Firmware Update)

You cannot use Vmaxpro with the legacy version of the application (last updated to 4.2.1). The reason is that a firmware update is needed for the device itself (6.3.x or later) and that is only available in the newer Vmaxpro app (currently version 1.1.2). Rather than parse all those numbers, all you have to do is click on the app with the black V-swoosh logo rather than the white one.

The next order of business is to update the firmware of the actual Vmaxpro device.

Under the Training menu, you’ll have the option to connect. Once that is done, if a firmware update is available, you will see a small, orange icon prompting you to download it. As of this time, the current version is 6.4.5, and once that update is complete, you will see the version information reflected in the device status.

Create a Flywheel Exercise

The app is stocked with nearly 50 standard exercises, including varieties of barbell, dumbbell, bodyweight, and kettlebell movements. As of today, there are no entries under the Flywheel menu, so we will first have to add one. I fumbled my way through this process, so you won’t have to.

There are two pathways to reach the menu option to create a new exercise.

1. Management -> Exercises -> Create Exercise (white circle with a plus sign in the upper right corner)

2. Training -> Start a workout -> Add first exercise -> Add first exercise (again) -> Create Exercise (white circle with a plus sign in the upper right corner)

Now that you can access the option to create an exercise, here is the screenshot.

It is necessary to select an existing exercise as the template for a new one, which is confusing since there are no existing Flywheel exercises. My solution was to use a barbell row, but if you try to save the exercise at this point, it will be rejected as a duplicate. To resolve this, just modify the Equipment menu and switch from Barbell to Flywheel. Use the Alias option to assign a new name to the movement. Click Save.

Regardless of which pathway you used to create the exercise, to select it you will need to start a workout. To begin, click Start a workout, and through that menu sequence you will use the pathway described earlier:

Training -> Start a workout -> Add first exercise -> Add first exercise (again) -> Select the Flywheel exercise you created.

Once you are finished, you will see a screen like this. It is not necessary to specify a goal. Click Done. If you have created athlete profiles, you will be prompted to choose one.

Please note that if you have not connected your Vmaxpro yet, it’s time to do so. (You can see below that no sensor is connected.) Now we are ready to go. Click on the exercise to enter the main measurement display and start working.

Performance Monitoring

You can configure this screen to show anything you are interested in monitoring. Click Add chart on the right to choose among numerous metrics. Start cranking out reps, and the information you have selected for display is automatically shown in real time—perfect. Be sure to set the inertia constant of your disc. Unfortunately, Vmaxpro and Exxentric use different units, so I’ve taken care to provide the necessary conversion for you in the table below.

Once your set is done, this is an example of what you’ll see. Naturally, if you added different charts than I did, you will see that information.

A few quick tips. The speaker icon at the bottom indicates which metric is audibly reported. It seems to default to Rep order regardless of what you may have set during the previous workout. I don’t know how many of you have trouble counting reps, but I expect most people will want to change this setting.

The icon to the left (showing four quadrants) allows you to configure the presentation screen during your set; this is almost certainly something you will want to edit. Finally, the icon to the right showing a ruler allows you to filter reps based on distance. All of this is very well thought out and fun to use.

Video 2. Vmaxpro Flywheel introduction guide.

This article is not a complete tutorial on all that the Vmaxpro app has to offer. But if you are just getting started, I hope this will greatly simplify the process for you.

The first day I introduced the Vmaxpro on the kPulley Go, a gym-wide competition to find the most powerful athlete immediately ensued. Real-time feedback changes everything. Athletes increase their intent, and it is possible to track and monitor performance the way you would with a 40-yard dash, vertical jump, RSI, or back squat. Even if you are not interested in tracking the performance over time of anything within the software, you still benefit from the real-time biofeedback.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Johnny Parker, Al Miller, and Rob Panariello authored a phenomenal book called The System: Soviet Periodization Adapted for the American Strength Coach, which outlines their combined 100+ years of experience in strength and conditioning. The System is based on information that came out of the former Soviet Union, which is likely some of the most relevant and accurate research done on human athletic performance.

In the book, they outline 2, 3, and 4-day program options—what they left out is a 5-day option. In this article I will describe the 5-day option, which I received indirectly from Coach Parker through a mentor of mine who is close friends with Coach Parker, and how I apply it to training 9^th-12^th grade boys in our athletics program.

Volume in The System

Before I outline the 5-day plan, let me recap The System’s volume principles first. The system starts with a set number of countable reps (volume total) for a 4-week training cycle. This volume total is first split into 4 weeks with a percentage based on level the of programming chosen (beginner, intermediate, or advanced). Each week’s volume of reps is then split into percentages over 2-4 days, depending on the chosen training split. The daily total volume is assigned to different lifts, depending on the emphasis of the training period, with no more than 25% of the total volume for the week assigned to one lift.

Here is an example of what that looks like:

The total monthly volume is 1000 reps (to make the example simple).

Total volume is distributed over 4 weeks with the following percentages

• Week 1 27% (270 Reps)
• Week 2 22% (220 Reps)
• Week 3 32% (320 Reps)
• Week 4 19% (190 Reps)

The Daily periodization follows the same percentages as the weekly volume:

Week 1 270 reps:

• Day 1 27% (72.9 Reps)
• Day 2 22% (59.4 Reps)
• Day 3 32% (86.4 Reps)
• Day 4 19% (51.3 Reps)

The reps are then assigned to lifts based on the emphasis of the training period:

• Clean 19% (51.3 reps for week 1)
• Olympic Pulls 10% (27 reps for week 1)
• Squat 20% (54 reps for week 1)
• Press 20% (54 reps for week 1)
• Posterior Chain 14% (37.8 reps for week 1)
• Jerk 7% (18.9 reps for week 1)
• Snatch 10% (27 reps for week 1)

This volume can be distributed any way the coach chooses, as long as the daily volume and reps fit with the plan.

Beyond the Book

Now that we have established the parameters that are in the book, let’s get to the information that was passed along to me from Coach Parker and how I’ve chosen to apply it.

The total monthly volume is 1000 reps (again for simplicity purposes).

Volume is distributed over 4 weeks with the following percentages:

• Week 1 27% (270 Reps)
• Week 2 22% (220 Reps)
• Week 3 32% (320 Reps)
• Week 4 19% (190 Reps)

The daily periodization follows the same percentages as the weekly volume:

Week 1 270 reps:

• Day 1 27% (72.9 Reps)
• Day 2 15% (40.5 Reps)
• Day 3 15% (40.5 Reps)
• Day 4 30% (81 Reps)
• Day 5 13% (34.1 Reps )

When giving this information to my mentor, Coach Parker mentioned that there is freedom to switch up the order any way you like as long as the percentages do not change. In the high school schedule we are currently following, we are using Charlie Francis’s high/low intensity model. Monday and Friday are the highest intensity as well as the highest volume, while Wednesday is low volume, but still high intensity; Tuesday and Thursday are the low intensity days.

With this in mind, I rearranged the days to best fit the schedule for 170+ 9^th-12^th grade boys in soccer, baseball, football, basketball, and track:

For this schedule, I will use the same number of reps as the previous examples.

Week 1 270 reps:

• Day 1 27% (72.9 Reps)
• Day 2 13% (34.1 Reps)
• Day 3 15% (40.5 Reps)
• Day 4 15% (40.5 Reps)
• Day 5 30% (81 Reps)

I determined the daily exercises based on how the intensity of the lift fit with the intensity of the day following the Charlie Francis graph below, while also considering how many countable reps I had available that day.

The allotment of reps for exercises we used during our first four weeks was as follows:

• Clean 16% (43.2 reps for week 1)
• Olympic Pulls 13% (35.1 reps for week 1)
• Squat 25% (67.5 reps for week 1)
• Press 22% (59.4 reps for week 1)
• Posterior Chain 15% (40.5 reps for week 1)
• Jerk 0% (0 reps for week 1)
• Snatch 9% (24.3 reps for week 1)

The layout of our weekly schedule was as follows:

Day 1—Clean Variation, Squat Variation, Press Variation

Day 2—Jerk Variation, Posterior Chain Variation

Day 3—Snatch Variation, Press Variation (non-countable squat variation)

Day 4—Olympic Pull Variation, Posterior Chain Variation

Day 5—Clean Variation, Squat Variation, Press Variation

And our running was as follows:

Day 1—Flying 10 (AM Session), Change of Direction (PM Sessions)

Day 2—Tempo Wickets

Day 3—200m Sprint 2-3 reps (Program Run/ Track Prep)

Day 4—Change of Direction

Day 5—15 yd Acceleration (AM Session), Tempo Wickets (PM Session)

I fill out the rest of my training sessions with auxiliary movements that help us achieve the goals we set at the beginning of the off-season. For example, early in off-season training, we put a higher percentage of reps towards strength movements and as the year progresses, we shift the volume towards power movements. Regularly assessing the progress of your athletes is crucial to best adjust this program for their needs.

Results from The System

The System has continued to be an excellent option for improving athlete performance and ties in very well with most programming limitations. Understanding how to program for consistent progress over a 20-week period, without overtraining, can be a difficult task without a guidepost like this. Coach Parker has a saying in regards to training: “I would rather be a mile short than take it an inch too far.”

Throughout this year, we have worked hard to embody this advice. The highest monthly volume used this year was 775 reps, with the lowest being 700 reps. Any time we run flying 10’s or 15-yard accelerations, we run no more than three reps. Our longest yardage running day topped out at 700 yards. With a large number of multi-sport athletes, this plan was necessary to make sure that we were able to stimulate for improvement without fatiguing the athletes to a point where they would not be able to perform. Coincidentally, win totals are up for all spring sports as well.

The principles in this book are fundamental in nature. They provide an excellent foundation for understanding not only how to program, but why it is important. The relative intensities addressed in this book are another layer that can add to your success as a performance coach.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Citations

Francis, C,. and Paul Patterson. 1992. The Charlie Francis Training System. TBLI Publications.

Parker, J., A. Miller, R. Panariello, & J. Hall. 2018. The System: Soviet Periodization Adapted for the American Strength Coach. On Target Publications.

Despite tremendous growth over the last several decades, the human performance industry still has some work to do. Strength and conditioning coaches, physiotherapists, and others within the human performance umbrella typically have two benchmarks for evaluating their effectiveness: pre/post diagnostic testing and rate of injury in sport. While we’ve seen some truly remarkable improvements in conventional testing performance (i.e., NFL Combine), the same cannot be said for the injury rates.^1–3 Considering rapid advances in technology allowing us to track a host of biometrics, physical outputs, and even performance data, it would seem paradoxical that we haven’t been able to demonstrate similar hallmark achievements regarding injury rates.

It has been well-established that injuries, collectively, are not preventable. However, it should be equally understood that what we do matters, and good training coupled with adequate recovery will undeniably improve an athlete’s odds for staying healthy throughout their season/career.

My time at VHP has afforded me a somewhat unique perspective on the injury management and restoration component of sport performance. For the last five years, I’ve worked exclusively with Special Operations and Special Forces personnel, which has been a tremendous opportunity, but it has not come with simplicity. The inherent focus of our work has been figuring out how to effectively train athletes at a high level despite expansive injury histories. When the majority of “conventional” S&C applications are not feasible, it has forced us to view movement from a different lens. And it is largely because of the demands of working with this population that I was eventually led down the fascia rabbit hole.

What I’ve come to find over the years is that the fascial system is a lynchpin to training, movement, and performance. My theory as it relates to injuries is that we have maintained an overemphasis on training the musculoskeletal system while overlooking how to directly improve the resiliency of connective tissues. Having dramatic differences between muscular capacity and soft tissue resilience may be more of a culprit than we like to acknowledge, and this requires both a change in philosophy and the use of strength training and rehabilitative practices.

What Does a Fascial-Based Approach Mean?

Before we get into the training applications, allow me to first give a brief outline for why these fascial concepts should be considered in a sport performance setting. Fascia is a fibroelastic connective tissue that plays important roles in biological structure, movement, and function.⁴ In a laymen’s sense, you can think of fascia as being a global connective tissue that, quite literally, connects us from head to toe. Fascia is also highly enriched with proprioceptive bodies and free nerve endings that play critical roles in detecting external stimuli, movement coordination, and even spatial orientation.⁵ While fascia may not generate much force itself, as we know muscles and tendons do, fascia plays a critical role in coordinating and synergizing movement—which is essential for speed, power, and reactiveness.⁵

Ultimately, I believe there is a relative balance between muscular capacity and soft tissue (namely fascia) resiliency, and if there’s too much disparity between them, athletes will underperform and be at a greater risk for injuries to occur.

I’ve spoken about the fascial system at great lengths over the years, and along with several others, have continued to find success with applying this perspective toward human movement and performance. The biggest misconception when discussing fascial-based training is coaches assuming this indicates some sort of complete training overhaul: one in which all conventional exercises are done away with in favor of standing on Bosu balls and exclusively using mini-bands and shake weights. Not only is this, of course, untrue, but it also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what a fascial-based training approach really entails.

In the most empirical sense, I see a fascial-based training approach as prioritizing the quality of integrated movement rather than the quantity of isolated components. Thus, it’s not exactly a matter of doing different things, but rather, just doing some things differently.

It’s extremely important to recognize that the fascial system, like virtually any other biological system, is inextricably linked to the musculoskeletal system.⁶ So, if we wanted to be perfectly technical about this, everything is fascial-based training, just as everything is muscular-based training. As we’ll discuss in more detail throughout this article, organizing training to be more or less fascial focused is more reliant on the parameters in which training is performed than on the specific movements or exercises themselves. Moreover, a fascial approach does not negate or delegitimize most of what we consider to be a conventional approach. It’s really more of a change in the coach’s perspective of movement and training than it is the tangible X’s and O’s of sport performance.

Fundamental Differences

Fundamentally, the primary difference I see between the two is whereas conventional approaches tend to focus on the progressive overload of specific movements or isolated parts, a fascial approach focuses more on the collective integration of global movement. Additionally, conventional thought suggests we emphasize multiple isolated components, whereas a fascial-based approach is derived from more of an integrative emphasis. By virtue, this will indicate that a fascial approach is going to be more core- or trunk-focused with less concern for segmental body parts or isolated movements. There is less demand for chasing numbers on specific lifts and less use of constrained, compound movements in the programming in general.

Where the conventional models adopted for sport performance are largely driven by mechanical progressive overload and a pursuit of maximal force outputs, the fascial-based model is more concerned with the sequencing and speeds of variable movements. Similarly, where conventional strength training is programmed accordingly to our three cardinal planes, fascial-based training is omnidirectional in nature. Rather than restricting athletes to three phantom planes we’ve created to simplify training strategies, why not challenge athletes to expand their ability to move across a multitude of vectors under varying loads and speeds with proficiency? I can’t think of many things more self-limiting than trying to reduce a sport to one or two planes of motion—that is really one of the greatest fallacies of our conventional academia.

Getting Started with Fascial-Based Training

As I alluded to above, taking a more fascial-focused approach to sport performance and human movement doesn’t require a complete destruction of your programming and training philosophies. Remember, this is not a matter of doing completely different things, just doing some things in a different way. There are several adjustments I’d consider low-hanging fruit that, irrespective of your population or training setting, can be implemented with ease and potentially have significant return for your athletes.

*Click here for graphic voiceover*

A simple adjustment like using a kickstand set up for deadlifts rather than bilateral is a subtle way to promote more fascial focus by creating more demand on unilateral function. Other subtleties such as using the landmine in lieu of a traditional barbell setup can go a long way.

The landmine offers a great opportunity for freedom of movement, allowing the athlete to work through a wide spectrum of vectors. The constant multiplanar nature of landmine movements increases demand for athletes to stabilize multiple planes of motion concurrently throughout the movement. This also provides a great deal of biofeedback to help athletes optimize their movement. The opportunity for a variety of vectors provides benefits by challenging the athlete in a way that is difficult to replicate with a traditional barbell setup.

Here are a couple of examples showing just that:

• LM Liftoff to Bend
• LM SA Rebound Throw

I’d argue a lot of similar points for medicine ball work as well, with an added benefit of being able to use med balls in a projectile and decelerating manner. Between these two, we get a great bang for our buck, as both modalities promote total body (global) demands, and they are highly beneficial for sensorimotor function, movement coordination, and challenging cross-body patterns—all of which are quintessential to fascial-based training. The bonus is that both med ball and landmine work tend to be a great way to challenge the feet.

The bottom surface of the foot is an enriched bed of proprioceptors and free nerve endings that are constantly scanning and detecting input for the body.⁵ Sensorimotor proficiency and foot function are critical factors in not only sport performance but reducing the opportunities for injury. Training barefoot is a novel way to positively influence the fascial system, both mechanically and from a sensorimotor standpoint. Removing the cushioning surface and false stability of shoes allows the foot to work independently for itself, promoting a better interface with the ground. As a result, this allows the segments of the foot to work in compliance with one another, while also altering the joint positioning and thus muscular activation up the chain during dynamic actions.

Tying this right into the premise of analyzing your training parameters, the three areas I commonly point people to when getting started with fascial-based training approaches are the warm-up, intraset, and accessory blocks of training. These are three segments of training that tend to get put on autopilot, often being mistaken for mundane processes that have minimal influence on overall outcome. Contrary to this, I see these as key areas for improving overall training economy (better utilization of time), addressing individual deficits, and utilizing the opportunity to build variation into programming.

As I see it, our primary block is where we emphasize the musculoskeletal structures through our primary lifts (i.e., squat, clean, jerk, dead), which are programmed for overload and consistency. The accessory block, however, is where I seek variation and variety—where we are more interested in vectors, ranges, and speeds of movement rather than just load or resistance. And for both primary lifts and our accessory work, I believe it’s important to reduce the amount of bilateral loading an athlete does as they become more experienced/trained.

In addition to varying the position, another central principle for fascial training is working from proximal to distal. This is a widely practiced concept (first popularized by Stu McGill), in which we aspire to have proximal stiffness to create distal freedom or speed. Directly training the core is a non-negotiable component of strength training, but as you should know by now, this doesn’t mean a bunch of isolated crunches/planks/flutter kicks.

Effective core training starts with using global movements (e.g., med ball, landmine, jumps/bounds) that challenge the athlete to sequence force in a functional manner. This is also where I find value in combination movements (e.g., cable curtsy-to-lateral lunge), as redirecting force and momentum are critical foundations for sport. By improving the proximal stiffness—importantly, across a multitude of vectors—the fascia (and muscles) will have a better central anchor point, allowing the athlete to increase terminal speed of the limbs while optimizing power through a reduced loss of kinetic energy.

Why This Matters

The evolution of sport performance training has been impressive. We’ve continued to uncover some big rocks in our pursuit of cracking the codes for optimizing human movement and reducing the likelihood of injury. But we’re still not all the way there yet, and it’s vital we continue asking the right questions and examine the variables objectively. Personally, the muse that keeps feeding me is trying to understand precisely how much influence the fascial system has on performance and injury reduction.

I’ll be the first person to acknowledge my biases toward all things fascia, but I genuinely believe there is merit to this. I don’t believe our model is wrong; I just believe there is a transition point where the foundations of strength training (or “the basics”) become significantly less effective for preparing athletes for the demands of modern sport.

Fascia is what humanizes our movement, largely due to the robust sensorimotor function. But the fascial system is also a force amplifier, serving as a global connective tissue that aids us in connecting movement across all planes and vectors. We need to develop strength, but we also need to make strength matter, and I feel that’s where fascial training concepts really show their value. Remember, the goal is to make athletes better at their sport, not better at lifting weights.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. “Injury Data Since 2015.” 2/7/22.

2. Menon, Arjun. “PFF Data Study: Breaking down WAIL and the most impactful injuries in the NFL last season.” 7/27/21.

3. Mack CD, Kent RW, Coughlin MJ, et al. “Incidence of Lower Extremity Injury in the National Football League: 2015 to 2018.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;48(9):2287–2294.

4. Findley T, Chaudhry H, Stecco A, and Roman, M. “Fascia research—a narrative review.” Journal of Body Movement Therapies. 2012;16(1):67–75.

5. Langevin, HM. “Fascia Mobility, Proprioception, and Myofascial Pain.” Life. 2021;11(7): 668.

6. Stecco C, Pirri C, Fede C, Yucesoy CA, De Caro R, and Stecco A. “Fascial or Muscle Stretching? A Narrative Review.” Applied Sciences. 2021;11(1):307.