Blog

High school football strength and conditioning has come a long way over the last 5+ years, making great strides to become better, safer, and more effective. We are moving past the “death by squat”/mindless conditioning grinding that dominated the scene for so long. In fact, as the landscape at the NCAA level has shifted toward optimal, evidence-based training methods, this leaves high school football as the last arena (probably worldwide) where so much work is done that at best does not transfer and at worst greatly hinders performance.

There is one thought process that must be crushed for the transition to be complete for high school coaches: If “X” team has “Y” number of players that can lift “Z” amount of weight for a single rep on any or all exercises, then we will have a winning season. This idea does not play with most sports performance professionals, but it is slow to die among the football coaching community.

The team that has players who have developed a level of “strong enough” that they can execute at game speed will maximize the time they spend in the weight room more optimally than those who focus on 1RM load alone, with no concern for maximal velocity. What can we do to ensure that is how we approach our programming?

Leveling

The goal of every performance program should be maximum transfer to sport. Sometimes max strength is what is needed in that moment; other times it may be hypertrophy or power, mobility, and many other factors. What we aim to do in our program is chase adaptations, not exercises or numbers. Give the athlete what they need, when they need it, to chase optimal performance in a process of long-term athletic development.

We call this leveling—the process of developing a deep system of progression and regression that is intentional and driven by reverse engineering the specific adaptations that will maximize our key performance indicators (KPIs). Obviously, transfer is the key to any athletic development program. It’s a waste to spend time doing anything that doesn’t transfer or build a base for something that will transfer.

The general problem I still see at the high school level? That missing link. The biggest failure of any performance program is the gap between what athletes do in the weight room and what actually transfers to the field. We need to recognize that, as Yosef Johnson has said, “There is a point where getting stronger in the squat, the bench press or whatever; this isn’t going to help us anymore.”

Some will argue that high school level athletes can’t be strong enough. I would disagree and ask strong enough for what? If a 180-pound athlete can back squat 400 pounds, how much more will their field skills improve by getting to 420? Consider the resources spent to add that 20 pounds. I could give example after example, but my point is there.

Football players don’t need to be powerlifters, so why train them like that? Are the officials going to set a squat rack in the end zone and give the team with the best total a seven-point lead to open the game? That’s when I will concern myself with those 20 pounds. Until then? My concern is transfer of training and driving adaptations that will lead to optimal performance on the field.

Is strength a major factor? Obviously there needs to be a level of strength development that prepares the athlete for the rigors of a violent sport. But that return on investment will dwindle at some point. We need to really take a close look at our programming from a 4+ year view and prepare the athlete for strong enough and know what’s next.

Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands

How and when we apply stress to our athletes is what impacts the adaptations their bodies create. That is where the SAID principle comes in. Our athletes will adapt to every stress we put on them, good or bad. A big part of what we do is understanding the demands of the sport and using that needs analysis to drive the optimal adaptations. Where do we want our athletes to be to be ready to compete at the varsity level, and how do we get them there?

For us, the idea that dominates our end goal is the fact that all sports are rate limited. Sports skills happen within a certain time range. For example, David Ballou at Alabama has said they found the time between snap and contact for their lineman was 0.5 seconds or less. Coach Joey Guarascio at FAU has developed a chart that outlines his research of the rate limits for various football skills. These are examples of the time limits in which our athletes must express the strength they develop.

If your athletes can’t summon that strength and power in the time those skills happen on the field, then does it matter how strong they are in the weight room?

The faster an athlete can perform the needed skills at the max power and velocity, the better chance they have of being successful. Power is the king of sport. Strength is without a doubt important, but it only transfers at game speed.

Will the team that can reach these thresholds always win the game? I don’t see any way to tie wins directly to any performance program. That’s unpopular to say, but truthful. There are simply too many factors in wins and losses that have nothing to do with what we do as a performance coach—most games are won by the team with the better players or lost by the team that made the most mistakes. It’s pretty simple, really.

It’s our job to help the athletes we work with reach their highest individual performance levels regardless of genetic ability. Our focus needs to be on passing the athletes along to the sport coaches in an optimal condition to physically perform their on-field duties and stay as healthy as possible.

Getting from A to Z

So, we know that the end goal is expressing strength and power within the limits of time presented by the sport skill. How do we go from a freshman athlete who has a serious strength disadvantage to a junior athlete who is not only strong enough to survive and thrive, but able to be explosive enough to win the individual battles that impact winning? The goals of our leveling program are:

1. Build optimal movement skills.
2. Add general strength to those skills.
3. Teach optimal ground contact relationship in jumping to increase impulse.
4. Slowly add depth to our strength/power/speed abilities.
5. As the athlete advances up the levels, begin to transition toward more specific adaptations that will increase the ability to express our general strength and power development within the rate limits of the sport.

Beware of This Pitfall

The single greatest mistake I made early in my career was not knowing or understanding the pitfalls that surround moving athletes too quickly into heavy barbell training. This excerpt from Joel Smith’s book “Speed Strength” says it all:

“Excessive heavy barbell training, or even plyometric work, done early in an athlete’s career can decrease the sensitivity of the nervous system to the point where there is no coming back from that intense work for sustained improvements.”

I believe this is an epidemic at the high school level, and it interferes with the transfer of training for optimal development later in the athlete’s life. A mentor of mine has said countless times “Do you want the strongest 15-year-old football player or the healthiest, most skilled 17-year-old?” For me, that’s a no-brainer—I want a healthy and skilled older athlete with plenty of room for growth. If your athletes hit peak strength as sophomores, it may be a good idea to think about this concept.

Don’t overpay for strength adaptations. Use the least complicated, lowest intensity protocols that will stress the athlete and drive the adaptation process. Why jump to 85% intensity when an athlete can still get stronger using 65%? Not to mention how much better their movement is likely to be at the lower intensity. There will be a time when it will cost more for the athlete to adapt. There is no good reason to spend that capital before that bill comes due.

Too Strong?

As I said before, I’ve heard the argument that a high school athlete can never be too strong. I generally agree with that, though I would counter but they can get to the point of strong enough where taking resources from strength development and placing them into other areas will increase transfer.

Strong enough for what? Optimal performance on the field.

They absolutely can get to that point, and there we need to begin shifting those resources toward more specific means of development. If the process of developing that level of strength interferes with motor skill development or makes the athlete less capable on the field, then we have failed that athlete. The tough part is that situation is individualized, and we often don’t recognize it until it passes, when it may be too late.

My solution? Prepare for that moment as early as possible. Learn to recognize it not just by watching the KPIs but by watching them practice and play. This is the art of the coach’s eye. The place to start—which I learned by trial and error—is to not make “max strength” the primary focus of the program. Emphasize from early on that the program is athletic development in nature. Being better at the sport is the goal, not being better at lifting weights. Teach the coaches and athletes to chase the adaptations that will transfer the most to sport.

Transfer of Training

So how do we make sure we are doing everything we need to do?

Verkhoshansky explains that two factors lead to improvement in sports skill:

1. An increase in the athlete’s functional capabilities (motor unit/skill threshold).
2. An increase in the athlete’s ability to use these capabilities in training and competition.

“The training loads must have specific aims from a physiological, energy system, or functional standpoint.” – Verkhoshansky

The mistake being made is that instead of following these guidelines, many coaches (including myself early in my career) overfed the “max strength” monster and neglected all the other aspects of development. Instead, we need to figure out what “monster” needs feeding, when, how much, and at what cost, but neglecting none. Return on investment analysis from a time and needs based perspective is vital:

1. What adaptations does my athletes need to increase transfer?
2. In what step of the development process do I need to push each specific adaptation?
3. What are the optimal amounts of these methods to sufficiently develop the athlete without undercooking or overcooking?

We have taken all these factors into consideration over the last few years at York Comprehensive High School. Here is our process for laying out the bones of the program.

1. Develop KPIs that we believe will show us if our strength/speed/power programming is transferring to skill.
2. Reverse engineer those KPIs to the most basic regressions.
3. Develop a year-to-year plan of driving adaptations the athlete needs at each stage of development to successfully move to the next level.
4. Set general goals we would like to see our athletes achieve based on normalized data collected over the years (as a soft target, not a standard).
5. Begin with general and move to as specific as possible.
6. Try to squeeze as much as possible out of each level of adaptation before we move on.
7. Work toward the end goal of transfer to sport within rate limits in everything we do.
8. Start athletes at 60% intensity for the majority of their volume in very basic movements and progress to 70–85% range for most volume using more advanced exercises with proficient technique.

Level Development

In previous articles, I laid out each of our levels in more depth. While we adjust constantly (e.g.: We use the 1×20 program with our freshman now, which is an adjustment made in the two years since this article was written), the basic philosophies of LTAD remain—these are the most basic aspects of each step. For a deeper look at each, please investigate the individual articles or reach out to me with questions:

• When to Add More Weight to the Bar
• Introducing Youth Athletes to Strength Training
• Transitioning Freshman Athletes to Your Strength Training Program
• Transforming a High School Novice into a Beginning Lifter
• How to Train Advanced to Intermediate Athletes

Each level is, in general, about a year. This timeline is very fluid and athlete dependent.

Level 0 – Based on Coach Joe Kenn’s “Block 0” philosophy, we generally begin this in the eighth grade. However, we are in the process of expanding this down to the sixth grade, which is an exciting prospect. Our focus here is the development of movement patterns and skills. Small-sided games, jumping and landing, basic skills. We will introduce them to our 1×20 program as well.

Level 1 – We begin our freshmen here, ideally in mid-summer. Our main movement goal is to have each athlete develop an optimal relationship with the ground. This revolves around teaching the delivering of maximal force into the ground both horizontally (early acceleration) and vertically (jumping). Strength development is the main adaptation focus. We will continue with the 1×20 program and eventually transition to 1×14 and 2×8 aspects of it.

Level 2 – This continues our progressions with a strength adaptation focus starting in the spring of ninth grade. We begin to use the more traditional barbell movements and introduce the 5×5 program with those. This is also where we begin to teach them APRE and eventually VBT within the 5×5 program.

Level 3 – This represents the highest level most of our athletes achieve. They start to use volume periodization and begin the process of transitioning to a more needs-based program that places athletes into buckets based on strength/power/volume needs. This level is where we begin to see our athletes hit the “strong enough” realm and we begin to shift to a strength-speed/speed-strength focus.

Level 4 – Our “super-advanced” level, which our dependable, high-level athletes can earn their way into. This group is traditionally very small, and we program a more highly individualized training session. For example, we will progress certain movements based on power outputs.

Level 3 and 4 is where our training sessions emphasize increasing the rate of force development and decreasing ground contact times. We also use VBT to increase intent and maximize power output and bar speed, regardless of load. The overall goal of the program is to build a vertical progression that will take our athletes from a basic strength development emphasis to a place where everything we do has the end goal of increasing the speed limits on the neuromuscular highways.

Patience and Progress

Overall, the thought process behind our program is based on the slow-cooking concept. We want to move our athletes as slowly as possible through each adaptation yet have them play within the rate limits of their sport. To do this, we must force ourselves to be patient. Too many times I have lost patience and pushed ahead too fast, giving us immediate improvements at the cost of net gain over time.

While this is a mistake, it is also an all-too-common occurrence in the field of high school strength and conditioning. Go for the next adaptation level only after the previous one is done. This is the most difficult aspect, and it is impossible if your sport coach is not on the same page.

Add depth to each progression with the use of tempo, isometrics, and ranges before moving on. Fight the urge to train heavy too soon and instead use tempo and time under tension to add intensity.

We use technology in many of our KPIs (what we use from a KPI standpoint would be an entire article, which I will write at another time). I purposely didn’t list our KPIs because it is important for each coach to develop their own process based on their individual situation. The point is to develop these indicators and then reverse engineer them to the most basic aspects of your program goals. Then, develop your progressions and go.

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. Guarascio J. What is the true expression of movement? in sports, time will always be the ultimate factor #knowthegame #movement pic.twitter.com/feihqdwvl5. Twitter. Published August 4, 2021. Accessed January 29, 2022.

In today’s athletic performance/strength and conditioning realm, everyone recognizes that performance is no longer just dependent on sets, reps, weight, and intensity—it also includes the ability to recover and prepare the body for the next session. For years, we have done recovery work with our athletes in the form of stretching, dynamic movements, foam rolling, etc. We have even discussed or referred them out for chiropractic work, deep tissue massage, needling, etc. Another recovery technique that has been around for nearly a decade is body tempering.

Body tempering is a method created by Donnie Thompson, a world-record-holding powerlifter, designer of fitness and recovery gear, and just all-around smart guy when it comes to programming, recovery, and fitness. Body tempering is a type of myofascial treatment/release that involves having a weighted pole or roller move across muscles and fascia.

This method is great for strength preparation and possibly exciting and prepping the central nervous system—it’s different than foam rolling because you have the pole lying on you, you are not laying on the pole. You can adjust the amount of pressure depending on tightness, pain, etc., in the body, and you are able to maintain a more relaxed state since you are not laying on the object. There have not been many studies done yet on body tempering, but by experimenting with the treatment, I have found decreased soreness, increased movement, and increased performance.

Learning Firsthand

I was fortunate to be able to bring Donnie Thompson down to Baylor soon after he started developing body tempering. He spent a week with our staff and showed us a range of tools and protocols that kept him healthy as he was training for that elusive 3,000-pound total in powerlifting. He showed our staff flossing (or voodoo) bands, makeshift BowTies made from bands, programming, KB training, and of course, body tempering. As I moved from college to college, the first thing I did in each place was to try to get Donnie to come visit and teach our staff his tips and tricks. We even involved our athletic trainers, sports medicine staff, and chiropractors in the fun.

At every place I have worked, our setup and the way we incorporated body tempering have been different. As you know, your room, your equipment, and the time you have dictates everything you do.

At Baylor, we incorporated body tempering during recovery circuits at the end of training. We would split the room into four areas and rotate athletes from station to station. At that point, we had just learned about the method, so we were using KBs, DBs, maces, etc. as our body tempering tools. At Indiana, we did more tempering at the end of workouts upon the request of our athletes

The best setup that I have been a part of was at Syracuse—we had 2-3 stations always set up for tempering. At each station, we had a stretch mat and one or two tempering poles. Athletes came in before and after lifts to get tempered. Some athletes also came in on off days or even before practice. At certain times of the year, we split the room into warm-up stations, with body tempering and foam rolling being one of the stations. At Syracuse, we also had a moving cart designed to carry two tempering poles to all our away games.

Now that I am at Byrnes High School, our approach to tempering looks a little different. At the high school level, we don’t have a lot of time at the beginning of the lift, so most of our tempering gets done at the end of the session.

Our group size is very large, 50-80 athletes per session, and we currently only have three tempering poles. We have discussed what body tempering is with our athletes, and they actually talk each other into trying it out the first time. The athletes ask us at the end of our training sessions if we can body temper them to help them recover or help them with a tight area. We have not yet gotten to the point where we have allowed athletes to temper each other.

Body Tempering Routines

Here is the normal routine a coach performs with each athlete:

• Hamstrings – work back and forth over the muscle belly; hold on tight areas; add pushing back and forth if needed.
• Back – work lower to upper; twist on low back by glutes; allow the pole to sit on tight areas of the back.

Along with the hamstrings and back, we also have athletes temper their own quads if needed. The quads can be tempered one at a time or together. We allow them to temper their own quads to apply the amount of pressure they need.

Another area that we temper is the calves and Achilles. This is great for those athletes with tight calves or issues with sprained ankles. A coach tempers the calves and works over the Achilles, leaving the tempering pole on the Achilles for up to three minutes. (We use a lighter pole for the calves, usually around 60-80 pounds.)

Here is a full body tempering routine that an athlete can perform on themselves if no one else is around. (I have done this routine on myself with good success.)

• Quads – roll back and forth over both, allowing it to sit above the knee for 1-2 minutes.
• Hips up to Chest – allow the pole to rest on the hips; 2-3 rolls up and down torso; allow to sit on upper rib cage with hands above head.
• Low Back – lay on the side and roll on low back; keep on low back and get some slight movement, but don’t let it fall off!!
• Hamstrings – roll the pole from the low back over the glutes to the hamstrings; move around on hamstrings and hold on tight area.

This is an effective routine if you are alone. It’s not as good as letting someone else help, but it can get the job done.

What do you do if you only have two to three tempering poles but there are many athletes waiting? If we have multiple athletes waiting and only one coach, we leave the smaller pole on calves/Achilles and another pole on the low back or hamstrings and then temper the third athlete. We have other athletes make sure the poles do not move on their calves/Achilles or back/hamstrings. That way, we can get three athletes taken care of at the same time.

The best setup would be to have as many stations as already have a yoga mat, tempering poles, small foam rollers, and even a few heavy dumbbells or kettlebells ready to use. The small foam rollers can be used to go under the ankles for comfort, and the dumbbells and kettlebells can be used to keep the poles in an area for a time.

The Results with Our Athletes

Besides the athletes feeling better once they have been tempered, I have also heard of and seen:

• Positive differences on TMG and EMG readings.
• Increased range of motion.
• Increases in explosiveness.

I would also say that I have seen increases in strength, but that may be due to the athletes simply feeling better before their next heavy set!!

By tempering the calves and Achilles and then allowing the pole to sit on the Achilles for about three minutes, we have seen positive effects in ankle mobility. I have also seen increases in vertical jumps by tempering both the hamstrings and the quads.

There could be a difference between athletes as to what needs to be tempered to promote the desired effect. Could there be a difference between quad- and hamstring-dominant athletes and a difference between those with different jumping styles: quick dip straight down versus a longer range of motion dip? For example, a quad-dominant athlete could temper their quads before they jump.

There has been just one study done so far, with college football players. (Even though this research focused on college football players, we have tempered athletes from every sport, from cross country to softball to basketball to cheerleading. I have also tempered my own kids since they were 8 years old—just remember to use lighter poles that coincide with how much each athlete weighs!)

With any new training style or tool, research is slower to come than actual anecdotal results in the weight room or field. If your athletes like body tempering and how it makes them feel, then keep doing it. Do some research on yourself for how it makes you feel and the results that you get from the method. All our athletes love how they feel after they have been tempered.

If you are interested in purchasing tempering poles, you can find them at Rogue Fitness or Big Hes Strength. An 80-pound tempering pole at the high school level would be a great place to start, and you can work the weight up to 100-120 pounds. If cost is a concern, you can investigate making them on your own with concrete, finding a steel company around you, etc. I suggest getting poles that are hollow or at least have the ends cut out. This allows the coach or athlete to move and adjust the poles more easily.

Also, look into Donnie Thompson’s tempering classes and certifications to get a deeper insight into body tempering.

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

Periodizing to better reign—this motto is irresistibly pleasant, and far be it from me to throw the concept of periodization as a whole into oblivion. Some aspects of the classic model are clearly unsuitable for team sports, but the need for logic and organizational work and the concern for progress are absolutely fundamental in creating a physical preparation plan. Trying your luck with a chaotic and capricious approach to training won’t bode well for your athletes. It is entirely possible to schedule team sport training—and even to choose from a number of quality models—and many minds much sharper than mine have revisited this question.

It is clear, however, that few completely extricate themselves from the framework of the dominant thought that associates human performance with an industrial process. We always find an obsession with productivity; with performance being the equivalent of the “plus”— easily measurable using various quantitative tools (weight on the bar, 40m time, final score, etc.).

Increasing this productivity requires, as in the industrial world, a division of labor. To lift a load, each muscle-bone-tendon-ligament unit performs its task—like a worker—and transfers energy to the next unit, like the product flowing down the assembly line. According to this vision, performance results from a simple assembly of elements and can be deconstructed and reconstructed at will. Each component of performance, each physical quality, has its place in this immutable chain. Reversing two steps in the process, such as developing anaerobic capacity before aerobic capacity, inevitably leads to a result that is at best not optimal and at worst failing.

Periodization acts as a guarantor of the final rendering, exposing the stages and defining their order in the production chain of human performance. Whoever is wise enough to respect instructions and rigorous enough to reproduce the procedure in their environment has in their hands the recipe for the physically prepared player.

The Productivity Question (Quality vs. Quantity)

Reducing human performance to a question of productivity makes it necessary to consider the problem of capacity as central. Capacity in this sense indicates quantity:

• How much energy is available?
• How many reps performed?
• How many laps at what speeds?
• And so on…

Any increase in capacity must result in an increase in performance potential. Being able to produce more than your competitors is the key to success. But this logic, which puts capacity on a pedestal, greatly underestimates the problem of quality.

Strength and conditioning staffs are equipped with tools that measure all kinds of abilities, but hardly any are able to provide information on the quality of the effort being measured. Players are rewarded when capacity improves far more than they are when quality improves. The expected standards are quantified; the statistics displayed often praise the quantity. Yet the human body is cunning, and when one is determined to reach a certain mark—number of repetitions or time—it is possible to employ a multitude of movement strategies to achieve this, making capacity only a partial gauge of actual performance.

Perhaps it is the scoreboard illusion that has led us to view capacity and performance as interchangeable. In most team sports, winning is equivalent to scoring more points than your opponent—but the acquisition of points rewards the quality of execution, not the quantity of execution. It is always possible to win with less ball possession than the opposing team and despite fewer scoring chances than the opposition. On the contrary, from a physical production point of view, I have experienced defeat many times while having proof, in terms of GPS data, of the superiority of my team.

If we question the industrial and mechanical vision of performance to promote an ecological and dialectical vision, then the concept of periodization gives way to that of maturation. To adopt this premise is to be convinced that the whole is different from the sum of the parts. The combination of physical qualities does not deliver the perfect player.

Performance cannot be dissected into multiple, self-contained components. Every physical quality, every aspect of performance, develops by interacting with all the others, caught in a complex web and inseparable from the whole. Performance should be seen as a factorization and not as an addition. Performance reflects maturity and not productivity: the obsession with ability gives way to that of mastery. The “philosophical” distinction may seem superfluous, but the essential lies in the practical adjustments that result from it.

First of all, if we place mastery—and not capacity—at the center of the process, the principles that govern the concept of progressivity in the classic periodization model:

• Development
• Intensification
• Achievement/Retention

are instead replaced by:

• Practice
• Training
• Competition

The Risks of Starting from “Development”

The development phase, in classical theory, is always the one that is introduced first. For each physical quality, but also in the organization of a season as a whole, the volume precedes the intensity, and the specificity of the training increases. It goes without saying that if capacity is the fundamental issue, then it should be targeted as a priority. The volume before the intensity thus finds a double justification.

This prioritization is supposed to protect the athlete by preparing their body by means of a progressive overload, and it respects a structural hierarchy: a developed aerobic capacity contributes to recovery between intense efforts, and a significant muscle mass increases the capacity for strength, for example. If it is obvious that within the same session the intensity must be progressive (a warm-up is always necessary), it is not clear that a training block dedicated to aerobic capacity affects the athlete’s ability to tolerate high-intensity speed or effort sessions later on.

On the other hand, we have been able to study and demonstrate that sprinting regularly is the best way to reduce the risk of injury during a sprint. This example shows concretely that the benefits should be attributed to mastery, not ability. In this case, the protective effect of a high volume of running at near maximum speed does not lie in the increase of a sprint capacity but in the acquisition (as the exposure to the exercise increases) of a motor pattern that is both efficient and stable.

This quality of movement is largely responsible for the resilience displayed by the athlete. The change in motor strategy is a known and sought-after symptom of fatigue, a recognized factor in injury, and a reliable means of separating novice and expert in a task. When a motor pattern is deeply rooted, it is achievable at a lower energy and cognitive cost.

Mastery beats ability at every opportunity. The player able to frame their shot during the last action of the match is the one who masters this gesture to perfection. Consider players A and B, both last scorers in a penalty shootout. Both players have been through the entire game and are on the verge of exhaustion.

Player A stands in front of the goalkeeper. Player A is in great physical shape, only experiences a 15% decrease in their movement accuracy, and their level of mastery of the movement in question is equivalent to 7/10. Player B is more of the “Maradonian” style. An exceptional technician, Player B mastered their shooting perfectly, a 10/10. On the other hand, their little epicurean aspect means that they are less tolerant of sustained effort than Player A, and when they do appear in the small circle, their gesture experiences a large disturbance: 40%. Player A therefore shoots with a mastery score of 7-(7×15/100) = 5.95. In front of them, Player B achieves a strike with a mastery of 10-(10×40/100) = 6. Despite a lower capacity, the latter has more chance of succeeding in their crucial penalty attempt.

Beginning the process of training for a physical quality with an extensive stage focused on the development of the capacity, puts the athletes at risk of acquiring suboptimal movement strategies and adopting a great variability in their motor pattern. Whenever you must perform a large number of repetitions without a keen grasp of the task at hand, the body’s natural response is to change the way it performs the movement as the fatigue builds up. Moreover, high volume is usually accompanied by very moderate intensity and low exercise complexity. This combination allows you to get the job done without having to be precise.

In the sequence of repetitions of bench press during a protocol of hypertrophy, changing the spacing of the feet, lifting the lower back, or varying the trajectory of the bar does not create failure of the movement, and it even allows a gain of capacity by recruiting muscles differently. On the other hand, during a heavy clean, the timing of the triple extension, the starting position under the bar, and the trajectory of the latter are all fundamental criteria in the success of the exercise. The same is true if you compare jogging and sprinting. An endurance effort leaves the possibility of changing the inclination of the pelvis, the length of the stride, or the degree of movement of the hips, while sprinting efficiently requires maintaining a posture and a cycle of very precise strides.

Once a high volume of well-executed movements has been achieved, it is unrealistic to think that this will have a positive effect on the performance of motor tasks that are more complex and performed at higher intensity. The transfer does not occur from the ability to perform a movement many times with little precision and intensity. It occurs from the ability to perform that movement fewer times but with much more precision and intensity. So, it is done in the reverse direction: once an athlete acquires the ability to perform a movement with great control and intensity, they can develop the ability to repeat that movement.

When we consider this change in the direction of the transference, we accept that mastery must precede capacity.

The Alternative: A Maturation-Based Model

Practice, therefore, is the first phase of training in the maturation model. The objective of this phase is the acquisition by each athlete of an optimal motor pattern in each movement considered critical for performance in the sport.

The intensity and volume are moderate, which allows the search for precision with each repetition. The individualization of training is at its maximum, and each athlete evolves at their own pace, focusing on perfecting the motor pattern already acquired. Unlike the development phase—which in the classical model encourages competition between players and surpassing oneself—the practice phase of the maturation model avoids the comparison between different individuals at all costs. The concept of practice replaces that of development both in a micro-cycle and at the level of the global plan.

For example, in a micro-cycle dedicated to power, where the power clean and the countermovement jump are designated as the main exercises, the first step is the acquisition of an optimal and stable motor pattern for these two movements. The intensity, volume, and variation of exercise used are individually determined depending on the athlete’s level of mastery.

From the perspective of an overall plan, the preseason begins with a practice phase, where the most sport-specific physical qualities are trained through the stabilization of optimal motor patterns in the fundamental movements associated with these qualities. Take the example of rugby: considering acceleration as a determining quality, the practical phase targets the individual appropriation of the posture and the technical components necessary for performance for that physical quality.

As for repeating high-intensity efforts, it is during this period that an athlete can master them before repeating them. So, going to the ground and getting up, accelerating and decelerating, changing direction, wrestling, etc.: all these aspects require a posture, a technical component, and an attitude—a motor pattern—that should be fine-tuned. The passage from this practical stage to the next stage is not subject to a time constraint or dictated by a theoretical a priori. For each of the fundamental movements, the player can move from the practical stage to the training stage once they demonstrate that they have acquired an optimal and stabilized motor pattern.

The appeal of a practice phase to start a preseason also lies in its perfect fit with the technical, strategic, psychological, and emotional needs that exist at that point in a season. At the start of the preseason, it is absolutely necessary for the coaches to develop in the players a mastery of the technical fundamentals specific to the positions, as well as strategical principles defining the adopted style of play.

In this period of transition, where it is impossible to measure yourself against opponents and therefore difficult to build up confidence, it is important that athletes feel recognized and that they can objectify their progress. In long and exhausting seasons, creating an enjoyable and positive environment in the opening weeks promotes group cohesion and reserves the difficult moments (which require great psychological and emotional resilience) for the end of the season, when this will be decisive.

Increasing mastery in different areas gives the player a feeling of control and progression, which in turn causes an increase in self-confidence and belief in the training program. The absence of significant fatigue, intolerable muscle pain, and negative experiences allows maximum assimilation of the technical and strategic components absolutely crucial in team sport performance.

This approach contrasts with the unfolding of an early preseason according to the classic model. On most teams, the start of the preseason is characterized by physical harassment, heavy aerobic workouts, and hypertrophy where sweat and intestinal discomfort become bargaining chips for a bit of respite as fatigue builds up at high speed. Players, switched to survival mode, struggle in vain to memorize what coaches expect of them.

Second Phases: Intensification vs. Training

In the classical vision, the intensification phase follows development. After spending some time doing high volume, the needle is pushed toward intensity. At the micro-cycle level, the problem posed by this method is simple: In the absence of prior mastery of the main movements used, the addition of load or the increase in velocity can either compromise the initial nature of the prescribed stimulus or even create a maladaptation in the player (too much fatigue, muscle problems, etc.).

At the overall level, the transition to the intensification stage is accompanied by a change in targeted physical qualities, which undermines the motor patterns acquired during the development phase. For example, endurance work often gives way to repetitive high-intensity efforts. The increase in velocity demanded requires the use of a different running technique than is sufficient to keep up with the development phase. Likewise, the transition from a protocol of hypertrophy, or maximal strength, to that of power requires the introduction of movements absent from the previous phase.

Going through a phase of technique-oriented learning and the acquisition of these new motor patterns would require giving up the increase in intensity for a while, which at this point in the overall plan would be compromising. Logically, the choice then falls on the acceptance of suboptimal and variable motor strategies, despite the increase in the energy cost (and therefore of the associated fatigue), the increased risk of bad adaptations, and the lack of efficiency, to ensure that athletes maintain the expected intensity.

Finally, this stage of the training plan is intended to be more “specific” to the sport practiced. The exercises chosen are supposed to replicate the demand of the field more faithfully. In the gym, the mode and speed of contraction, range of motion, and orientation of the body are chosen to faithfully reflect the reality of athletic actions. On the pitch, the way of moving, the attitude with and without the ball, the speed of execution, and the intensity of the contacts mimic those encountered in matches.

The ability to perform these specific exercises with maximum intensity is critical for adequate preparation for competition. Before they can be performed multiple times with great intensity, these “specific” movements must be mastered perfectly; otherwise, because the loss of precision is inevitable with the accumulation of fatigue, the result may take a comedic turn. This problem of intensity without mastery is responsible for most of the criticism leveled at the CrossFit method. So, why go through a phase of development where we practice at moderate intensity movements that are not considered representative of the sport, before attempting to introduce both high intensity and specificity despite the great difficulty of simultaneously improving these two aspects?

If the logic is purely bioenergetics (aerobic capacity before anaerobic capacity) or structural (more muscle mass before learning how to use it to produce power), nothing prevents starting with what is specific to the activity practiced in the field. Technical running skills, exposure to speed development, and acceleration have a metabolic component, and they also improve aerobic capacity. The technical work of weightlifting or plyometric movements generates a gain in muscle mass.

The second phase of the maturation method is “training”—after practicing, to acquire a mastery of the motor patterns necessary for sports performance, this know-how is applied in a context approaching the reality of competition. At this stage, just like in the intensification stage of the classical approach, the intensity is increased, whether through the load used, the speed of execution, or the pressure exerted on the player while they realize the movement.

However, the quality of movement is not sacrificed to ensure this intensification of the practice. The goal of the training phase is to progress toward the ability to maintain an efficient motor pattern despite an accumulation of fatigue or stress. At the micro-cycle level, compliance with the prescribed intensity while maintaining the quality is made possible by the individualization of the movement used.

At the level of the overall plan, the training phase situates what was practiced in the program’s first stage. In terms of technique and strategy, work in opposition makes its appearance, the situations are more complex, and the time allocated to perform a gesture or make a decision is similar to that found in competition. The loss of quality is not accepted at this point in the plan, and the intensity only increases as performance stabilizes.

The given bioenergetic, structural, or mechanical goal is achieved with the choice of the most suitable individual movement variant. As the evolution from the practical stage to the training stage is individual—fruit of the maturation of the movement’s mastery— when the objective is to complete a high-intensity training, it is normal that certain motor skills an athlete is unable to totally control are replaced by a less-specific variant they can master better.

Achieving this balance between specificity and intensity makes it possible to obtain an optimal adaptation of the athlete to the training load by ensuring that the energetic, structural, or neural sessions are limited by energetic, structural, or neural factors (and not technical). Likewise, specific movements fundamental to performance in sport are protected against the reinforcement of compromised and ineffective motor strategies, which is inevitable when the level of intensity exceeds that of mastery.

The fear of not being ready to face the reality of competition too often haunts preseasons. In a frenetic race against time, coaches rush to tick all of capacity’s boxes without worrying too much about whether athletes have achieved mastery, as if to clear the air at the start of the competition. All team sports coaches and physical trainers know that a championship is not won in the first month, and yet it remains difficult to accept taking the time to do things right. Ability wins the first games of a season, that’s true. Excellence wins the finals and creates cycles of domination.

Implications of Realization and Competition

The classic periodization method concludes its progression with the realization phase. Players are expected to reach their state of maximal performance during this phase. A simple temporary decrease in the training load while maintaining a high degree of specificity leads straight to the phenomenon of overcompensation. As competitiveness and self-achievement have been brought to the fore during the first two stages of the program and reach their peak as the preseason draws to a close, their preeminence fades as soon as the season begins. A brutal surrender appears.

• The euphoria of the realization phase—those last moments of preseason when the measured physical performance is flattering.
• The joy of finally being able to leave behind the days of hard work that never end, with their procession of pain.
• This fear of constantly breaking under the ever-increasing demand imposed on organisms.

All this gives way to the anxiety of the unknown represented by the plunge into the sporting season.

Suddenly, execution quality in the technical movements as well as in the fundamental movements is crucial. Being physically heroic is not a sustainable performance strategy. Teams at the top of the table very rarely need to be physically heroic. The technical mastery, the quality of movement execution, allows them to save energy and dominate.

While the classic periodization cycle results in temporarily maximized physical performance, it nevertheless makes technical and strategic performance vulnerable. Going from development to intensification then realization, the players are always exposed to technical and strategic problems in a condition of prior fatigue. Throughout the preseason, muscles and brains, stormed by relentless demand, struggle to access energy resources. In the absence of matches to win, physical performance emerges as the main goal to achieve and feeds the ego and the athlete’s need for feedback much more satisfactorily than video analysis of technical and strategic training.

Weakened by this race for intensity and physical exhaustion, the player’s cognitive state has difficulty keeping up. This relative neglect of strategic and technical aspects, this acceptance of constantly compromised learning, is finally felt when the competition begins. Often, during the preparatory meetings, the very average performances are explained by means of vague justifications such as the “lack of automatism” or the “lack of rhythm.”

The lack of automatism is unforgivable after several weeks devoted to collective training, and rather reflects a flagrant lack of control, which is a fundamental principle typically omitted in the training process. The lack of rhythm is unjustifiable after a period of working on physical qualities. The pace is none other than the technical and strategic demand for a match that, not sufficiently controlled, gives rise to additional energy expenditure that physical preparation cannot replicate. When the concept of periodization is applied to the letter in team sports and physical preparation takes center stage, then we often must wait to switch to the competitive season and refocus on the practice of sport to see teams eventually progress.

The maturation concept meets the problems posed by the implementation phase by proposing the idea of ​​the competition phase. The result now occupies a preponderant place. This stage of the competition is the only one that allows the use of non-optimal motor schemes and variability in movement strategies to obtain a temporary benefit and demonstrate an inflated isolated performance. To best prepare players to face the reality of the games, the competition phase occupies the last weeks of the preseason. The stake for players is clear—find solutions regardless of the problem posed.

This phase tests the ability to adapt when control is lacking or insufficient. The sessions are created to push athletes to their limits, sometimes through physical overload, sometimes with the accumulation of environmental constraints. This phase focused on targeting capacity is also the shortest. Once the mastery of basic motor schemes is ensured and the necessary energy, structural, and neural qualities are stimulated, mental and physical resilience is considered the cherry on the sundae.

Where the classic periodization philosophy considers physical capacity as the base on which to build technical ability, the maturation method proposes an inverted pyramid where the technical mastery is necessary for the development of capacity. The advantage is that when you educate players on the importance of mastery during the preseason, doing things well becomes a habit. Having integrated that the performance is synonymous with saving energy, players won’t alter their optimal motor strategies unless it is necessary to get the job done. When the technical gesture or movement is compromised, the athlete full of mastery does not panic and instead selects an appropriate alternative.

At the end of a season, the team that dominates is not the one that has succeeded in minimizing the effects of fierce competition weeks on the physical ability of its players, but the one that experiences the least decrease in execution quality despite the decline of the former. The best teams advance on all tables—national, international championships, cups, etc.—and they also have more national team players. Their staff faces a quantity of additional matches compared to the weaker teams.

The best teams are therefore those with the lowest training-to-competition ratio, which certainly deprives them of the opportunity to accumulate the necessary training volume to maintain capacities of various physical qualities other than by match participation. If neither the unspoiled preservation of the physical capacities acquired during the preseason nor the implementation of multiple comprehensive “reload” cycles during the season to arouse several temporary overcompensations is really possible, and if, moreover, the best teams also are those most exposed to “detraining” certain physical qualities, then maybe the question of capacity is not a good lighthouse.

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 sports science team is important for athletic performance because it can take all the different streams of data and put them together to tell a story. At Pitt, we split our data into four separate categories: workload (Catapult), screening (Nordbord, GroinBar, force plates), readiness (questionnaires, contact grid, sleep tracking), and performance (force plates, GymAware). When sitting in performance team meetings, members of the Sports Science Department are able to make sense of what we think we know in light of what is actually happening on the field of play.

Ultimately, the sports science team integrates technology in an effort to improve training and impact decision-making. Data drives conversations; conversations drive decisions.

Why collect all this data?

• To answer questions.
• To ask better questions.
• To discover new questions.

“The more you know, the more you know what you don’t know.” – Richard Feynman

Answering, Asking, and Discovering Questions

When the sports scientist/strength and conditioning coach is collecting all this data, it is easy for coaches to be overwhelmed. We try to simplify it for them by inserting the data into a feedback loop as seen below:

From this point forward, it is very important to define what the sports scientist’s key role is within the sports performance team.

What it is—Important unit of the interdisciplinary team, with a separate area of responsibilities that arose out of necessity to manage the data and its platforms. Responsibilities include (but are not limited to):

• Data collection, management, and analysis.
• Athlete assessment/profiling.
• Developing new practices of monitoring and adjusting training.

This position ultimately needs someone with time, competence, and interest.

What it isn’t—An avenue to tell coaches/staffs what to do, a desk jockey, or a fad.

A great sports scientist understands the physiology of training at a high level and makes their systems repeatable, not reliant on the same person to operate (so anyone can take over).

My Road to Now

I am now at my third university and utilize my past experiences when it comes to creating a successful Sports Science Department. Each environment has had its unique challenges and opportunities that have allowed me to tease out what is and is not important.

Stop #1—Clemson University (2013–2018)

• Advantages: Large operating budget and sizeable technology inventory.
• Challenges: Vast amount of data collected with varying degrees of importance.
• Successes: One of the first adopters of building an applied Sports Science Department.

Stop #2—Mississippi State University (2018–2021)

• Advantages: Organizational freedom to implement sports science practices.
• Challenges: Limited operating budget, no existing department upon arrival.
• Successes: Created partnerships with engineering and academia and instituted athlete engineering interns.

Stop #3—University of Pittsburgh (2021–present)

• Advantages: Effective operating budget and multiple partnerships.
  • Neuromuscular Research Lab
  • Sports Science Master’s Program
  • Innovation Institute
  • Pitt IT
• Challenges: No centralization of a true Sports Science Department upon arrival.
• Successes: Creation of Director of Sports Science position and investment from administration to see the department grow:
  • Athlete Management System (AMS)
  • New Performance Facility and Sports Science Lab (Fall 2024)
  • Creation of the Sports Science ScD program (2023)

Based on these three different stops, I have had exposure to all levels of technology and the implementation of these tools. The goal at this point is to live in the high value quadrants, most notably the high value/low burden. This is where you will get optimal investment for maximal return.

Figure 3. Burden/Value quadrants, adapted from Jo Clubb, Global Performance Insights.

When looking at a road map, I like to break it down into a three-year process with specific goals and objectives to be accomplished in each year.

Year One: Break Ground and Lay the Foundation

We are currently in year one. When stepping into this role, it was important for me to assess and analyze many things: what had already been put in place, what was working, what wasn’t working, and what I can do in the first 90 days to begin to create a blueprint of what I want to implement.

Goals/Objectives:

• Educate sport coaches and administration.
• Develop Sports Science Master’s students’ curriculum.
• Track athlete engagement (starting point).
• Introduce the Sports Science Playbook.
• Sports Science Open House.

Let’s first talk about staffing. Currently, we are lucky to have a partnership with our Sports Science Master’s program through our School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences as well as our Neuromuscular Research Laboratory. This partnership was forged through open communication and mutual benefits to both parties involved.

Our Sports Science Master’s students take on two different curricula during the year.

Our other main goal of year one is gaining a greater understanding of what the sport coaches know and don’t know about this department and then educating them. What is sports science? Why is it important to them? How will it help them win more games or matches and keep their student-athletes available to complete?

Two major activities we like to put on for sport coaches in year one are the “Sports Science Playbook” and our “Sports Science Open House.” For our Sports Science Playbook, we like to meet with each coach individually to allow for the most open dialogue possible and invite as many specific questions as they can ask. As for our Sports Science Open House, we like to open our facility to all staffs to give them a hands-on introduction and presentation on the different pieces of technology that their teams will have access to. You can find both materials and presentations here to give you better insight.

During this first year, it is important to establish a why behind your department. What is sports science? Why is it important for their team? How will it help them win more games or matches? 

Year Two: Build the Frame and Installation

In year two, we want to continue to build the framework of our Sports Science Department by adding a new Director of Sports Science role.

Goals/Objectives:

• Hire a Director of Sports Science.
• Evaluate the current setup.
• Establish systems.
• Improve the utilization of AMS.
• Create partnerships to fund master’s students.

We envision that during the first 90 days, the sports scientist initiatives can be assessed for:

• What is working?
• What can be improved?
• What is not working?

Answering these questions should allow us to prioritize where to start with the list of year one goals for the Director of Sports Science.

Establish Systems

First, when establishing systems, it will be important to meet with each sport. The three main questions the Director of Sports Science needs to ask are: what technology is being used, what data is being collected, and what reporting is being done? Doing so allows them to begin immediately addressing the highest priority needs of each sport. By creating solutions to these problems, we can begin to educate coaches or staff on why and how these needs should be addressed.

We establish systems to help paint a clearer picture of athlete availability, athlete status, and training effectiveness. The most efficient way to make an immediate impact is to identify the “lowest-hanging fruit” for each team. By identifying these major gaps or limiters in performance, we can create easy wins and victories within teams.

Operate AMS and Optimize Sports Science Student Experience

As the prime operator for the AMS of all teams, ensuring that data is organized and clean is crucial. Building out dashboards and visualizations will be key for disseminating information and making it actionable. It is imperative to eliminate unnecessary data collection to reduce the noise and maximize efficiency.

Developing sports science students into sound practitioners is an extremely important goal of the department. We can progress these students by developing and cultivating a practicum/curriculum. A key piece to this in year two is identifying what the curriculum is missing and determining solutions to fix that.

We understand that achieving all these goals can be a large feat for one individual and a group of master’s students, but we truly believe that education will be key along the way. When creating a new leadership role, be clear and concise about its goals, not only for the first three months but the entire first year, to allow the framework to hold strong for years to come.

Year Three: Move-In

At Pitt, in year three of our road map, we will move into our new performance facility (Victory Heights), where our new sports science lab and our new weight room will be located.

Goals/Objectives:

• Hire an Assistant Sport Scientist.
• ScD Program for Sports Science created.
• Build a library of one- to three-minute education tutorials.
• Put together a proposal for administration.

When hiring directors and assistants, it is important that the Sports Science Department be well-rounded when it comes to skill sets. We divide our Sports Science Department into these three categories:

1. Assessment – force plate, Dari, reporting.
2. Monitoring – heart rate, Catapult, data skill set turn around.
3. Education.

It is also important that the sport scientists we hire can also be athlete- and coach-facing and not just nerds with high levels of education who can’t speak the language.

With departments growing at a fast rate, it is important to keep the sport coaches and performance staff in the know. With that said, during this particular phase at Pitt, we will begin our one- to three-minute tutorial series “PS3” (Pitt Sports Science Series) and create content to educate on the following areas:

• How do GPS units work?
• Applied practice situations.
  • Force plates – RTP
• What is motion capture?
• Feedback loop utilized when collecting data.
• How to run reports.
• Dashboards 101.
• Catapult report – what does this mean?

The year three phase will be when the department truly hits its stride, not only with a bigger staff, but a new lab and facility. Thinking further into the future remains important—this means putting together future job proposals to continue to keep the department moving in a positive direction. At this point and time, the department should be in a place where we have accumulated enough data and projects that we will need a data analyst to come in and organize it all for us.

Bring It All Home

Hopefully, the example of this road map provides you all with at least one key takeaway. I can in no way take all the credit for all these amazing ideas. I must give thanks to my Associate Head Strength and Conditioning Coach Aaron Duvall; Travis Vlantes, John Wagle, Josh Nelson, Ryan Grubbs, and Rick Franzblau for being mentors and having a large influence on me along with the way; and the University of Pittsburgh for supporting my vision for building out this department. Thank you SimpliFaster for this opportunity and Hail to Pitt!

(Lead photo by Richard C. Lewis/Icon Sportswire).

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

It’s often repeated that speed kills and speed is king. But what effect does the speed to win a 100-meter track race have on the speed used in football and other field sports? More specifically, what phases of acceleration and max velocity from track should speed training for field sports focus on?

While I agree that fast is fast, we need to examine the drastic differences in the way speed is attained and used on the track versus on the field of play. I want to break this discussion into two parts:

1. 40-yard dash performance.
2. On-field game speed performance.

For field sports like football, the golden norm for testing speed is the 40-yard dash and not the 100-meter race. I won’t get too bogged down here, but most of us know that to run a fast 40-yard dash, an athlete must be accelerating the entire 40 yards. There is also limited time spent in the max velocity zone as compared with a 100-meter race. This has led me to ask whether athletes could focus only on the acceleration phase during training and drastically improve their 40-yard dash times?

I say yes (and others do as well).

Combine Success with XPE

In 2010, I had the opportunity to train WR Jacoby Ford and then, seven years later, speedster DB Jalen Myrick. At the NFL Combine for their respective years, Ford and Myrick ran official 4.28 laser 40 times, the fastest ever for their positions at that time.

When they arrived to work with me for an eight-week NFL Combine training program, Ford was pre-timed at 4.46 seconds and Myrick at 4.47 seconds (using the same method as the NFL Combine, a hand start and laser finish). Both experienced almost a two-tenth of a second improvement, and both focused primarily on acceleration—we spent maybe 10-15% of our speed training time on Max V and only enough time to work on Max V basic mechanic drills. We never ran a sprint farther than 40 yards in training, and most of the time they only worked on sprinting 10 and 20 yards in an overload/deload fashion.

I’ve had this same success—by focusing primarily on acceleration—not only with skill position guys like Ford and Myrick, but also in 2015 when Vic Beasley was the fastest DE/OLB, Stephone Anthony was the fastest ILB, and Jeremy Langford was the fastest RB.

• Vic Beasley’s pre-test was 4.68 (at 228 pounds) and post-test at Combine was 4.53 (at 246 pounds), a .15-second improvement.
• Stephone Anthony’s pre-test was 4.78 and post-test at Combine was 4.56, for an improvement of .22 seconds.
• Jeremy Langford’s pre-test was 4.63 and post-test at Combine was 4.41, for an improvement of .22 seconds.

These gains were attained with 6-7 weeks of training, and again, running 40 yards in a sprint fashion only in pre-testing and at the Combine. The majority of speed training was spent on acceleration—more specifically, making sure power was used in the acceleration phase—over any time spent on Max V sprints. This has continued to be our approach at XPE Sports.

Our basic NFL Combine Week for speed training for speed gains looks like:

• Monday
  • Top-speed mechanic warm-up – active flexibility, stiff leg bounds, high knees, skips, butt kicks, and clawing/cycling drills for a total of 15-20 minutes.
  • Powerful leg training accompanied by resisted running for acceleration with basic prowler sleds and SHREDmills (mimics sled training) for 45-55 minutes. Limited sets and adequate rest periods of 3-4 minutes before bouts of work.
• Tuesday
  • Light agility work to get soreness out of legs.
  • Massage.
• Wednesday
  • Pool workout.
• Thursday
  • Acceleration warm-up – lunges, wall drills, skips, bounds, 3 step get-offs.
  • Powerful leg training accompanied by resisted running (very similar to Monday) for 45-55 minutes.
  • Two to four sets of running focusing on Max V track mechanics for 25-40 yards.
• Friday
  • Position work not having to do with speed training.

More Combine Success Speed at XPE with Matt Gates

This type of 40-yard dash success has been furthered by Matt Gates of XPE Sports since 2018. In 2018, he had WR Jeff Badet run a 4.27 FAT electric time at Oklahoma Pro Day (which was the fastest of the entire NFL Draft class), Parry Nickerson be the fastest at the NFL Combine with a 4.32 laser, and Troy Apke as the fastest Safety with a 4.34 laser. To follow that up, he also has trained DB Jamel Dean, who ran a 4.30 laser, and WR Terry McLaurin, who ran a 4.35 laser in subsequent years.

Amazingly, Dean and McLaurin had 20-40 laser splits at the NFL Combine of 1.76 seconds. This means they were averaging 23.2 mph in the “Max V” portion of the event. If you ask Matt Gates how much Max V work he did in training, he will tell you 0%. While I believe training max velocity would not have a negative effect on the 40-yard dash, it seems that, based on these results, a focus on mainly acceleration training was very beneficial.

Similar to Matt Gates above, Les Spellman has dedicated an entire training system to acceleration and uses it to improve 40-yard dash performance. One of his main goals is to assess and prescribe drills based on requiring the athlete to stay in the acceleration phase as much as possible and always be increasing speed. Some would say Tony Holler takes the opposite approach with Feed the Cats. While he is not anti-acceleration, he feels targeting Max V correctly does address acceleration.

After much discussion with all the above, I conclude it as such for 40-yard dash training:

1. Matt Gates says he does not target Max V to improve the 40-yard dash even 1%. He stresses acceleration so much that he coaches his athletes to try to hit a top speed even before they get to 40 yards. I have to convince Matt, as we now work together, that we do actually target max velocity with technique training and the occasional stride-out runs focusing on form.
2. I say we do target Max V about 10-15% to teach athletes about form with the goal being to allow momentum with the acceleration phase to carry over into Max V gains.
3. Les Spellman focuses much more time on working on techniques to always be accelerating than he does on Max V training.
4. Tony Holler from Feed the Cats feels that Max V training is a great approach to also target acceleration.

What is right? You choose. I just simply believe the longer the race or run, the more Max V comes into play. And if you can get great 40-yard dash gains by targeting acceleration, it is the best bang for your buck. This is not a negative on “max velocity track speed” one bit! I believe in many of the training philosophies track has taught me and have applied those principles throughout the years.

I am just showing a viewpoint of how much acceleration can and will improve the speed required for timed events of 40 yards or less. We work leg strength to power gains with acceleration together on the same day, and even in the same session, to get the transfer of weight training exercises into the acceleration phase. This also allows our legs to rest 48 hours before stressing high-intensity training again. This method has drastically improved 40-yard dash gains with very minimal, if any, training targeting Max V.

From the 40 to the Field

If acceleration can be used as the main ingredient for 40-yard dash performance, it should even be more of a focus for on-field game speed performance. Why? While on the field, athletes are rarely in a straight line run for 4-5 continuous seconds. The acceleration phase is much shorter and immediate, and their eyes must be up and not down. Athletes on the field cannot feel like they are out of control and seldom have adequate time to properly accelerate on the field like they do in the 40-yard dash. These top players in the NFL have explained their lack of desire to train as much in max velocity or high speeds:

WR Anquan Boldin

“Obviously, when guys come in and train for the Combine, they are training for speed and not for football. You allow them to train and give them the ability to get out of control. After Combine training is over, you have to tell the kids to scrap everything they just learned.

As a WR, if you can’t control your speed, you cannot cut properly, you cannot get in and out of breaks properly, so my thing with teaching receivers, is to always be under control. Not running too fast does not mean it appears to the DB that I am running slow—it can appear I am running fast but still be under control.

Guys change directions outside of their body because they are out of control with their speed. When young, you can get away with it. But the higher level you go, this speed can be a detriment.”

TE Travis Kelce

“Out of five gears, I normally play around Gear 3. I like to stay around 15-17 miles per hour for the majority of time on the field.”

RB Mark Ingram

“You can get to 15-16 miles per hour in 3-4 forceful steps. You can just drive off the ground, 1-2-3 and get to game speed. But once I get to 20 miles per hour, it’s almost impossible to change directions. You can’t efficiently and effectively change directions. But if you stay at 15-17 miles per hour, I can change directions efficiently at the top of the route, I can break this way, or break that way, and get that one step of separation.

I can get to 20 miles per hour, but then I can’t change directions. But being able to have adequate game speed and change directions, that is what football is.”

DB Kareem Jackson

Question posed to Kareem Jackson: “Can any amount of speed training make up for technique stuff you mentioned before?”

His reply: “None of it. For me, at this point of my career, I rely on everything else. If I get to a point where I am blasting into speed, that is normally a bad thing for me.”

Rethinking Training Based on the Game

Realizing how important acceleration is to the 40-yard dash— and even having it increase the “Max V” phase as a by-product—along with listening to top NFL players, has forced me to rethink and retool our speed training. Instead of rapidly increasing acceleration to the highest Max V possible, we would rather get to an adequate speed as fast as possible and in as few steps as possible.

We call this “game speed,” and it is much different than “track speed” and even “40-yard dash speed.”

With the initial part of “game speed,” force into the ground is the goal. Instead of “speed is king,” we say force production is. An elite athlete must learn how to get to 12-14 mph within 3-4 steps—and instead of hitting the gas with more acceleration, coast and allow momentum and form to carry them to 14-17 miles per hour, or more if the distance dictates it. This 14-17 mph is called the “game speed zone,” which many of the NFL players already touched on.

In fact, if you truly listen to the pros and look at game speeds, it may even be slower than that. But I am already being controversial enough by saying Max V is rarely needed. I can’t tell you that elite NFL athletes truly want to run at 12-14 mph on the field (but the data may actually show that, and they may say the same!). It is in the “game speed zone” that athletes can choose to decelerate to change directions to make a play or hit the gas and get to speeds of 18-21 mph or more. Are Max V mechanics needed to reach speeds of more 20 mph? Yes. But how often?

Again, we have tailored our speed training approach around what the best NFL players have told us they need. And we want the younger athletes to learn the same. Work on speed still? Yes! Learn track mechanics and touch Max V occasionally? Yes! But also start teaching game speed and proper agility as soon as they are ready.

A typical game speed session should always include acceleration along with agility. Instead of 40-yard or track starts to uncontrollably blast into the acceleration phase, agility takes its place as the starting point for speed. Because of this, we changed our program design for field sports to have much more agility training than many think.

Game speed sessions focus on the speed that can be attained from the 5- to 15-yard distance of a 20-yard run. Various cues are given on how to attain speed so athletes can feel and get feedback on the miles per hour they are attaining. They are coached and taught what is an adequate speed. Then they are asked to add in deceleration and stops at this speed along with different change of direction patterns at this speed.

This type of training allows the athlete to learn what speeds they can run at and still be able to change directions. This type of “game speed” training has opened our eyes, and the eyes of many of the athletes we have trained.

Lead photo by Daniel Gluskoter/Icon Sportswire.

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

If anyone had told me in 2019 that I’d end up training 900 athletes remotely during one of the toughest times in modern history, I’d have thought they were crazy. Like many other people in fitness, 2020 was a year of reckoning for me. However, with the help of CoachMePlus and remote training, I was able to coach and guide baseball and softball players on strength training and overhand throwing development while all three of my business’s locations were closed.

The Story Behind High Level Throwing

Every gym, fitness center, and even fitness YouTube channel starts as a dream. Mine started as one to make high-quality throwing training available to baseball and softball players. That was the birth of Wasserman High Level Throwing. We have expanded and currently have three locations across the U.S. in addition to our remote training.

We had always planned to build a remote platform for our athletes as we grew our national following. This idea was not a priority, but we knew we offered something special. We have worked with Power 5 college programs, Team USA Olympians, and individual athletes across the country, and now across the globe. The information shared in our throwing program is unique, and we knew we wanted to offer it to as many people as we could.

Our mission is to teach softball and baseball players how to move efficiently, maximize throwing potential, improve accuracy, and create intent based on position, through constraint training drills and proper progressions. We focus on overhand throwing based on each position—not just pitching—providing an expertise not found in other programs. We work with movement, arm care, injury prevention, rehabilitation, throwing development, and more.

Beyond drills, we have books and videos available for our users. CoachMePlus allows us to share these videos and resources easily.

COVID-19 Hit the Fitness Industry Hard

Many people don’t realize just how hard COVID-19 hit the fitness industry, but each of us obviously does. Shutdowns meant people couldn’t train indoors—and it wasn’t long before gyms had no people and no money. Even the most established gyms were forced to shut down. I’ll never forget the flood of heartbreaking photos on social media showing gyms selling equipment to stay afloat.

The writing was on the wall, and my time had come. I knew that with chaos came opportunity, and I needed to decide whether to focus on the chaos or on the opportunity that comes with it.

Knowing that the end or success of my dream had never been this tangible, I only had one choice: to see the glass as half empty or as half full. I chose the latter.

With my branches in Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire shut down, I’d never get a better opportunity to transition my business to a remote model. Now was the time. With everything shut down, we knew we needed to accelerate the move to an online platform; otherwise, we wouldn’t survive.

Building with the CoachMePlus Omnichannel Fitness Program

Safe to say, I had tried many fitness programs, but CoachMePlus’s Omnichannel Fitness program completely blew me away. There is nothing I’ve seen like it. It goes beyond program building to allow for in-depth analysis through specialized reports. It has athlete-facing dashboards and allows for the sharing of individualized videos.

Once we decided to go with CoachMePlus, we hustled and built out all our programs in the CoachMePlus app in just a couple of months. This was no easy feat. Getting started is usually the hardest step to take, but we were able to bulk upload our training videos; duplicate sets, workouts, and progressions to build programs; and give limited or full access to all our coaches.

This also enabled us to make quick work of onboarding. The support staff at CoachMePlus can help you build out your personalized dashboards, letting you focus on training. In June 2020, we launched our remote program and had between 40 and 50 athletes.

The results didn’t take long to show. Our memberships just started to explode—we didn’t realize the appetite coaches and kids had for this information. By the end of the year, we had doubled usage, and we were at about 80 athletes.

Despite the hardship of 2020, we had a year of learning and expansion. However, nothing could have prepared us for 2021.

Our product just kept exploding. We offer three- or six-month programs that work on overhand throwing. We knew there was generally a heavier focus on baseball throwing or the underhand pitching in softball. When we brought our softball overhand throwing to the remote world, the demand did not subside—in fact, it grew.

We realized how much our unique information and programming was needed. Athletes kept walking in through the “virtual” door and bringing other athletes, who also brought other athletes. Since starting with CoachMePlus, we’ve trained 900 athletes across the nation and the world in either our three- or six-month program.

Athlete Success Story: The 2020 Olympics

This success story leads us to one of the most talented members of the High Level Throwing team: Haylie McCleney. To give a bit of background on McCleney, she graduated from Alabama in 2016 and then went on to get her master’s degree in exercise physiology from Florida Atlantic University in 2018. She is a member of the National Strength and Conditioning Association and is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS).

With her educational background, it only makes sense that McCleney is dedicated to the strength training involved in developing athletes. She has been lifting regularly since she was in high school and asserts that “[Lifting] has been one of the factors that separates the really good softball players from the great softball players.” McCleney has been the Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach at Florida A&M since 2018 and started working as a coach with High Level Throwing two years ago. The most notable part of her experience, however, is her career as a softball player—she played for Alabama all four years of college and then was added to the Olympic roster in October 2019!

Once the pandemic began, Haylie brought a total of six Team USA softball players to train with High Level Throwing’s intuitive remote training program through CoachMePlus. These athletes needed high-quality training to keep them accountable while training opportunities were more limited. The community and challenge of our programs gave them the value they were looking for to prepare for the Olympics.

The CoachMePlus platform helped coaches send videos, documents, schedules, and more to these athletes. The program builder let us easily assign workouts while enabling the athletes to record movements, weights, and reps that deviated from the prescribed plan.

With a platform that allowed completely remote training, we proceeded to also train some amazing women from Team Mexico and Team Austria, officially taking the brand global! Now we are also training athletes in Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia.

The Best Part of It All

With all the changes we had in such a short time, it is easy to look back at the past few years and just see a whirlwind. However, we’ve built an overall great platform for our athletes. From our observations, feedback, and readings of KPIs, our coach-athlete relationships have improved tremendously.

It doesn’t stop there. Our program gave our athletes tangible benefits that they could feel when training. Athletes can track their progress easily. CoachMePlus logs nutrition, hydration, workouts, and the wearable device data of each athlete. From the app, the athletes and coaches can access their data in dashboards. Athletes are able to recognize injuries faster by seeing changes in performance and address weaknesses before there are injuries. (CoachMePlus does offer a Functional Movement Screen integration for those who are certified, but we do not use that service.)

The unique goals of each athlete are now more attainable than ever because of the data’s transparency.

While it took a few months to finalize the building of our omnichannel online fitness program, the results didn’t take as long to show. In less than a year on CoachMePlus, we had expanded to a global audience.

Embracing a Future-Proof and Long-Term Growth Strategy

My business model was based on the conventional fitness model. Like any other legacy strategy, its success was dependent on how long society could keep the status quo going.

However, for each piece of face-to-face coaching we were fearful we had lost, CoachMePlus was able to provide a solution. The app supports daily chats between coaches and athletes. It has a comprehensive program builder that schedules the workouts we had been able to work in person. The video library allows us to access all CoachMePlus’s videos, and more importantly, we are able to upload our own videos to include when we assign workouts. The CoachMePlus interface made sending videos and scheduling with remote clients less of a hassle.

Change is not something I fear. On the contrary, it’s something I’ve embraced and look forward to. Our partnership with CoachMePlus gave us a future-proof business strategy, putting the future in our hands and us at the forefront of the transition.

We have already trained more than 900 athletes on our remote platform, and we are continuing to grow and evolve our programming. The CMP platform has created two full-time positions, and another two to three remote, part-time performance coaches are helping athletes reach their goals and communicate weekly on baseball- and softball-specific strength and skill training. Additionally, we had to add another CMP platform (High Level Pitching®) for our softball pitchers and are continuing to build that out to meet the increasing demands.

Going Forward

We are looking forward to working harder, yet more efficiently, for our clients into 2022 and beyond. We’ll continue training and helping through our online fitness channel. As for our platform, we’ll keep optimizing and perfecting the art of fun and intuitive fitness interfaces. From where I stand, the future seems bright and foolproof.

For more information about CoachMePlus and for other inspirational and success stories, contact us today. Our teams will be more than willing to help.

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

Everyone loves a stunning, brand-new weight room—and this month, I have just that for you! Guyer High School in Denton, Texas, is the newest high school that has invested in its strength and conditioning department with a beautiful and functional training space for students.

Rachel Hayes, Strength and Conditioning Coordinator at Guyer High School, explained how this facility became a reality for their athletes. It was a blast talking with Coach Hayes about her facility and everything that makes it special. Coach Hayes was heavily involved in the building and layout—the room was built at the end of an existing hallway, where there was a small plot of land. So, the size of the room was somewhat predetermined, but at nearly 4,000 square feet, there’s adequate space.

From there, she chose three different equipment companies to obtain bids and layouts of various configurations of how to maximize the space. Part of this included inlaid platforms, so flooring was a big piece of the early design. Bids are an important part of the process—that way, you can see the differences that make those companies special, and which company can help you the most instead of simply take your money. Ultimately, Coach Hayes decided on Power Lift and PLAE for Guyer’s main equipment and flooring.

Coach Hayes explained the key considerations that went into the weight room’s design:

• Flow
• Spacing
• Equipment

Flow

“As I mentioned, the location and floor plan were predetermined, but I was able to make changes to the original mock-up regarding windows. Originally, the east wall was to be composed of glass window panels. Aesthetically, it was pleasing, but being an eastward-facing wall, I knew the heat and damage from the sun would be extensive.

The conversation to modify this happened early, before we broke ground. As mentioned, the weight room is located at the end of the hall, the same hallway as the court sports. Our original weight room was centrally located, so the athletes have a few more steps to take, but once inside, the flow is open and easy to access.”

Spacing

“Our original indoor weight room had eight platforms, but we never let lack of space stop us from training. When designing this room, I knew we needed to increase that number without sacrificing open floor space. By modifying the footprint of the platform and having various aerial mockups, I was able to see that 15 platforms would fit, with ample space to move about the room.

Additionally, it was important to have an area of open space as well as designated wall space for dumbbell racks.”

Equipment

“Power Lift designed, built, and set up our room. Ultimately, they delivered what we needed and developed the best layout. They also customized each row of racks to give us training style options. There is variety in the type and age of athlete that trains here, and I use different training styles with different groups. So, having options and space to be effective and efficient is imperative.

At times I may have an entire basketball program (freshman a & b, JV, varsity) training or have the dance team and varsity volleyball lifting at the same time. Much as a collegiate Olympic weight room accommodates a variety of styles and athletes, our room allows us to maximize training time for any situation. The floor and turf area were done by PLAE. Other major players in our equipment arsenal are Iron Grip, Dynamax, TRX, Intek, Spud Inc., and Rogue Fitness.”

Facility Decisions

For Coach Hayes, her facility size was determined by the available land connecting to the building. Often, the hardest part of new construction is figuring out exactly how big the space will be. Equipment is always the biggest decision during this time.

“Power Lift equipment sold itself to me because I’m familiar with it,” Coach Hayes said, discussing the working relationship created during this project. “We had Power Lift in the original weight room, and I worked with it at each college program I was part of. It’s always delivered and represented quality.

However, if I set my prior knowledge aside, the Texas rep, Shaun McPherson, is a former collegiate strength coach, and has tremendous working knowledge of the equipment. He took the time to talk shop with me and, based on our conversations, was able to help design and lay out a perfect plan. Additionally, the customer service, timeliness, craftsmanship, and attention to detail all stood out in the proposal and carried through to the installation.”

Specialty Equipment

We all love barbells and beautiful, branded plates, BUT nothing beats specialty equipment—and at Guyer High School, there’s no shortage of those kind of tools!

“We have five half racks that are designed for taller athletes,” Coach Hayes says. “And on the back of each of those is a customized, adjustable cable column. We also have five combo racks, and plenty of attachments and accessories to negate the need to move about the room if needed.

The turf area is also something special and unique about this room. It’s common to see in the collegiate, private, and professional sectors but rare at the high school level. I advocated for it very early in the design process because of its versatility. We use it for warm-ups, sleds, jumping, barefoot work, and much more. We’re also fortunate to have an array of specialty bars, including safety squat bars, Swiss bars, trap bars, and fat bars.”

Speaking to Coach Hayes, the takeaway for me was to think outside the box and include racks that work better for taller athletes. Something that I’d never thought about was that a standard rack is designed for…which athletes exactly? Now, it could be a dangerous thing to try and “design the best rack” for each type of athlete, but I love the idea of including something like this and customizing a few racks to better serve those athletes.

Advice from Coach Hayes

“My advice to other coaches who may be in the process of designing their own room consists of four things:

1. Insert yourself into as many meetings or discussions as possible and do it early. Don’t assume anything—communicate about everything. I had multiple discussions about the window modification before the change was made. If you are the strength coach on your campus, you are the expert when it comes to the weight room.
2. Make sure you design the room and purchase equipment that may not necessarily fit your current model. If you’re new to the field, your thoughts on training and methodologies probably aren’t solidified and may change, especially if you’re at the high school level. Design a room to best serve the athletes and coaches that come in the doors today, and in the future.
3. Maximizing a room includes open space. It’s really fun to get new tools and more platforms. But if you have no space or flow to the room, workouts will stall and fail to deliver your goals.
4. Don’t change for the sake of change. Stay true to your coaching style and needs. Make certain tools a priority because you know they deliver results and you’re comfortable with them. Definitely take the opportunity to buy some things you’re curious about but don’t lose yourself in the newness.”

Closing Considerations

High schools all over the country are investing in strength and conditioning with great coaches and even better facilities. I have seen other Texas high schools similar to Guyer with the same mission to build better and better facilities. I think a lot of people focus on the top NCAA Division 1 or professional facilities and assume small colleges or high schools could never build something like Guyer did, but this is one of many showing up around the country. I can’t wait to seek out those special facilities and bring them to y’all each month!

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

Every baseball player wants to throw harder and hit further, with significant effort in the baseball world devoted to increasing throwing velocity and hitting power. As there should be—these are two game-changing attributes that affect the outcome of seasons and careers.

Where are these efforts missing the mark? In this article, I will address some of the issues with training for rotational power in baseball athletes, while also providing solutions on how to maximize every athlete’s efforts on their way to explosiveness.

Primary Mistake: Not Analyzing Throwing/Hitting Sequencing

Don’t get me wrong, training for power is important—but if we do not properly analyze the sequence errors in the athlete’s throwing or hitting pattern, then the output training will not be as productive. Currently, I see many baseball programs using thera-band protocols, long tossing, and weighted ball programs to increase velocity.

On the hitting side, using different weighted bats and drills to increase bat speed are popular. By no means are any of these strategies wrong or ineffective, but at some point we must address the root issue of not being able to display power, which is sequencing.

In order to display power, we must first break down the biomechanical sequence of both hitting and pitching, which are similar. To save time and keep things simple, I am going to discuss three common lower body abilities in both the hitting and pitching sequence that can make or break power expression/display.

1. Hip Hinge
2. Relative Hip Internal Rotation
3. Lead Leg Block

The first ability is being able to hinge the hips while keeping the ribcage stacked over the pelvis. This is key in hitting and pitching and allows for both greater activation of the posterior chain and efficient energy transference. If executed incorrectly, the kinetic energy needing to be transferred through the trunk will have leaks and lead to a loss of power expression. This can be addressed both in the weight room and in drills at practice. It is a skill that must be acquired and applied directly to the sport skill.

The hip hinge can first be taught in the weight room via exercises such as a Romanian deadlift, single leg Romanian deadlift, and Bulgarian split squat variations. Even though the RDL is executed with a bilateral stance, it is the primary means of teaching the hinge due to its higher base of stability. Single leg variations can be progressed and taught by first adding external means of stability by simply using the off-hand to balance on a stable object. Keep in mind that the principle of progressive overload is key to gaining strength in these positions.

Keep in mind that the principle of progressive overload is key to gaining strength in these positions, says clh_strength. Share on X

The next ability is relative hip internal rotation. I am referencing the way that the acetabulum moves along a stable femur. This occurs at front-foot strike of the hitting and pitching sequence.

If a player does not have the capacity to access this position, much less create stability in it, it will be difficult to express power. This requires the ability to create dynamic stability in high force environments such as the swing or the throw (more on this later).

The third ability is to be able to block the lead leg (pictured in figure 3). This is an essential part of the throw/swing that allows for energy transfer from the ground, up the kinetic chain, and into the hands and bat/ball. A common issue for young and weak baseball players is the inability to handle the eccentric and isometric force being placed upon that front leg. Some of the issues come from timing the lead leg block, but a large majority of the problems come from weakness.

A common issue for young and weak baseball players is the inability to handle the eccentric and isometric force being placed upon that front leg, says @clh_strength. Share on X

To assess why some of your athletes are lacking power, the first step is to video them performing their sport and discuss with the sport coaching staff how to break that down. If we do not care to explore this important step, we will likely be spraying blind bullets in training.

Now, let’s explore solutions and strategies to address the common mishaps in throwing and hitting.

Strategy #1: Offset Training with Unilateral Work

This strategy includes training with load on only one side of the body. This is a simple strategy to create lateral stability, which is often lacking in young baseball players. When we place the load on one side of the body—often with a dumbbell, kettlebell, or landmine—the dynamic stability stimulus is increased. There are two ways to place the load unilaterally, either contralateral (load placed opposite of front foot) or ipsilateral (load placed on same side of front foot).

When we place the load on one side of the body—often with a dumbbell, kettlebell, or landmine—the dynamic stability stimulus is increased, says @clh_strength. Share on X

Contralateral loading will suggest internal rotation of the hip in exercises such as split squats, lunges, and single leg hip hinge exercises. Due to the load being on the opposite side and more in line with gait mechanics, the load is going to lend itself to relative internal rotation of the opposite hip. Just like when we walk, after our foot strikes the ground, the hip will internally rotate during the next swing due to the direction of forces. We want to purposefully load into that hip. Ipsilateral loading will suggest resisting rotation.

This placement goes against the forces similar in gait mechanics and will train the body to remain in specific positions while resisting the lateral forces from the load. Varying the loads, tempos, and ranges of motion will lead to increased stability and force capabilities in the similar positions that are needed on the mound or in the batter’s box. The application of these are dependent on the stimulus you are looking to apply that makes the most sense for your athletes. Generally, it is wise to include some of all variations at some point of the training plan.

Strategy #2: Heavy Single Leg Strength Training

Some of the problems young baseball players face derive from a general weakness or force deficit. Kids need to get strong! The proper application of strength is what needs the most direction to get the greatest return on investment. I believe that a large portion of strength training needs to take place outside of a bilateral, side-by-side stance. This is due to the more specific application of force in the environment that baseball is played in. This does not dismiss bilateral force production strategies of training such as deadlifting or squatting—these are staples in general strength training—but force production training should not be limited to deadlifting and squatting.

Force production training should not be limited to deadlifting and squatting, says @clh@strength. Share on X

There should be a unilateral presence of training that includes split squat variations, lunge variations, and step up variations. Varying the loads and tempos in a progressive overload fashion will yield the best results for single leg training. One of the best tools for training heavy in a split stance is a safety squat bar. This specialty bar allows for heavy loading without placing the shoulders in unwanted ranges of motion. It is worth the investment for your program.

Strategy #3: Medicine Ball Work, Plyometrics, and Sprint Training

Lastly, the missing ingredient for power development for baseball players is training to produce force quickly outside of throwing a baseball. This is done through medicine ball throws, plyometrics, and sprint training. Think of these strategies as the speed end of the spectrum that strength training does not give us. We must use these methods to our advantage to speed up the ability to produce force quickly.

Medicine ball training is great for rotational power. There are two major mistakes that coaches make when implementing medicine ball training: picking too heavy of loads and focusing on the speed of the ball. First, loads that are too heavy move too slow to train the rate of force being produced. For high school baseball players, I often see this happen around 10-12 pounds—the sweet spot is 4-8 pounds for most HS athletes. This also helps the athlete maintain technique that will transfer to the skill of sport. Yes, intent is necessary for power, but technique must also be stressed when training. For example, when executing a shotput throw, if completely focused on how hard the ball is thrown with the arms, rather than the hips, then the adaptation is placed in the wrong place. This can be misleading due to the sound of the “pop” on the wall from what seems to be a harder throw.

There are two major mistakes that coaches make when implementing medicine ball training: picking too heavy of loads and focusing on the speed of the ball, says @clh_strength. Share on X

Plyometrics are a great way to learn to produce force quickly. Even though they are not “plyometric” in nature, I also include jumps that require high efforts to overcome inertia in this category. Some of these exercises include both vertical and horizontal displacement by using two legs and one. By training in plyometric environments, the body will learn how to handle and redirect large amounts of force quickly, similar to what is experienced in a throw or swing.

The stimulus that comes from sprinting is the one stimulus that cannot be reproduced anywhere else in training. No other exercise can reproduce the speeds and magnitude of force that sprinting creates. Some may believe it to be silly for pitchers to sprint, but it is not for them to get “faster” per se, but to be used as a force production stimulus. A good rule for sprinting is to make sure it is at maximum speed/intent and for every 10 yards run, there needs to be 45 seconds to 1 minute of rest between bouts. If pitchers lack proper mechanics to run, keep runs under 30 yards to minimize hamstring strain risk.

This article is simply a guide to understanding how to train baseball athletes for power. Remember to always implement training that you can coach and execute at a high level.

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