• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
SimpliFaster

SimpliFaster

cart

Top Header Element

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Login
  • cartCart
  • (925) 461-5990
  • Shop
  • Request a Quote
  • Blog
  • Buyer’s Guide
  • Freelap Friday Five
  • Podcast
  • Job Board
    • Candidate
    • Employer
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
You are here: Home / Blog

Blog

Sprint Training Acceleration

Viewing Training Through A Healthcare Lens

Blog| ByBrendan Thompson

Sprint Training Acceleration

Over the past several months, while researching different methods and systems for training, I’ve often landed on a home page explaining the ABCs of a given program. This would usually include a few action photos, a couple of catchy one liners, and some video examples: sprinting, jumping, lifting, and perhaps other standalone drills performed as part of a warm up or plyometric circuit.

Reading the comments and feedback from the consumers, I can tell that many of them are more enamored with the presentation and polarity of the program rather than the quality of the content. In other words, wrapping a philosophy up with a bow might make it look and sound great, but is it really doing what it claims? Additionally, does a philosophy holistically develop the athlete from the standpoints of speed, strength, agility, power, aerobic fitness, resilience, and technique? Or does it intentionally leave out certain aspects to pursue others ad nauseum? Are those aspects pursued at the potential risk of the athlete’s health and wellbeing? Are the right performance attributes being prioritized? How does each aspect in a given philosophy contribute or take away from performance?

These are a few of the questions in my mind when assessing any philosophy, whether in S&C, track and field, team sport development, academic study, or practical research—questions I don’t believe are thoroughly thought about nor addressed with enough intention.

Perfect Form for Lifts, but Not Sprints?

I currently run and operate a lone wolf, physical therapy clinic (one year) and athletic performance program (four years). When I am consuming information, working with physical therapy patients, or building programs, I often find myself switching and combining my roles and skillsets to help develop a more holistic picture of what is going on. Recently, most of the commotion on social media is generated around arbitrary outputs, whether it is lifting for max bar speed, max weight achieved, max sprint velocity, max effort, the list goes on.

In the presence of all of this max output, I find consistently that there’s rarely an emphasis on max technique, max finesse, max fitness, max resilience, or max strategic execution (outside of the weight room). Additionally, everyone is all about increasing speed reserve, but what about skill reserve? When I watch the videos, I am often in awe at how athletes at various levels can stay healthy while performing these exercises with blatant lapses in technique and posture, particularly in sprinting.

In the presence of all of this max output, I find consistently that there’s rarely an emphasis on max technique, max finesse, max fitness, max resilience, or max strategic execution. Share on X

I believe maximally performing sprints in this fashion creates ticking time bombs for various athletes in the form of injured hamstrings, shins, hip flexors, quads, feet, etc. Just as caution is demonstrated when overloading athletes in the weight room, I think it’s generally a good idea to allow technique to determine how often we push the limits in sprinting and other field-oriented activities (agility, deceleration, multi jumps, etc.) rather than forcing the output and hoping for the best.

This obsession with max outputs seems to have led many to forget that technique is often the limiting factor and that by solving the technical issue, the ceiling can be raised further in training density and in outputs. Ironing out the technical issues takes a skilled coaching eye and patience, as I’ve outlined in previous articles. In addition to identifying the technical flaw, the coach has to link it to injury risk so that they can make informed decisions with that athlete moving forward.

For example, when having an athlete squat in the weight room, most coaches would never have them put a bar on their back and ask them to max out if they have poor form. Why? Poor form shifts the concentration of stresses away from the desired muscles and towards more vulnerable muscles that aren’t ideal for bearing the brunt of the load in that given movement. Many coaches understand that this makes the athlete unnecessarily susceptible to injury and thus are typically on form patrol to ensure that doesn’t happen.

This obsession with max outputs seems to have led many to forget that technique is often the limiting factor, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

Acceptable form? Increase the weight. Sketchy form? Lower the weight. This concept is seemingly universally accepted and applied in the strength and conditioning community, most notably in the weight room. If the best ability is availability, why is sprinting treated differently?

Asking the Right Questions to Create Better Outcomes

When approaching training strictly from a performance standpoint, I often find myself watching and rewatching videos while looking for a set of qualities in the athlete or team, including:

  • Intent
  • Movement economy
  • Subjective strain
  • Other aspects of technique and execution

Along these lines, I start thinking about what I might change or reinforce. How might I cue them? What deficits do I see? What drills and other tasks might I give them to shift them to a better place on the mechanical spectrum?

These questions then begin to open up my physical therapy line of questioning. In the absence of a technical fix, what soft tissue structures are most likely vulnerable? What muscles are dominating this action and what tests might I perform to see if I’m right or wrong? Where are the major stresses occurring and why? Is there a reason for this compensatory pattern? What might my three biggest focuses be when building a preventative and corrective program for this athlete and why?

This is the type of internal dialogue I’m constantly having with myself to guide decision-making. It creates a cycle of using my physical therapy tools to help me design a performance program, while my performance tools often return the favor in helping me design a physical therapy program. Athletes are not simply performance machines where all that goes into performance is arbitrary output. Rather, they are a complex integration of psychology, biology, kinesiology, and other core sciences that make up the individual. Being complex organisms doesn’t mean that we have to expose the body to complex inputs, but rather simple inputs with strategic implementation that go well beyond being an arbitrary stimulus.

Athletes are not simply performance machines where all that goes into performance is arbitrary output. Share on X

Compare and Contrast: Sprinting vs Lifting

There is obviously a large difference between overloading a bar for a relatively unnatural movement sequence compared to maximally moving your own body weight in a rhythmic sprinting motion. A max squat and a max sprint only last a few seconds each, followed by substantial rest. Sprinting is a much more natural, (sometimes referred to as reflexive) motion than squatting and thus less likely to have the same magnitude of deficits as you may see in a squat.

Athletes have been running since their body allowed them to in early childhood development and the body has a way of self-organizing movement around its unique structure and function to get the task done. A coach can maximally sprint many in the general population without much risk, it just might not be fast. This is the side of the argument that says max sprinting is generally safer than max squatting, and I do agree that there is some validity to all of these points.

Let me paint a different picture, one that some may not consider when comparing the stimuli. Max weight room testing tends to be between 1 and 5 reps at a given weight (1RM, 3RM, 5RM,etc.), whereas a max sprint may be anywhere from 20-60+ reps (each foot strike is a maximal rep). In a typical sprint workout, you may accumulate that same amount of steps 4-10+ times. So overall, you’re accumulating 100s more maximal reps in repeated sprinting than in a max weight room test.

To take this a step further, a sound lifting program is maxing out 1-3 days per month at most. The majority of structured lifting occurs at submaximal loads, with max day being the reward for the athletes after a tough block of training. Maximal sprints are performed several times, sometimes 2 to 4 days per week. Over the course of the month, the athletes have performed anywhere from 8 to 16 days of maximal effort sprinting. This means the athlete has accumulated 1000s more maximal reps (remember each step is a max effort motion) worth of sprint work compared to maximal lifting.

Now we can consider velocity. The bar speed during max testing is likely <0.5m/s, whereas the center of mass may be moving between 7-11m/s during a maximal sprint. For perspective, that sprint velocity is at least 14-22x faster than the bar speed expressed during max testing. Additionally, each step of a sprint may create ground reaction forces up to 5x the athlete’s bodyweight. While a max lift may have similar ground reaction forces, the discrepancy of 1-5 reps compared to several sets of 20-60 reps (steps) for sprinting shows that the cumulative stresses the body endures with sprinting over a session will far exceed that of a typical max lifting session.

Each step of a sprint may create ground reaction forces up to 5x the athlete’s bodyweight, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

When thinking about overload and wear and tear, is the athlete more likely to sustain an injury pushing their body to the limit in weights during max week once every month or two, or during regularly programmed max effort sprints that they do all the time? How does technique amplify or minimize this?

This isn’t to say don’t sprint or that either exercise is superior to one another; it is more to conceptualize that max sprinting potentially induces far more stresses to the body than max lifting and that if coaches are wary of max lifting when someone has bad form, they should be equally or more cautious with max sprinting someone with hazardous technique too frequently.

The Concept of Skill Reserve

As mentioned before, speed reserve is often pursued endlessly along with a variety of other max outputs, sometimes at the expense of the skill that goes into those outputs. Speed reserve is the idea that the faster an athlete is at max output, the faster that athlete will be when operating in a submax capacity or under fatigue. It will be easier for them to achieve, carry, and repeat higher submaximal speeds than their slower counterparts.

Now I’ll spin this into a related concept that we will call skill reserve, efficiency reserve, technical reserve, etc. The more skilled, efficient, or technical somebody is when operating at max capacity, the more skilled, efficient, or technical they will be when operating in a submax capacity and under fatigue. This concept can be applied in a multitude of ways across sports, work, life, and other tasks.

Every sprint is an opportunity to build efficiency, coordination, power, relaxation, finesse, rhythm, and more. This is what makes sprinting potent. It is not the simple fact that the outputs produced are difficult to match anywhere else; more so, it is the combination of attributes and energy systems working together in synchrony that stress the body in a variety of ways that very few exercises can (if any).

Every sprint is an opportunity to build efficiency, coordination, power, relaxation, finesse, rhythm, and more. Share on X

As a workout wears on, the body must also learn how to operate under fatigue to maintain a level of proficiency to complete the task. If a fresh athlete has poor mechanics and an associated higher mechanical susceptibility to injury, that same athlete—when operating under fatigue—will multiply that risk by some factor as their mechanics exponentially deteriorate with each additional rep.

The body actively copes with the stresses induced on it during a workout and will compensate accordingly. If the task at hand is to get from A to B as fast as possible and the body is nearing a breaking point, it will sacrifice coordination and rhythm in the name of speed to achieve this goal. To see this in action, look no further than the final 100m of the 400m dash or 400m hurdles; watch the last 200m of the 800m or the final lap of the mile. The athletes that break down the most also tend to decelerate the most, oftentimes costing them a spot in the final or a medal on the podium.

In the context of team sports, as fatigue sets in with an athlete, watch how sloppy their quality of play becomes. Uncharacteristic turnovers, bad throws, poor shooting, giving up plays they typically wouldn’t—the more flawed a given skill is when fresh, the more that skill will deteriorate under fatigue.

In contrast, the most skilled athletes when fresh will still be operating at a technical level head and shoulders above their opponents and peers when working under fatigue. Watch a local high school conference championship and compare the 8th place runner with the first place runner in how they look when battling throughout the race. Next, compare that experience to watching Olympians battle it out where the skill discrepancy is far less than at the high school level.

There’s a certain grace to elite performance that is often overshadowed by their brilliant performances and otherworldly outputs. Unless an athlete is at a certain standard of excellence already, it is extremely difficult to work on the skilled aspects of performance when operating in top gear all the time. It takes skill to demonstrate grace while operating at maximal outputs, and ultimately this balance is what leads many to expressing their optimal performance when it matters: competition.

There’s a certain grace to elite performance that is often overshadowed by their brilliant performances and otherworldly outputs, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

To add to the concept of skill reserve, it is helpful to revisit the idea of how fatigue impacts performance. While two athletes may have identical skill levels, the athlete who is more resilient to that fatigue will ultimately express that skill competency much longer than the athlete who is susceptible to fatigue and breakdown. Additionally, when comparing two athletes, an athlete with greater skill may outperform an athlete with lesser skill for a period of time.

But if the more skilled athlete has a susceptibility to fatigue that the athlete with lesser skill doesn’t, the skilled athlete may eventually perform worse than the less skilled athlete as a game or competition wears on. This is why it’s generally good to train holistically, as it addresses every aspect of the game rather than a select few attributes that may only last for a short period of time.

Applying Skill Reserve to a Training Program

To bring things full circle now and apply this concept to sprinting, it’s helpful to revisit the weight room equivalent. When developing form, technique, and precision for someone in the weight room, is it best to practice with max or submax loads? In other words, is the athlete operating near their max when working on technique, or with a weight that is manageable that they feel they have good control over?

The answer here is simple: the manageable weight. As the athlete demonstrates mastery at said weight, they’re allowed to graduate to the next weight to continue challenging their body under harsher conditions. Once they’ve demonstrated a level of competency that seems to prove to you that their form will only falter when they’ve encountered a weight that is too heavy, it becomes easier for a coach to allow them to test the waters of where their current ceiling may be because it is not as big of a perceived risk as it was before.

Applying this type of progression to sprinting is difficult. Athletes demonstrate different mechanics at submaximal and maximal speeds that don’t seem to mirror each other as much as might be preferred. An athlete may look like they’re jogging during tempo and like they’re fighting for their life when going all out. With sprinting, I tend to take a reverse approach to the weight room squatting example. Rather than starting them off jogging and whatever else, I want to get an idea of what they look like when they sprint first and go from there. Does it appear forced? Rushed? Weak? Exaggerated? Awkward? Hazardous?

Athletes demonstrate different mechanics at submaximal and maximal speeds that don’t seem to mirror each other as much as might be preferred. Share on X

After a quick video assessment, I’m able to see what their immediate needs are and correct them with cues. The athlete then takes these cues and does another max sprint (or several). If they appear to be struggling with the changes at max effort, it is time for submax reps for practice. Take the timer away, take the arbitrary distances away, and let them experiment with the cues where they feel most comfortable and have a sense of control.

Repetition for these athletes will be their best friend in making meaningful changes. As a coach, it is important to problem-solve to find a way for the cues to click for them. This can be achieved by exposing the athletes to a wide variety of feedback, constructive drills, and positive reinforcement. Once an athlete has reached this point, I spend a large portion of time addressing these factors each session and then periodically letting them test the waters with what they’ve learned. I dial the sprinting back for the same reason we start athletes with lighter weights in the weight room: they need to be under control to make necessary adjustments.

I dial the sprinting back for the same reason we start athletes with lighter weights in the weight room: they need to be under control to make necessary adjustments, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

Patients that exhibit movement faults in my clinic don’t tend to respond well when the exercise is graded too high. Take, for example, a patient with a hip drop and the posterior gluteus medius not doing its job during the gait cycle. If I start them on a difficult exercise that exceeds their capacity for controlling the hip drop, the likelihood of that particular exercise improving the gait fault is slim to none.

So, it’s necessary to grade down to the nearest level where they demonstrate control, but still challenge them. As they demonstrate competency in the exercises or tasks I’ve given them, they can dip their toes in the water of more demanding tasks for better carryover and eventually conscious manipulation of the task I am trying to correct—in this case focused gait training with typical circumstances (variable surfaces, variable grades, distractions, stairs, differing speeds, etc.).

I look at sprinting and other training the same way. If I see faults at X-intensity that the athlete can’t consciously correct, the likelihood I can make meaningful mechanical changes at that intensity is low. Grading that level of sprinting down to a lesser intensity and searching for the sweet spot of controlled yet challenging will yield greater benefits to the athlete from a technical standpoint. In similar fashion, as they demonstrate some competency, it’s great to graduate the athlete to the next level or allow them to experiment with their new skills at max output to see if the carryover is there. If it is, awesome! If not, it’s my job to figure out why and what I can do about it.

Training is one big experiment with each athlete I encounter: finding what works for whom, when to implement it, and to what degree while continuing to assess strengths, weaknesses, and how I can continue to holistically build the athlete throughout.

Training is one big experiment with each athlete I encounter, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

Submax, Tempo, and Technical Mastery

I know up to this point it probably seems like I am against max sprinting but I most definitely am not. As a high level sprinter who has been exposed to long, slow training and short, fast training, I know there is a balance that must be struck to achieve optimal results. Too long and too slow builds the aerobic system more and won’t develop fast twitch fibers to the degree they need to reach the speed ceiling.

Conversely, too much short, fast training will yield a very explosive athlete who may not have the gas tank to repeat performance or even sustain a highly technical performance for a single repetition. Breakdown may happen prematurely, and as mentioned earlier, technique decay increases injury susceptibility, especially at maximal outputs.

Technique decay increases injury susceptibility, especially at maximal outputs, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

I am a big fan of maximal sprinting and a big fan of technical training, whether through tempo, drills, or submaximal sprinting. Many of you may be reading this and thinking submax sprinting and tempo are the same thing. By definition, submax just means anything under an all-out effort, so yes, tempo is technically submax sprinting—but I differentiate the two.

I look at submax sprinting as dialing the thermostat back from 100, to 99, 98, 97, etc. until I find the point at which the athlete can still run extremely fast while sustaining control. It looks and feels like a sprint, but without operating with the pedal to the metal. Conversely, tempo is a much slower, controlled, rhythmic type of run that helps the athlete learn how much effort they need to give to hit x pace, minimizing strain, and maximizing repetitions. Athletes that display control with tempo and submax sprinting tend to show some level of carryover in their skill mastery when resuming max sprinting.

The transitory period between submax technical improvements and testing the waters in max sprint carryover varies from athlete to athlete. Some athletes may catch on fast and be ready to implement relatively quickly, others may take more time before seeing meaningful changes made in that domain. Athletes will progress at their own pace, with a tendency for novice athletes to take a bit longer than those with a higher training age and maturity. Additionally, athletes that have gone through a significant growth spurt recently will have difficulty developing that coordination in a timely manner, as their body must reform connections to catch up with its recent changes.

Athletes will progress at their own pace, with a tendency for novice athletes to take a bit longer than those with a higher training age and maturity. Share on X

Technical changes that need immediate intervention tend to stand out in a bad way on video. A short list might include:

  • Wild arm swing
  • Excessive trunk rotation
  • Lack of postural awareness
  • Degree and progression of body lean
  • Heel recovery
  • Foot strike
  • Hip and knee mechanics
  • Head control

Some reasons for fixing these items include:

  • Energy leakage
  • Efficiency
  • Power outputs
  • Excessive stress to soft tissues
  • Poor timing and sequencing
  • Excessive braking
  • Insufficient propulsion
  • Other factors that may lead to suboptimal performance and injury

Excessive casting of the knee in a sprint places the hamstring in a lengthened position and typically the most vulnerable position. Now imagine an athlete does this habitually over 1000s of steps over a training period. This is where the ticking time bomb I referenced earlier tends to come into play in the form of a hamstring tweak, pull, tear, tendinopathy, tendonitis, etc. The injured athlete must then go to their primary care provider, athletic trainer, physical therapist, and/or other supporting staff to help remedy the situation through rehab, training modifications, and other means.

In the absence of a meaningful technical change, the athlete will go back to sprinting the same way they did before and the likelihood of another injury to the same tissue is greatly increased. The process is likely to repeat itself again and again. If you do what you’ve done, you get what you’ve got.

If you do what you’ve done, you get what you’ve got, says @BrendanThompsn. Share on X

This is one of many examples to illustrate the cumulative stresses of sprinting and the cost of poor technique. It’s not to say that sprinting is inherently dangerous and needs to be avoided, it is more so to say that in the absence of technical coaching, a sprinter with poor technique may underperform, increase their risk of injury, and subsequently, battling that injury over time will lead to chronically underperforming and further injuries.

My career progression is a great example of this as my high school peak was 10.98s 100m and 22.41s 200m my senior year, which wasn’t much better than what I ran as a freshman in high school (11.12s/22.83s). I trained, but I never understood there was strategy in racing, value in technique, or levels to performance. I just went for it every single day and only ever knew one gear: GO.

After entering college, I shaved time consistently each season, eventually achieving 10.57s/21.18s, a sub-21.0s time trial in practice, a 46.2s 400m split, and a 9.4s split on an All-American 4x100m that ran 39.12s at the NCAA Division I Outdoor Championships. With the help of coach Joey Woody, I was able to mature as an athlete and really understand how to apply the skill that allowed me to progress the way I did. This led me to eventually have the most healthy and prosperous season of my career.

I’m a sample size of n=1, but I’ve personally witnessed athletes all over the country follow similar progressions. Learning sprint technique was career defining for me and it took me really dedicating myself to learning the art of sprinting to finally have my moment in track and field.

Taking it to the Track

In summary, the current state of training is heavily focused around arbitrary max outputs, particularly in sprinting, without the appropriate technical focus needed to balance and hone those max outputs. I have found success in sprinting 2 to 3 days per week for advanced sprinters, but the largest improvements I’ve seen in performance have been through technical training and changing the speed demands of sessions to balance output with requisite posture and technique. Being willing to take the time to identify technical faults and iron them out has been one of the hardest, yet most fulfilling changes I’ve made to my program. It should not be beneath someone to slow things down to work on these alterations.

Lessening the loads in the weight room to refine technique and control is intuitive, and sprinting is no different. A submax sprint, tempo running, or other methods for instilling technique have been some of my most fruitful uses of time to complement the output aspect of training. Going 90-95%, while less physically demanding, is extremely demanding from a technical perspective. The cognitive demand during the task makes the submaximal efforts more demanding because it is working against the athlete’s natural tendencies, requiring total concentration throughout.

Taking the time to experiment with different cues, drills, and demonstrations to help my athletes understand what they’re doing and what is expected has helped them piece together better tendencies and many eventually have massive breakthroughs in their performances, all while staying healthier along the way.

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


Sensorimotor ACL

Sensorimotor Contributions to ACL Injury

Blog| ByJason Avedesian

Sensorimotor ACL

ACL injuries receive a tremendous amount of attention at all levels of sport, and for good reason. It is estimated that 250,000 ACL injuries occur annually in the United States, representing approximately $2 billion in medical and rehabilitation costs.1 Many of these injuries occur in competitive athletes, with females demonstrating a particularly high risk for ACL injury in field- or court-based sports (e.g., soccer, lacrosse, basketball). The occurrence of a single ACL injury may result in many future complications, including reduced activity levels, cessation of sport participation, and a high risk for future ACL injuries.2

So, what do we currently know about ACL injury?

Without rehashing too much of a previous post on ACL mitigation strategies, most of the research and clinical practice has focused on biomechanical- and neuromuscular-based interventions. While these programs have been demonstrated to be successful3, the rates of ACL injuries are actually climbing in adolescents4 and remaining somewhat steady in professional athletes (figure 1).5

NFL ACL Data
Figure 1. NFL ACL and MCL injury data (5).

In this blog post, I share what we currently know about the sensorimotor contributions to ACL injury risk, as well as how we can utilize technology- and field-based training strategies to improve sensorimotor performance in our athletes.

*Author’s note: I define sensorimotor performance as the integration between perceptual sensory input (e.g., vision, hearing, touch) and biomechanical movement output (e.g., running, jumping, cutting, decelerating). There are varying definitions, but for the sake of clarity, this is my working definition for the remainder of the post.

A New View of ACL Injuries?

As you may know, many individuals—myself included—have devoted entire careers to understanding ACL injuries and strategies to mitigate this injury risk. My doctoral research examined the relationship between sports-related concussion and lower extremity/ACL injury risk in adolescent and collegiate athletes. With concussive injuries being classically defined by a temporarily altered sensorimotor state, I started to wonder how these attributes contributed to ACL injury (outside of athletes with a recent or past concussion history).

Previous research has identified biomechanical and neuromuscular contributors to ACL injury risk (dynamic knee valgus, quadriceps-to-hamstring strength ratio).6 However, this is not necessarily conclusive in all athlete populations.7,8 While it is outside the scope of this article to discuss the extreme complexity of ACL injury, my current research has led me to believe that perhaps we are somewhat ignoring another important contributor to ACL injury…the brain!

My current research has led me to believe that perhaps we are somewhat ignoring another important contributor to ACL injury—the brain, says @JasonAvedesian. Share on X

Ultimately, the central nervous system (we can generally think of this as the brain and spinal cord) is the central driver of biomechanical and neuromuscular control. Before getting into the actual research, I want to take you along a theoretical approach to how the brain and sensorimotor performance may contribute to ACL injury.

Adding the Brain and Sensorimotor Performance to the ACL Injury Risk Equation

Let’s first give some thought to the actual complexity of a dynamic sporting environment. Take, for example, a collegiate midfield soccer athlete performing in a very intense match. Some of the key sensorimotor attributes to successful performance and staying injury-free may include:

  1. Working memory and pattern recognition – Remembering and recognizing the opposition’s defensive scheme when in a certain position on the field.
  2. Dual-tasking – Receiving the ball from their teammate while scanning the field.
  3. Visual attention and multiple object tracking – Spatial recognition of the changing position of teammates and opponents.
  4. Reaction time and processing speed – Avoiding oncoming defenders.

All of this must be completed within hundreds of milliseconds! When viewed from this perspective, we truly take for granted the complexity of sporting environments (and how athletes can make their performances in them look rather “effortless”). Any movement performed on the field requires a complex interaction between the environment and athlete (we can think of this as sensorimotor integration).

Basically, any interaction an athlete makes with their environment is based upon three general concepts: the nature of the information, the complexity of the action to be performed, and the number of available response options (figure 2). Regardless of the task, movement behavior is a constantly evolving process constrained by time, space, and decisions (figure 2).

Athlete Environment
Figure 2. The complex interaction between the athlete and their environment.

What Does the Current Research Tell Us?

Much like examining movement biomechanics and muscular activity patterns, what if we could determine how an athlete’s central nervous system is performing? Luckily, researchers have initiated these studies in the hopes of quantifying sensorimotor performance as it relates to ACL injury risk. In this section, I will highlight some studies that have been conducted, along with areas for future research and sports science directions.

One of the first studies on the relationship between sensorimotor performance and ACL injury risk was conducted by Swanik and colleagues all the way back in 2007.9 In this study, the researchers collected preseason performance on a common concussion assessment (ImPACT) and then longitudinally tracked non-contact ACL injuries in a group of collegiate athletes. Compared to athletes of the same sport and position, athletes who sustained an in-season, non-contact ACL injury performed worse on all measures of the assessments, including reaction time, processing speed, and working memory.9

Follow-up studies in collegiate football athletes have demonstrated an association between worse visuo-motor reaction time and greater risk for non-contact lower extremity injury.10,11 A recent investigation from one of my colleagues (Dr. April McPherson of the USOPC) determined that individuals post-concussion are at a 1.6x greater odds for an ACL injury compared to those without a concussive injury history.12 Hot off the press last month, researchers determined that female lacrosse athletes are at a fivefold increased risk for ACL injury up to one year post-concussion.13

New-Figure 3
Figure 3. Relationship between visual-spatial performance and lower extremity injury in adolescent athletes.
Compared to more established biomechanical & neuromuscular data, quantifying the influence of sensorimotor performance on ACL injury risk is relatively lacking and still very much in its infancy. Share on X

Compared to more established biomechanical and neuromuscular data, quantifying the influence of sensorimotor performance on ACL injury risk is relatively lacking and still very much in its infancy. From what we do know so far, however, there are three brain areas that may be most influential to sensorimotor performance and, in turn, risk for ACL injury.

  1. Prefrontal cortex – Responsible for many roles, including information processing/filtering, executive function, and working memory performance.
  2. Thalamus – Acts as a relay of motor and sensory signals to the cerebral cortex for higher-level processing.
  3. Lingual gyrus – Responsible for visual perception and recognition of complex vision information.
Brain Regions
Figure 4. Brain regions that may be most influential to ACL injury risk.

My overall conclusion of the sensorimotor research to date is that athletes with relative deficits in sensorimotor performance may be more susceptible to ACL and lower extremity injuries during conditions of increased arousal (i.e., a sporting environment). While certainly more research is required (and there’s a lot of exciting work coming down the pipeline), we can at least begin to ask: how can we train the sensorimotor system?

Athletes with relative deficits in sensorimotor performance may be more susceptible to ACL and lower extremity injuries during conditions of increased arousal (i.e., a sporting environment. Share on X

Training the Sensorimotor System – Technological Advancements

Over the last decade, there have been some major advancements in “train the brain” technology. Devices and software such as sensory boards, reactionary light devices, stroboscopic eyewear, and virtual/augmented reality* attempt to target various sensorimotor performance attributes: visual spatial-attention and reaction time, working memory, pattern recognition, and multiple object tracking (figure 5). 

Sensorimotor Technology
Figure 5. Sensorimotor technology, including sensory boards (top left), stroboscopic eyewear (top right), and sports-specific virtual reality (bottom).

*Disclaimer: This blog post is not intended to be an endorsement of any one product. I am just sharing my personal experiences with these devices, along with some research-grade evidence to support their potential utility.

Before we decide to invest in new technology, let’s consider a recent paper from Hadlow and colleagues14 on the framework for utilizing sensorimotor technology (figure 6).

Sensorimotor
Figure 6. Conceptual framework for utilizing sensorimotor technologies (adopted from Hadlow, 2018 (14))

Based on the Hadlow model, there are three considerations when implementing new technology to train the sensorimotor system.

  1. Targeted Perceptual Function – The ability to discriminate between athletes of various skill levels (e.g., professional athletes should perform better than adolescent athletes).
  2. Stimulus Correspondence – Sensorimotor skill improvement should improve through targeted training (e.g., visual-spatial attention and processing speed should improve with stroboscopic eyewear training).
  3. Response Correspondence – Trained sensorimotor skills should translate to enhanced on-field performance and reduced injury risk.

Of these three factors, response correspondence is the least studied in the sports science literature. However, it offers plenty of opportunities for researchers and sports scientists to explore how current sensorimotor technology/training strategies influence performance and injury risk. In the next sections, I will take a deeper dive into a few of these sensorimotor technologies.

Sensory Board Technologies

Sensory board training devices have become a popular tool for assessing and training a variety of sensorimotor abilities. From a sports science standpoint, here are a few considerations to collect the most accurate data from these devices:

  1. Standardize the time of assessment – Sensorimotor performance can be affected by many internal and external stressors, including sleep quality15, anxiety levels16, fatigue17, and prior injury18. Therefore, longitudinal sensorimotor measures should be collected at the same time of day to minimize these effects. For example, it would not be ideal to collect a baseline preseason assessment at 6 a.m. and compare that to future assessments collected in the mid-afternoon during the season.
  2. Standardize board height and distance – Most existing sensory board technology is based upon upper extremity sensorimotor performance. During each assessment, athletes should be placed at standardized locations relative to their height and arm length to ensure accurate comparisons across time. This standardization will be helpful in minimizing effects on central and peripheral visual reaction time.
  3. Standardize attentional focus – This is the toughest standardization to implement without actual eye tracking technology. Devices such as Dynavision and Senaptec Sensory Station offer central fixation targets during certain sensorimotor assessments. It is important to instruct athletes to fixate on these targets, especially if the sports scientist or researcher is interested in collecting peripheral visual-spatial performance.

While sensory boards are a bit more costly than other sensorimotor technology, these devices can assess and train many important attributes such as eye-hand and eye-foot coordination, central and peripheral visual-spatial attention, multiple object tracking, working memory, and reaction time. Research indicates that worse performance on sensory boards is associated with greater risk for lower extremity injury in collegiate football athletes.19 Even if we do not have access to sensory board technologies, there are other options for assessing and training sensorimotor abilities.

Stroboscopic Eyewear

Stroboscopic technology within elite sport has been around for quite some time (check out this article dating back to MJ in his prime). Nowadays, the technology is very easy to use and implement within a sport and clinical setting (figure 7). The goal is to limit visual information by alternating between clear and opaque visual states while performing sport-specific activities. This technology may be particularly helpful for athletes who are over-reliant on vision (often the case in athletes during rehabilitation from lower extremity injury such as ACL20) by re-weighting sensory input to vestibular and somatosensory systems during dynamic postural control tasks.20

Stroboscopic Eyewear
Figure 7. Stroboscopic eyewear can be easily implemented within a sport or clinical setting.

There are several sensorimotor abilities that may be trained when using stroboscopic eyewear, including external attentional focus, visual-motor processing speed for enhanced visual efficiency, working memory, anticipatory trajectory estimation (e.g., ball flight, oncoming opponent), and transient visual attention.21,22 While this technology certainly requires more research and data, it appears that beneficial training effects may be seen in as little as three weeks.23

Virtual Reality

Sports-specific virtual reality (VR) is another up-and-coming technology that will begin to permeate through training environments. In one of my previous stops at the Emory Sports Performance and Research Center (in partnership with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital), the research team developed sports-specific scenarios integrated within biomechanical analysis to better understand ACL injury risk during more realistic conditions.

The utilization of VR for sensorimotor training comes with many potential benefits for practitioners and clinicians:

  1. VR offers fully immersive environments within clinical and/or laboratory settings for better replication of sports-specific demands.
  2. Practitioners gain the ability to simultaneous collect neuromuscular and biomechanical outcomes related to ACL injury risk during VR assessments.
  3. Similar to stroboscopic eyewear, utilizing VR may help an athlete transition from a predominately internal attentional focus to an external attentional focus during training.

Training the Sensorimotor System – Revisiting Technological Advancements

Overall, there are many emerging technologies that can be used to train the sensorimotor system. While the research and data still relatively lag clinical practice (spoiler: they usually do), there is certainly utility for all the previously discussed technologies. When revisiting the Hadlow framework14, it appears that stroboscopic eyewear and sports-specific VR may be the most effective devices for training, while sensory board technology may be best for standardized assessments and monitoring change over time (figure 8).

Stroboscopic eyewear & sports-specific VR may be the most effective devices for training, while sensory board technology may be best for standardized assessments and monitoring change over time. Share on X

To reiterate, much more sports science research is required on all these technologies, but I am confident that we will see much more of that over the next few years. My advice to clinicians and sports scientists looking to invest in sensorimotor technology: first determine how feasible it will be to implement within your athletes’ specific training environment. Once you decide that, you will be able to make the appropriate choice(s) that fit your needs.

Sensorimotor Tech Factors
Figure 8. Interacting factors for sensorimotor technology (adopted from Hadlow, 2018 (14)).

While we all love technology and the great strides it has made for training our athletes, we must all consider more “field-based” training strategies. In this next section, I will discuss how we can capitalize on agility training to develop sensorimotor abilities.

Agility vs. Change of Direction

Before diving too deep, I must first briefly discuss the differences between agility and change of direction (COD) training. While both have merit within a training model, it is important to distinguish between the two to target desired outcomes. As defined by Sheppard and Young (2006)24, agility is a rapid, whole-body movement in response to a stimulus, while COD is a rapid, whole-body movement that is pre-planned. Keep in mind, COD qualities are instrumental for agility performance. But when examining the two from a sensorimotor perspective, there are important differences:

  • Agility attributes – Anticipation, visual-spatial attention, pattern recognition, visuo-motor processing speed, and reaction time.
  • COD attributes – Technique, linear/horizontal speed, neuromuscular asymmetry, and eccentric and deceleration control.

The environment we place our athletes in may also be quite different when targeting agility versus COD attributes. Agility-based training is more random and chaotic (open-skill abilities), while COD training tends to be more controlled and pre-planned (closed-skill abilities). COD training is inherently stable, while agility situations present an unstable environment in which an athlete is under various demands/constraints from teammates and opponents, all while having to anticipate and make decisions under time and space constraints (see figure 2).

While all athletes can benefit from both styles of training, novice athletes or those in the early stages of injury rehabilitation should be initially placed in COD environments and then progressed to agility environments. The figure I created below provides a quick overview of the important aspects of agility and COD (figure 9).

Agility vs COD
Figure 9. Differences between agility and change of direction (COD).

Much like neuromuscular strength training, we can progress agility training to place greater sensorimotor demands on our athletes. Check out a previous blog post in which my colleague Corey Peterson (University of Minnesota) provides a great progression from COD training to agility training. There are near infinite possibilities with agility training.

Determine the sensorimotor demands placed on your athletes and mimic your training environment to better replicate those demands, says @JasonAvedesian. Share on X

The bottom line: determine the sensorimotor demands placed on your athletes and mimic your training environment to better replicate those demands.

Sensorimotor Considerations During Injury Rehab

Unfortunately, we will not be able to prevent all lower extremity/ACL injuries from occurring in sports. In the event of an ACL injury, we must be aware of the sensorimotor contributions during rehabilitation so that we can reduce the risk of future injury. As we know, ACL injury rehab can be very complex and may not follow precise timelines due to setbacks. In the sub-acute, acute, and even chronic stages of post-ACL injury, physiological responses such as pain, stiffness, and swelling may occur.25,26 This may lead to ruminating-type behaviors and psychological distress appearing in the form of anxiety, fear of reinjury, and decreased confidence to return to previous performance levels.27

We can think of this psychological response as simply stress that athletes must manage while returning from injury. High stress levels are associated with delayed reaction times28, reduced attention capacity29, and internal attentional focus30, all of which can be thought of as sensorimotor deficits (figure 10).

Aside from restoring neuromuscular and biomechanical performance capacities, we must consider the restoration of psychological and sensorimotor abilities during ACL injury rehab. The previously mentioned technologies are fantastic tools for these exact purposes, especially early in the rehab progression when athletes may not be able to get full “physical reps.”

Sensorimotor Concussion
Figure 10. The initial physiological response to ACL injury may lead to chronic deficits in sensorimotor performance.
Besides restoring neuromuscular and biomechanical performance capacities, we must consider the restoration of psychological & sensorimotor abilities during ACL injury rehab, says @JasonAvedesian. Share on X

*Author’s note: If you are interested in the actual brain neurophysiological response to an ACL injury, I would highly recommend checking out the work of my colleague Dr. Dustin Grooms at Ohio University. He has done tremendous work in this space and has been greatly influential on my current understanding of the sensorimotor contributions to ACL injury.

Relationship Between Concussion and ACL Injury

Much of my personal motivation on sensorimotor contributions to ACL injury came from my PhD studies at UNLV and Michigan State University. My dissertation research focused on how sports-related concussion and neurocognition influenced lower extremity biomechanics and injury risk in adolescent and collegiate athletes.31–34 Prior data has determined that athletes and military personnel are at approximately 2–3 times greater risk for lower extremity injury post-concussion (figure 11).35–39

As mentioned earlier, recent research indicates a specific relationship between concussion and ACL injury risk.12,13 Transient deficits in cognition and oculomotor performance are hallmark signs of a concussive injury, but researchers are beginning to think that more subtle sensorimotor deficits may still linger even after athletes have been cleared to return to sport. The previously discussed sensorimotor topics in this blog post can certainly apply (and perhaps be very effective) during the acute and chronic time periods post-concussion to mitigate future risk for lower extremity and ACL injuries.

Concussion ACL
Figure 11. Athletes are at a greater risk for lower extremity injuries post-concussion.

Concluding Thoughts – Future Opportunities to Reduce the Risk of ACL Injury

While we know quite a bit about ACL injuries from biomechanical and neuromuscular perspectives, we still have much to discover in terms of how sensorimotor performance contributes to ACL injury risk. With the research and information I have gathered at this stage in my career, here is my proposed pathway to ACL injury (figure 12):

  1. Cascading events that begin with decreased visual-spatial attention, delayed reaction time/processing speed, and/or reduced working memory.
  2. Perception-action mismatch between the athlete and surrounding environment (e.g., mistimed estimation of a defender’s trajectory toward the athlete).
  3. Delayed neuromuscular response (e.g., anticipatory quadriceps and hamstring response) that results in increased load on the knee joint during high-impact loading events.
  4. Increased risk for ACL injury.
ACL Risk Pathway
Figure 12. My working model of the sensorimotor contributions to ACL injury risk.

If you take one thing away from this entire blog post, I hope it is that we have a great opportunity to modify sensorimotor risk factors and incorporate sensorimotor training within previously established neuromuscular and biomechanical interventions to reduce the risk of ACL injury.

Header photo by Tony Quinn/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


References

1. Bates NA, McPherson AL, Rao M, Myer GD, and Hewett TE. “Characteristics of inpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and concomitant injuries.” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2016;24(9):2778-2786.

2. Paterno MV, Rauh MJ, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, and Hewett TE. “Incidence of contralateral and ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport.” Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2012;22(2):116-121. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e318246ef9e

3. Webster KE and Hewett TE. “Meta-analysis of meta-analyses of anterior cruciate ligament injury reduction training programs.” Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2018;36(10):2696-2708. doi:10.1002/jor.24043

4. Beck NA, Lawrence JTR, Nordin JD, DeFor TA, and Tompkins M. “ACL tears in school-aged children and adolescents over 20 years.” Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1877.

5. Injury Data Since 2015. NFL.com. Accessed August 7, 2021. https://www.nfl.com/playerhealthandsafety/health-and-wellness/injury-data/injury-data

6. Hewett TE, Myer GD, and Ford KR. “Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: Part 1, mechanisms and risk factors.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2006;34(2):299-311. doi:10.1177/0363546505284183

7. Cronström A, Creaby MW, and Ageberg E. “Do knee abduction kinematics and kinetics predict future anterior cruciate ligament injury risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2020;21(1):563. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03552-3

8. Krosshaug T, Steffen K, Kristianslund E, et al. “The Vertical Drop Jump Is a Poor Screening Test for ACL Injuries in Female Elite Soccer and Handball Players: A Prospective Cohort Study of 710 Athletes.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;44(4):874-883. doi:10.1177/0363546515625048

9. Swanik, Covassin T, Stearne DJ, and Schatz P. “The relationship between neurocognitive function and noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2007;35(6):943-948.

10. Wilkerson GB. “Neurocognitive reaction time predicts lower extremity sprains and strains.” International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training. 2012;17(6):4-9.

12. Wilkerson GB, Simpson KA, and Clark RA. “Assessment and training of visuomotor reaction time for football injury prevention.” Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2017;26(1):26-34.

13. McPherson AL, Shirley MB, Schilaty ND, Larson DR, and Hewett TE. “Effect of a Concussion on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk in a General Population.” Sports Medicine. 2020; 50(6):1203-1210.

14. Lutz RH, DeMoss DJ, Roebuck EH, Mason T, and Eiler BA. “Sport-Specific Increased Risk of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Following a Concussion in Collegiate Female Lacrosse.” Current Sports Medicine Reports. 2021;20(10):520-524. doi:10.1249/JSR.0000000000000839

15. Hadlow SM, Panchuk D, Mann DL, Portus MR, and Abernethy B. “Modified perceptual training in sport: A new classification framework.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2018;21(9):950-958. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.011

16. LaGoy AD, Ferrarelli F, Sinnott AM, Eagle SR, Johnson CD, and Connaboy C. “You Snooze, You Win? An Ecological Dynamics Framework Approach to Understanding the Relationships Between Sleep and Sensorimotor Performance in Sport.” Sleep Medicine Clinics. 2020;15(1):31-39. doi:10.1016/j.jsmc.2019.11.001

17. Nieuwenhuys A and Oudejans RRD. “Anxiety and perceptual-motor performance: toward an integrated model of concepts, mechanisms, and processes.” Psychological Research. 2012;76(6):747-759. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0384-x

18. Pageaux B and Lepers R. “The effects of mental fatigue on sport-related performance.” Progress in Brain Research. 2018;240:291-315. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.10.004

19. Busch A, Blasimann A, Mayer F, and Baur H. “Alterations in sensorimotor function after ACL reconstruction during active joint position sense testing. A systematic review.” PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253503. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253503

20. Grooms D, Appelbaum G, and Onate J. “Neuroplasticity following anterior cruciate ligament injury: a framework for visual-motor training approaches in rehabilitation.” Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2015;45(5):381-393. doi:10.2519/jospt.2015.5549

21. Kim KM, Kim JS, Oh J, and Grooms DR. “Stroboscopic Vision as a Dynamic Sensory Reweighting Alternative to the Sensory Organization Test.” Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2020;30(1):166-172. doi:10.1123/jsr.2019-0466

22. Appelbaum L and Erickson G. “Sports vision training: A review of the state-of-the-art in digital training techniques.” International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2016;11:1-30. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2016.1266376

23. Appelbum LG, Cain MS, Schroeder JE, Darling EF, and Mitroff SR. “Stroboscopic visual training improves information encoding in short-term memory.” Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. 2012;74(8):1681-1691. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0344-6

24. Shekar SU, Erickson GB, Horn F, Hayes JR, and Cooper S. “Efficacy of a Digital Sports Vision Training Program for Improving Visual Abilities in Collegiate Baseball and Softball Athletes.” Optometry and Vision Science. 2021;98(7):815-826. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001740

25. Sheppard JM and Young WB. “Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing.” Journal of Sports Science. 2006;24(9):919-932. doi:10.1080/02640410500457109

26. Filbay SR and Grindem H. “Evidence-based recommendations for the management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.” Best Practice & Research: Clinical Rheumatology. 2019;33(1):33-47. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2019.01.018

27. Wang B, Zhong JL, Xu XH, Shang J, Lin N, and Lu HD. “Incidence and risk factors in joint stiffness after Anterior Cruciate Ligament reconstruction.” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2020;15(1):175. doi:10.1186/s13018-020-01694-7

28. Meierbachtol A, Obermeier M, Yungtum W, at al. “Injury-Related Fears During the Return-to-Sport Phase of ACL Reconstruction Rehabilitation.” Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;8(3):2325967120909385. doi:10.1177/2325967120909385

29. Tomczyk CP, Shaver G, and Hunt TN. “Does Anxiety Affect Neuropsychological Assessment in College Athletes?” Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2020;29(2):238-242. doi:10.1123/jsr.2018-0123

30. Oudejans RRD, Kuijpers W, Kooijman CC, and Bakker FC. “Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or performance worries?” Anxiety Stress Coping. 2011;24(1):59-73. doi:10.1080/10615806.2010.481331

31. Mullen R, Faull A, Jones ES, and Kingston K. “Attentional Focus and Performance Anxiety: Effects on Simulated Race-Driving Performance and Heart Rate Variability.” Frontiers in Psychology. 2012;3:426. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00426

32. Avedesian JM, Covassin T, Baez S, Nash J, Nagelhout E, and Dufek JS. “Relationship Between Cognitive Performance and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: Implications for Sports-Related Concussion.” Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021;9(8): 23259671211032250. doi:10.1177/23259671211032246

33. Avedesian JM, Covassin T, and Dufek JS. “Landing biomechanics in adolescent athletes with and without a history of sports-related concussion.” Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2020;(Jul 31):1-6. doi:PMID:32736349

34. Avedesian JM, Covassin T, and Dufek JS. “The influence of sport-related concussion on lower extremity injury risk: A review of current return-to-play practices and clinical implications.” International Journal of Exercise Science. 2020;13(3):873-889.

35. Avedesian JM, Forbes W, Covassin T, Dufek JS. “Influence of Cognitive Performance on Musculoskeletal Injury Risk: A Systematic Review.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. Published online March 19, 2021: 363546521998081. doi:10.1177/0363546521998081

36. Brooks MA, Peterson K, Biese K, Sanfilippo J, Heiderscheit BC, and Bell DR. “Concussion Increases Odds of Sustaining a Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Injury After Return to Play Among Collegiate Athletes,” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;44(3):742-747.

37. Fino PC, Becker LN, Fino NF, Griesemer B, Goforth M, and Brolinson PG. “Effects of Recent Concussion and Injury History on Instantaneous Relative Risk of Lower Extremity Injury in Division I College Athletes.” Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;29(3):218-223.

38. Harada GK, Rugg CM, Arshi A, Vail J, and Hame SL. “Multiple Concussions Increase Odds and Rate of Lower Extremity Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletes After Return to Play.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;47(13):3256-3262.

39. Lynall RC, Mauntel TC, Pohlig RT, and al. “Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Injury Risk After Concussion Recovery in High School Athletes.” Journal of Athletic Training. 2017;52(11):1028-1034. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-52.11.22

40. McPherson AL, Nagai T, Webster KE, and Hewett TE. “Musculoskeletal injury risk after sport-related concussion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” American Journal of Sports Medicine.

Bigs Misconceptions

Misconceptions on Training Bigs in Basketball

Blog| ByJustin Ochoa

Bigs Misconceptions

The beauty of the strength and conditioning field is that it is still a relatively new industry. Auto mechanics can be traced back to the 1800s. Accountants can be traced back to the 1600s. School teachers can be traced back to the 1400s. Strength coaches? We didn’t officially even become a “real job” until the 1960s.

As the industry continues to grow and evolve, it’s certainly heading in the right direction—despite what you might scroll past on social media.

With this growth comes countless learning opportunities. Over the years, I’ve spent a ton of time working in the basketball community; specifically with extremely tall men and women. How I initially believed I should train these tall basketball players versus what I believe in now has drastically changed. Addressing these misconceptions—and the realities behind them—could help coaches continue to change the industry moving forward. So, here are some common misconceptions on training bigs in basketball.

Tall = Immobile

Right off the bat, myth numero uno is that tall equals immobile. Sure, height may come with some additional mobility challenges when you’re a 7-footer, but the potential for mobility and quality movement is always there.

The misconception that tall players automatically lack mobility often leads coaches to assume certain lifts will be hazardous for the athlete. In some instances, doing this takes away an opportunity for the athlete to actually train hard and get results.


Video 1. Here’s an example of a 7-footer performing a deficit reverse lunge, training through full range of motion and then some.

I am 100% in support of modifying to a regressed exercise to fit the needs of the athlete, but only when it truly is the most beneficial variation for the athlete. Telling a 7-footer not to squat deep to protect their knees—when they have the full range of motion and mobility needed to do so competently—is not a positive exercise modification in any way.


Video 2. In this example, a 6’9 athlete shows some incredible hip mobility and lateral control on display.

You could probably save a lot of time and say all bigs are going to half squat, deadlift from blocks, and bench press to boards and be right about 50% of the time. Or, you could meet the individual needs of each athlete, spend a little bit more time programming, and be right more like 90% of the time.

I’m going to recommend doing the latter! I think a lot of big athletes have outstanding mobility and we should train all available ranges of motion within reason.

I think a lot of big athletes have outstanding mobility and we should train all available ranges of motion within reason, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Thin = Weak

Many of these taller athletes are naturally thin and lean. They have long levers and sometimes it can be a challenge for them to keep weight on. A cop-out statement from a coach would be “I need him/her to get stronger!” simply because the athlete has a thin frame.

But is that really the case? Do they really need strength? Thin definitely doesn’t equal weakness. I think relative strength is a vital metric that can truly showcase just how strong some of these thin frames can be.

Many times, just comparing different athletes’ lifting numbers doesn’t give you a true apples-to-apples comparison. A 230-pound athlete should be able to—and is likely going to—lift significantly more than a 180-pound athlete. So, relative strength can come into play here to see who is strong for their frame.

Just comparing different athletes’ lifting numbers doesn’t give you a true apples-to-apples comparison, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X


Video 3. This particular athlete did indeed need to modify his deadlift variation for technique purposes, but still crushed a 425-lb trap bar deadlift at 6’11, 230lbs.

Relative strength refers to the amount of strength an athlete has compared to their bodyweight. This can be applied in weight lifting by monitoring if the athlete is hitting X amount of reps in an exercise loaded to the equivalent of their bodyweight, lifting their actual body weight with callisthenic exercises such as push-ups and pull-ups, or lifting X percent of their body weight for a one-rep max on a given lift.

To dive even deeper, we could consider power to bodyweight ratio in the same conversation. We use the 1080 Sprint to measure this using a 20m sprint at 1kg. We take the athlete’s peak power during that sprint (w) divided by the athlete’s bodyweight (kg) to get their power: bodyweight ratio. Typically, I would like to see this metric at 3.5 (w/kg) or higher.

In addition to those two factors, I think tall athletes have a valid claim for doing more total work. All other things considered equal—load, reps, and movement velocity—an athlete performing the exercise through more range of motion has a greater total workload.

The moral of the story is that we can’t discredit our bigs and blindly label them weak due to their appearance. Above are some ways to get a truer gauge on just how strong—or weak—they really are.

We can’t discredit our bigs and blindly label them weak due to their appearance, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Big = Slow

The last, and probably biggest, misconception of them all is that big equals slow. One of the most prevalent changes to the game of basketball is the evolution of the power forward and center positions.

What used to be hook shots and hanging out in the paint all game is now running the floor, jumping out of the gym, and being able to score from all three levels of the court.

We’re also in an era of pretty much position-less basketball. Look at the last 10 years of MVP award winners in the NBA. You’ll see guys like LeBron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kevin Durant, and Nikola Jokic. LeBron is the shortest of those 4 at 6’9, they’re all averaging nearly a triple double and playing all five positions at any given time during a game. The demands of the sport have changed, and the athletes have evolved with it.

The demands of basketball have changed, and the athletes have evolved with it, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

It’s the same in the WNBA. The past 5 WNBA MVP award winners—Jonquel Jones, A’ja Wilson, Elena Delle Donne, Breanna Stewart, and Sylvia Fowles—are all between 6’4 and 6’6 and can stretch the floor to bring a level of versatility never before seen in the league.

Sometimes a large athlete might appear slow, especially compared to smaller quick athletes, but one thing the bigger athletes have on their side is stride length on a relatively small playing surface.

Speed is often presented as distance divided by time. In this equation, and in this specific sport played in very close quarters, bigs can actually prove to be pretty fast with the right mix of athleticism, basketball IQ, and spacing on the floor.

All of this carries over to how we train. Again, we never want to take away an opportunity for the athlete to train hard, so training our big basketball players for speed is going to pay huge dividends for them on the court.


Video 4. This is a really solid rep by a 6’10 athlete, sprinting against 2.5% BW for 20m on the 1080 Sprint.

Of course, coaches can make speed programming decisions based on the demands of the position and sport, but let’s not forget that sometimes simply the neurological benefits of training at high velocities are going to give you the most bang for your buck.

Sometimes simply the neurological benefits of training at high velocities are going to give you the most bang for your buck, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

The Bottom Line

I absolutely love where the relationship between basketball players and the weight room is trending. More and more, we’re seeing strength and conditioning becoming embedded into the culture of basketball—much like it already has been for decades in football.

Athletes are understanding the value of a well-rounded performance plan and training outside just the skills of the sport. This has had a major impact on that game and continues to drive the sport forward as we’re seeing literally the best athletes of all time competing now at every single level of the sport.

To bring it all home, just remember that when it comes to big hoopers:

  • Tall ≠ Immobile
  • Thin ≠ Weak
  • Big ≠ Slow

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

High Performance Training Joyce

A Review of High-Performance Training for Sports, 2nd Edition

Book Reviews| ByDylan Hicks

High Performance Training Joyce

If you’ve ever dreamed of combining the world’s finest thought leaders in the field of sports performance into one book, then the second edition of High-Performance Training for Sports is the book for you!

This new edition of High-Performance Training for Sports has arguably become the most-sought-after text in the field of athletic performance. Editors David Joyce and Daniel Lewindon have once again put together an “authoritative guide for ultimate athletic conditioning,” with chapters written by leading experts in the field. These contributors present the most up-to-date material on physiology, sports rehabilitation, biomechanics, coaching dynamics, and strength and conditioning in a single resource.

After the success of the first edition—which was one of the most recommended books by practitioners on Rob Pacey’s podcast—it was an ambitious attempt to improve the quality of the content, but the editors (and authors) have done just that. Although there are several similarities between the two editions, there are a number of brand-new chapters (approximately 17), along with others that expand upon the content contained in the first edition.

The key difference with this text compared to many others: the information in each chapter is meant to be immediately transferrable to the field, says @dylhicks. Share on X

The quality of authorship in each chapter is second to none, and the content should apply regardless of the stage of your own career, whether you are a graduate assistant taking care of your first team or moving into expert performance consulting. The foreword from Coach Dan Pfaff of ALTIS provides a historical snapshot of how the world of high performance has evolved and identifies the key difference with this text compared to many others: the information in each chapter is meant to be immediately transferrable to the field.

Format of High-Performance Training for Sports, 2nd Ed.

The book is divided into three parts:

  1. Establishing and Developing Resilience (8 chapters).
  2. Developing Athletic Capabilities (10 chapters).
  3. Enhancing and Sustaining Performance (8 chapters).

The strategy to design the flow of the book and chapters in this manner perfectly aligns with those of the practitioner:

  1. Understand how to work with the athlete.
  2. Understand how to develop and improve the athlete.
  3. Understand how to keep the athlete performing to a high level.

Like similar books in the field, throughout each chapter there are key points and/or coaching anecdotes summarized in what have been described as “Wise Ways.” These are fantastic in emphasizing the core message from that page or chapter—and in an age where 240 characters is a common medium, these work well to deliver the messages.

Concluding each chapter is a short list of “Non-Negotiables” that further refines the information for the practitioner and reinforces the key takeaways. Although the content in each chapter requires greater exploration, this book review will take a deep dive on five key chapters that resonated with me from a teaching, coaching, and research perspective:

  • Chapter 11 – Speed Training, by Jean-Benoit Morin, PhD, and Stuart McMillan.
  • Chapter 4 – Optimising Movement Efficiency, by Matt Jordan, PhD, CSCS.
  • Chapter 20 – Preseason, by Darren Burgess, PhD.
  • Chapter 9 – Understanding and Influencing Interpersonal Dynamics in the Training Environment, by Brett Bartholomew, MS Ed, CSCS*D, RSCC*D.
  • Chapter 26 – Learning, by Sam Robertson, PhD, and Jacqueline Tran, PhD.

Chapter 11 – Speed Training (Jean-Benoit Morin and Stuart McMillan)

Who better to write a chapter on speed than two of the foremost leaders in sprint coaching and sprint science? Jean-Benoit Morin (Université Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne) is arguably the world’s leading researcher in understanding, interpreting, and explaining the mechanical determinants of sprint performance and is known for his work on human locomotion and force-velocity profiling. Stu McMillan (ALTIS) not only coaches some of the fastest humans on the planet, but he also provides a critical—yet analytical—lens to performance that few in the world can match.

The chapter begins by providing an overview of how speed can be described in various individual and team sport scenarios, while also discussing the key performance indicators (KPIs) of sprinting and the content-context continuum:

  • The content describes how the athlete learns to control movement while sprinting and coordinate their degrees of freedom in space and time.
  • The context describes how this movement is explored within the context of their sporting environment.

The constant iteration of these components forms the continuum. One term highlighted in the chapter is “foundational anchor points” (FAPs), which describes the movements that underpin performance. The link to FAPs is key in this chapter, as the authors frequently reference the shapes and patterns common in sprinting, which are highlighted in the ALTIS Kinogram Method.

The chapter goes on to explain that if coaches understand and can recognize when performances change or patterns do not stabilize, then the anchor has not been held in place and inconsistencies could arise at higher intensities. Midway through the chapter, the focus changes to understanding the mechanical demands of sprinting. Although based on Newtonian mechanics, the descriptions around acceleration, force production, orientation, and transmission are explained with a strong application to the field.

The authors make it a point to identify that the orientation of the ground reaction force (GRF) has greater significance for the overall sprint performance than absolute force production, along with linking this to force-velocity profiling and understanding the necessity to move past solely analyzing sprint times. Profiling allows the coach to understand the how of the sprint performance and provides an individual approach about what might limit performance or aid performance. The authors detail the five key components of the profile (F0, v0, PMAX, RFMAX, and DRF) and explain how even within a homogenous group of elite team sport athletes, differences in profiles will provide guidance when individualizing the training program.

In the latter parts of the chapter, the authors circle back to the FAPs and KPIs of sprinting by looking at sprint descriptors, including shapes, patterns, projection, rhythm, and rise. Although describing each in detail, they provide kinematic explanations of how each descriptor of the performance can be applied across various team sports.

Two key concepts that tie these descriptors together are the internal and external factors specific to the athlete. The athletes’ internal factors include their anthropometry, strength, mobility, and neuromuscular characteristics, while external factors include the athletes’ technical understanding of the required movement objective. Each of these factors will influence variables such as shape, patterns, projection, etc.

Limiting this chapter to 12 pages must have been extraordinarily difficult for the two authors, considering the level of knowledge they both possess and immense amount of information on the topic. Yet, they have distilled it down to the absolute non-negotiables of what underpins fast running.

This chapter is presented in a way in which coaches working with athletes from all sports can improve their understanding of how to enhance sprint performance, says @dylhicks. Share on X

Although sprinting has its roots in track and field, this chapter is not only informative from a mechanical perspective of the task, but it is presented in a way in which coaches working with athletes from all sports can improve their understanding of how to enhance sprint performance.

Chapter 4 – Optimising Movement Efficiency (Matt Jordan)

Matt Jordan (Canadian Sport Institute, Calgary) is arguably the world leader in the mechanics and assessment of movement, along with understanding movement compensations when returning from injury. Matt’s unique ability to see performance through the lens of a muscle physiologist, biomechanist, and strength and conditioning coach gives him a unique perspective few others in the world of human performance can offer.

Jordan begins by exploring the concept of efficiency of movement and its relationship to movement adaptability and mechanical efficiency. The early passages expand on mechanical efficiency in more detail by focusing on the optimization of biomechanics and the force-velocity (and force-length) relationship(s) of the muscle.

Performance coaches generally have a strong understanding of the linear force-velocity relationship/continuum from the point of view of strength training exercise selection but highlighting the link between the force-length relationship, joint angles, sport specificity, and muscle strength curve is where the true learning begins. Using a hierarchy and categorization of exercises, the explanation of how coordinative abilities—along with energetic and biomechanical demands of the competitive exercise/skill—are paired with an appropriate strength training option demonstrates Jordan’s systematic approach to enhance transfer between training and competition. Contrasting applied examples, often embedded in winter sports due to Jordan’s background at the Canadian Institute of Sport, highlight how an attention to detail in the force-time, force-length, and joint angle characteristics of the prescribed exercise will have significant implications on rate of force development (RFD), force effectiveness in the competition tasks, and overall efficiency in the task.

With the addition of Jordan’s loading parameter table (Plyometrics – reactive strength, Zone 1 – maximal power, Zone 2 – hypertrophy, and Zone 3 – maximal strength), practitioners are well on their way to better understanding, developing, and improving mechanical efficiency. Furthermore, the chapter challenges views on what is optimal movement while exploring movement solutions, variability, and adaptability from an individual athlete perspective. Jordan highlights that although coaches often view movement from an optimal model, greater understanding of the environmental constraints and the adaptive, self-organization of the human body is necessary.

With regard to ACL injuries, the chapter circles back to demonstrate how movement strategies across a range of tasks are generally limited by the strength available at each joint, along with the range of motion through which the body has moved—which further strengthens the importance of and focus on mechanical efficiencies (or inefficiencies). Finally, the constraints of human movement, along with cognitive abilities, are presented as the last pieces of the efficiency puzzle to meet the complexities of sport.

This chapter should reinforce that practitioners must ensure they know the inputs of what contributes to efficient movement; then, on an individual basis in their context, attempt to prescribe movement interventions so the athlete can find the appropriate movement solution.

Chapter 20 – Preseason (Darren Burgess)

Without a doubt, Darren Burgess (Adelaide Football Club) is one of the leading performance coaches in the world. His experience and success in soccer, Australian Rules football, and training load monitoring are well known and respected. For Australian performance coaches, he is one of the leading voices pushing the profession to new heights.

He begins his chapter by explaining the aims of a preseason period in team sports, which primarily focuses on reducing the risk of injury, developing biomotor abilities, and targeting arguably the most important aspect of training: tactical development. Burgess details how in most team sports at the professional level, the preseason period can range from as few as 4-6 weeks (EPL) to as long as 16 weeks (Australian Rules football). Therefore, the structure, content, and design of this period of training is highly dependent on which sport you are involved in.

Burgess’s attention to detail in all facets of preseason planning appears to be quite methodical, but the key message early on is to ensure the preseason period provides an appropriate overload to the in-season demands. Minimizing the risk of injury at any time of the competitive season is perhaps the highest priority, but during the preseason, determining the correct dose of fitness and fatigue requires a high level of experience and insight from the S&C coach.

Burgess highlights perhaps the biggest risk of injury for team sport athletes is high-speed running (HSR >20 km/h), or sprinting. Although coaches might look to avoid HSR to limit the chance of injury, the reality is that once the competitive season begins, the ability to sprint and break away from an opponent is game changing. Therefore, Burgess recommends an early, yet gradual, introduction to this type of training. Like all components of training, HSR needs to be periodized accordingly, and, along with speed and power development, the density of these components will differ between sports, positions on the field, and player history.

.@darrenburgess25 also highlights the importance of blending the tactical and technical training from the sport coach with the prescription from the S&C coach. This is absolutely non-negotiable. Share on X

Aside from developing the raw physiological components during this period, Burgess also highlights the importance of blending the tactical and technical training from the sport coach with the prescription from the S&C coach. This is an absolute non-negotiable, but also requires higher order thinking from the S&C coach about the best approach to successfully achieve the speed, power, strength, and conditioning goals of the training period. In the latter part of the chapter, Burgess looks at how to define and ensure a successful preseason period by emphasizing the importance of writing effective training programs, monitoring athletes, planning tapers, and promoting positive behaviors and team culture.

A preseason training program requires meticulous planning and integration of several training components, yet the importance of getting it right cannot be understated. There is a saying, which I believe is attributed to Burgess: a good strength & conditioning program won’t win you the premiership, but a poor one might help you lose one (apologies if I have misquoted Darren here). This seems to ring true throughout chapter 20.

Chapter 9 – Understanding and Influencing Interpersonal Dynamics in the Training Environment (Brett Bartholomew)

Since Conscious Coaching hit the shelves a few years back, Brett Bartholomew (ArtofCoaching.com) has been upskilling performance coaches worldwide on their communication skills. More recently, aside from being one of the world leaders in sport performance coaching, Brett has challenged coaches to move past the X’s and O’s of coaching and begin to invest in themselves, starting with all components of communication.

Without question, coaching is all about communication. In a sports performance setting, coaches communicate with their athletes on a daily basis and attempt to influence their behaviors to elicit a positive outcome. However, the tactics and strategies we select while attempting to influence athletes are dependent on the coach-athlete relationship and the power dynamics between both parties.

Early in the chapter, common social scenarios that occur in sport every season are detailed to highlight how communication can lead to organizations imploding. These range from miscommunication between departments and athletes losing faith in coaching staff to the “blame game” and egotistical coaches—yet instead of digging into the details of each issue, Bartholomew recommends coaches look in the mirror. Self-awareness, self-examination, and critical reflection are the key concepts that the performance coach must continually work on to improve their communication. This is a perhaps the most critical takeaway from the chapter. Coaches with a strong sense of self-awareness understand their strengths and weaknesses and can demonstrate “social agility” in different situations to better influence and persuade the individual.

Although the terms power and influence might not appear in the NSCA S&C manual, as a coach, the ability to change behaviors requires an astute understanding of both concepts. Bartholomew provides several examples of different types of power (reward, coercive, informational), with examples and situations of when each type is evident in a coaching or team setting. Importantly, the way power is developed and the way it is maintained are two different things. Power dynamics in a performance setting require the select parties to effectively “read the room” to understand the rationale of why the social dynamics may change in certain environments.

The chapter then moves on to analyzing the concept of influence, which is described as a way we can periodize our interactions with people and make them more meaningful. Like power dynamics, various examples on influence tactics are provided, with a short explanation of how and when to apply each tactic. From a coaching perspective, influencing an athlete to do something that we think will help them seems quite easy, but after reading this section of the chapter, you can see this is short-sighted.

From a coaching perspective, influencing an athlete to do something we think will help them seems quite easy, but after reading this section, you can see this is short-sighted, says @dylhicks. Share on X

Bartholomew is methodical in his “breakdown” of each influence tactic, emphasizing the fact that whichever tactic is used, the success of this approach will likely depend on the perceived benefit and the overall relationship they have with YOU, the influencer.

In summary, sports performance is more than just speed, power, and periodization; it relies on the relationships between the coaching staff and the athletes. Reflecting and improving on your interactions and overall communication should be a high priority for all coaches, and something to constantly refine.

Chapter 26 – Learning (Sam Robertson and Jacqueline Tran)

Sam Robertson (Professor of Sport Analytics, Victoria University) and Jacqueline Tran (Team Leader, HPSNZ) are a pair of leading figures in the field of sport science and higher education. Although they may be less known among strength and conditioning coaches, their reach and expertise into the sports analytics space and high-performance learning environments is not to be questioned. Through the “rstats” content Tran shares via social media and the One Track Mind podcast that Robertson hosts, they both push the field to new heights with their content knowledge expertise, along with their strong understanding of how effective learning happens.

Impressive.

The chapter initially discusses the two perspectives when designing learning environments in high-performance sport:

  • Designing environments to support individual
  • Setting up environments which foster collective

When examining the relationship between learning and performance, the authors detail that teaching, learning, and performance are not interchangeable, and they therefore need to be examined separately to form an accurate assessment as to whether effective learning has occurred.

One of the counterintuitive aspects of learning is that when the learning is rich, performance initially suffers. Therefore, the challenge for coaches is to determine the appropriate time to assess the true quality of learning and retention. Different learning models are then explored, including a Complex Systems View of Learning and a Constraints-Led Approach to Learning, where the complex adaptive system (human body) is tasked with problem-solving and finding solutions within the unpredictable learning environment. Most sport practitioners would be familiar with these models, yet creating the environment where a high level of learning occurs might be the sticking point.

The chapter circles back to discussing individual and collective learning, and from a high-performance team perspective, it appears both learning types are essential. While individual learning for the coach presents an opportunity for how to better themselves, the approach coaches use with individual athletes is likely of much greater importance. In a similar approach to how training principles are manipulated in a training program, the features of an effective learning environment and principles of learning design are detailed to provide a learning roadmap with the acronym SPORT: specificity (representative design), progression, overload, reversibility, and tedium (variety).

For the athlete’s learning environment, one interesting concept raised is that of the challenge point. The challenge point describes an approach to find the appropriate difficulty of practice for learning to occur: too easy and it doesn’t represent “the game,” but too hard and the challenge is too great to conquer. Therefore, using the SPORT acronym might provide a framework for coaches to rely on when designing the environment for different phases of the year or for athletes with varying needs (e.g., draftee, veteran, return to play, etc.).

Designing a collective learning environment—where the group commits to learn together and then contributes and shares their learnings with each other—appears to provide a richer experience than a self-directed approach. A true high-performance environment fosters a community of practice where regular sharing opportunities are encouraged, so the team is learning as a whole, rather than a siloed approach.

Although individual learning is necessary, collective learning can be transformational for an organization by ensuring domain-specific knowledge is disseminated across all personnel. Share on X

This chapter emphasizes that true learning and retention do not occur by chance; rather, it is the result of the effective design of the learning environment for the individuals in your organization. Coaches must be proactive in manipulating the learning constraints (task, organism, environment) and constantly ask athletes to problem-solve in both predictable and unpredictable settings. Finally, although individual learning is necessary, collective learning can be transformational and sustainable for an organization by ensuring domain-specific knowledge and learnings are disseminated across all personnel.

Adding HPTS 2nd Edition to Your Coaching Library

Overall, HPTS 2nd edition is a book all performance coaches need to read, highlight, re-read, post-it note, and read again. In my opinion, this book will serve as the leading reference manual for strength & conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, and sports scientists across the globe.

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


Pride

Weathering Change and Building Relationships in Elite Soccer with Ivi Casagrande

Freelap Friday Five| ByIvi Casagrande, ByNathan Huffstutter

Pride

Ivi Casagrande is currently the Women’s and Girls’ Sport Scientist at a FAWSL club team and a FIFA technical expert/consultant. She is a former Orlando Pride lead strength & conditioning coach, director of sports performance for Redline Athletics, and member of the U.S. Youth National Teams Sport Scientist Network.

Freelap USA: U.S. Women’s National Team (USWNT) players such as Sam Mewis, Tobin Heath, and Christen Press have played abroad and used that experience to adjust to new playing systems and new dimensions of the game. Moving from coaching in the U.S. to coaching in Europe, is there a comparable adjustment process on the performance side? What have been some of the new concepts or methods you have picked up since moving from coaching in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) to coaching in the Football Association’s Women’s Super League (FAWSL)? 

Ivi Casagrande: One of the biggest adjustment processes on the performance side I’ve noticed thus far is definitely the schedule change from one league to the other. In the NWSL, I used to have almost four months during the off-season, (although it has now changed to less time as the new Challenge Cup was created after COVID-19).

With a long off-season, you have a lot of time to work with individual players and have that one-on-one exposure that you don’t get to have a lot during in-season. In NWSL, some players would go to Australia or other leagues to play during that time, but for the ones who stay, as a coach you can really get the most of that time to prioritize things that you normally don’t have time to do during in-season.

In the FAWSL, you get about five weeks during the off-season, so your priorities as a coach definitely change. It is the balance between getting the athletes the break they need after a long 10- to 11-month season and just giving them enough stimulus and exposure for them to get back ready for pre-season. In the NWSL, you have to spend a lot of time working on their aerobic capacity, hypertrophy, and max strength, whereas in the FAWSL, you don’t have that time or as big of a need to really work on those as they will probably not lose too much in five weeks if you can get the right amount of stimulus in the context of the force-velocity curve.

Also, in the NWSL you have the lengthy travel from the East Coast to the West Coast that you don’t deal with here in England. All of those NWSL trips require flying, which really affects your training week, and you have to be very strategic with your recovery strategies and tools to help players adapt and recover well between games. You definitely need to spend much more time on recovery strategies because of the schedule.

I think in both leagues there is the same challenge as a performance coach, which is how to best manage players who go on international duty across the season and have to come back right away to club duties. The women’s soccer calendar is getting more and more demanding, along with the intensity of play, which really shows how much we have to be on top of not only their physical key performance indicators, but also the emotional, mental, well-being, and lifestyle factors and how we best manage their training loads across the year.

Freelap USA: From a preparation standpoint, which key qualities for soccer do you think you have the greatest ability to impact and what exercises/methods do you rely on to improve those qualities? Are there other necessary physical qualities for the sport that you think are best developed via small-sided games/the game itself, and how do you collaborate with the sport coaching staff to complement and support what they will be doing on the training pitch?

Ivi Casagrande: My perspective on the ability to impact players in terms of physical preparation has greatly changed over the years through spending time with different athletic populations. I think most of us coaches, especially when we started our careers (myself included), tend to have a very myopic view on physical preparation, sometimes spending most of our energy in creating the perfect periodization plan as well as the most effective strength and power programs so we see our players getting faster and stronger. We also try to get the best bits of every successful coach and every research paper and then copy and paste to our own programs, as sometimes we lack the confidence to create our own philosophy and plan based on our own environment and constraints.

After reflecting on all my practical experiences, however, I realized the biggest impact I had on my players was the ability to connect with them on a personal level, says @ivicasagrande. Share on X

After reflecting on all my practical experiences, however, I realized the biggest impact I had on my players was the ability to connect with them on a personal level. This shows them not only that I care for them, but that they are also part of the process.

One of the most useful theories I learned through my masters was Self-Determination Theory, in which autonomy, competence, and relatedness are key components for athletes to find motivation in their environment. I have tried to apply these concepts everywhere I have coached, and this has really helped me get buy-in from my players. Yes, you can impact the development of strength and power in your athletes, but the long-term impact will come from your relationships with them and making sure you educate them and provide the best tools for them to be successful in the long run.

Teach players to develop their coping skills outside of the pitch and know how to be proactive with things such as:

  • Improving their position quality and joint range of motion.
  • Breathing mechanics to not only improve performance but also to be able to handle stress (physical and mental) on and off the pitch.
  • Strategies to sleep better.
  • Ways to see the world with a different perspective.

I was a soccer player who left Brazil at a very young age, and I went through a lot of what my players are currently going through. That sense of relatedness has helped a lot in terms of sharing what worked for me in the past and offering that support outside of the physical preparation per se. The key thing for me is to be able to empower the athlete and give them autonomy rather than making them rely on us to provide all the answers or depend on us for a lifetime. The most powerful moments as a coach are the ones when you have an athlete you coached 5-7 years ago tell you they still use some of the tools you taught them, not only in their sport but also in their life.

Apart from all that, movement quality is something I have always had an interest in and my biggest mentors—including Kelly Starrett, Dan Pfaff, and Ben Ashworth—all have amazing eyes for movement and have helped me develop a better critical eye for key movements and shapes. From youth to elite players, there’s the same crucial need to help the athletes:

  • Feel and own positions.
  • Develop their motor control and neuromuscular coordination under different speeds, vectors, and environmental constraints.

When we talk about the other physical qualities important for the game, what I see missing in a lot of training environments—especially in the culture of American colleges—is not only the exposure to repetitive change of direction in the specific context of the game, but also developing the physical qualities within the technical model rather than just making soccer players run like they are track & field/cross country athletes.

Exposing athletes to small-sided games is something very easy to achieve by communicating with the technical coaches and educating them on the best work-to-rest ratios and constraints to make the drill not only good to develop their decision-making and technical skills, but also to develop their physical qualities. We all know players can have amazing performance on fitness tests, but if they are not able to be effective on the pitch and to sustain and have the capacity to repeatedly do high mechanical load actions within the technical model—and with added decision-making—then those tests are useless for technical coaches.

Speed work can also be done in warm-ups and during training within positional drills, so we can make sure players are able to use their speed in the context of the sport. The use of GPS monitoring and HR monitoring can be quite beneficial here to help performance coaches and technical staff analyze work output and effectiveness. By comparing match intensity metrics to training metrics, we can make sure we are exposing them to the right intensity in training, so they are able to effectively perform during game day.

Freelap USA: How has your understanding of the range of functional systems that impact performance changed over time? And as you identify and manage the range of “battery systems” that fuel athletes, from the central nervous system to the energy systems to the immune-hormonal systems and more, do any of these require extra attention or present specific challenges when training elite female soccer players?

Ivi Casagrande: There have been two big moments in the last 2-3 years that shaped my philosophy as a coach and my understanding of the complexity of systems surrounding my athletes, the people around me, and myself.

The first was COVID-19 and all the challenges that came with it, especially in the preparation and management of players during that time. My first thought when all that happened was: Okay, how do I keep their levels of fitness and manage their load away from training and on their own so that they’re ready to go when competition restarts?

Soon enough, though, I realized that this would be irrelevant if my players were in a bad place mentally or were struggling to navigate this new and unknown world that we all had to find a way to live in. We were all going through some heavy stuff outside of the world of sports, where we all didn’t really know when a sense of normalcy would be back or what we would actually be preparing for and what would be the timelines for competitions. All of a sudden, as coaches, we realized we definitely will never have all the answers and the right solutions to all the puzzles surrounding the best way to prepare athletes to be back at competition and when that would eventually happen.

More than ever, the only thing I felt I could control during that time was building relationships with my players and trying to provide them with a safe environment where they could be themselves and feel comfortable enough to show vulnerability and giving them tools to be able to have some down time to reflect, mentally switch off, and have some fun.

The only thing I felt I could control (during COVID-19) was building relationships with my players…and giving them tools to have down time to reflect, mentally switch off, and have some fun. Share on X

While I was still at Orlando Pride, I decided to order an inflatable kayak for myself and my partner, so I texted our players’ group and said: “Who is up for a social distance stroll with the gators?” Suddenly, almost half of our team was buying inflatable kayaks and going to the lakes so we could see each other while socially distancing. It also gave us a safe space to just share our feelings and how those times were hitting us differently and how much of a rollercoaster everything was. Our loneliness from quarantining became kayak adventures around Orlando and figuring out the best lake routes to go through, bike trails, and a sense of human connection again.

I also started some weekly themed Zoom workouts, where I would ask the players to dress up, and go through an old-school hip hop session or a Zumba class or try out some different classes such as yoga with martial arts. Then, all the physical preparation became so much easier for all of us because now we were in a better head space or at least more motivated to work toward the unknown.

So, in that case, the mental and emotional battery systems were definitely a priority for us—I think we always have to make sure we prioritize different systems during different cycles of training according to what each individual is going through or environmental factors.

Battery Systems

The second moment that really shaped my thinking of the multiple battery systems was when I had my first panic attack in January 2021. During that time, I’d recently moved with my partner and dog from America to the UK and went into autopilot mode and didn’t really have the time to sit down and reflect on the transition. I was working crazy hours, trying to juggle my full-time work with my online business and side projects, when my body decided to scream at me and force me to slow down. Before I knew it, I was in an ambulance with my heart rate going from 70 bpm to 160 bpm in seconds.

We always have to make sure we prioritize different systems during different cycles of training according to what each individual is going through or environmental factors, says @ivicasagrande. Share on X

The only thing I remember was thinking my time was coming to an end; everything felt like it was disappearing in a dark tunnel and like I was having a major heart attack.

That was a huge eye-opening moment for me, as I realized that you can’t just forget about the other things that really affect your wellness and performance. My mentor, Dan Pfaff, was instrumental during that time, as he would have daily talks with me about coping strategies and how it doesn’t matter how much meditation, breathing techniques, or recovery tools somebody does if they don’t work on their own coping strategies and conflict resolutions or just have the time to allow reflection.

I tied those concepts to the world of performance right away, and I started testing all those strategies on myself before teaching them to my athletes.

The battery systems idea and concepts came from Dan Pfaff and some of our latest conversations about performance. We talked about why we can’t, as coaches, think that physical performance is the only key performance indicator for success. Before thinking about our technical, physical, and field monitoring processes, we need to determine when to prioritize the other KPIs such as:

  • Lifestyle factors.
  • Mental resilience.
  • Emotional wellness.

Everything needs to work in synergy, and we have to look at the big picture. I try to provide not just my athletes, but young coaches (myself included) with tools to be able to improve their performance, even if it will only get them better by 1%. The list of those tools is long, but it includes things such as:

  • Breathing mechanics work.
  • Cognitive work.
  • Working on exposing them to different stimulus every now and then.
  • Developing self-awareness under fatigue using verbal, visual, and auditory cues.
  • Developing habits of improving their range of motion and positional quality and capacity in the gym.
  • Sharing coping strategies based on my own experience as a soccer player.

The key here is understanding that all those different battery systems demand unique types and amounts of work, as well as recharging times. Fergus Connolly was also pivotal in this process of understanding the big picture. His book Game Changer and his course with “Team Sports Masterclass” really opened my eyes to how to apply all this knowledge in the team environment.

In my experience, when training female athletes, immune hormonal systems can be a crucial battery system that needs more attention than others. As we all know, the menstrual cycle is a big one for female athletes. Finding ways to manage their symptoms and help them develop their own routine and tools for management becomes a key thing in their preparation and success in their sport: from the nutrition requirements needed in specific phases of their menstrual cycles, to the breathing protocols that could help aid their sleep and cardiovascular efficiency, to the coping strategies to deal with the mood swings. Managing the load of players who struggle more than others during their periods is also very important, understanding that certain individuals might require a longer recharging time than others.

KPIs Female Athlete

Coordination systems, especially in young female athletes, are also extremely important. Teaching them how to slow down, own their movements, and develop rhythm and coordination especially during rapid periods of growth is extremely important to build a more resilient athlete and be more prepared for the increased demands of the sport and potential mitigation of injuries.

Lastly, as mentioned above, the emotional and mental battery systems can be key for female athletes, just because of the fact, from my past experiences, females are a little bit more open to being vulnerable and having those tough conversations (not exclusive to female athletes, but culturally seen more often). Developing their self-awareness and their understanding of how much those things can impact their performance can be a good educational tool to take with them in their journeys.

On that note, I hope we, as a society and as coaches, continue to help male athletes and the rest of society understand it is okay to be vulnerable and show their emotions without them thinking it is a sign of fragility or a lack of masculinity.

Freelap USA: What are some ways that coaches can provide female athletes with practical rather than simply informational tools to manage individual symptoms of their menstrual cycle in a team sports setting? How might this process and the communication strategies differ at different age ranges, from U14 to U18 to college/pro levels?

Ivi Casagrande: I first became very interested in the menstrual cycle process for female athletes in 2015, when I came across the work of Georgie Bruinvels, who helped develop an app for players to track their menstrual cycles. I started using the FitrWoman app with my players from Bowling Green State University’s women’s team. At first it was more of an educational tool, as not a lot of players truly understood the big impact that their cycle had on their performance, and how to develop practical tools to help alleviate the symptoms.

I created an Excel sheet back then and started to collate the information from their wellness questionnaires (simple questions such as “Are you on your cycle: yes or no”) to understand more about the length of the individual cycles and when that would happen so I could start the conversation and offer advice on how to better manage those phases.

I then used all the resources from the app to give my players some recipes and basic nutritional advice based on the phase of the cycle they were on. As I further developed my understanding of the physiological side of things, I started to teach them tools to manage the things they could at least control during their cycle:

  • Breathing protocols.
  • Mindfulness/meditation practices that would help them during the phases in which they would either struggle to sleep or struggle to manage their mood.

Something else I learned with Georgie and Dawn Scott was to provide recipes for smoothies or yogurt pots before bedtime to help them with anti-inflammatory and antioxidant foods and aid their recovery times, which can be affected in specific phases of the menstrual cycle. Lastly, a lot of players show lower back tightness around their menstrual cycle, so there was no one better than my mentor and friend Kelly Starrett to help me provide some individual strategies and plans for my players with the focus on mobility to:

  • Restore or improve their range of motion.
  • Sensitize painful movement and enhance their recovery.
  • Reduce training session costs.

The biggest takeaway for me is that we as coaches—and also as female athletes—need to understand that there are a lot of considerations when it comes to our performance. Nutrition and hydration, training load, psychological factors, travel, recovery, and sleep. Menstrual cycle is a big piece of the puzzle, but all pieces must work in synergy to maximize performance and effectively manage symptoms.

Freelap USA: You created the Coaches Empowerment Network to provide a comfortable space for learning and networking opportunities for young coaches. What were your biggest takeaways from fostering that speaker series, and how can young coaches best take advantage of peer networks and other opportunities for career growth?

Ivi Casagrande: The Coach Empowerment Network is a very special project I started during COVID-19 and when I was moving over to the UK. I had some time to reflect before I was about to start my new job, and at the time I was mentoring a lot of young female coaches. I realized that a lot of them went through the same experiences, as female coaches, that I did during my last few years in the field. I just wanted to create a safe space for them to share their work and to bring together people to collaborate and talk about things we really don’t talk about.

With the Coach Empowerment Network, I didn’t want to involve anything about physical performance…but rather to show and talk about vulnerability, mental health, and all our struggles as coaches. Share on X

The purpose of these events was to talk about the challenges they encountered during their journeys and the tools they found to be successful when they were going through challenging times, and really showcase and share their resilience, lessons learned, and advice for the coaches in the room. I didn’t want to involve anything about physical performance, because we already have so much about that in our field, but rather to show and talk about vulnerability, mental health, and all our struggles as coaches.

The cool thing about the network was that it was not a closed group only created for female coaches. It was open to female and male coaches (only the presenters were female coaches), as I felt like we sometimes don’t have the same opportunities, or we are just not confident enough to talk about our stories and journeys to get to where we are. It was very interesting how uncomfortable it was for some of the presenters (including myself at first) to talk about ourselves as human beings rather than as performance coaches.

I think we all learned so much with each other in the process. We had about five sessions before things got quite busy with my full-time job and I had to pause it for a moment—we had people from 18 different parts of the world, including Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia, some staying up until 3 a.m. just to watch the presentations. We had a lot of amazing male coaches not afraid to join the conversation and discuss some of the challenges we, as female coaches, go through. I think one of the main things I wanted to also get out of it was to involve male coaches in the conversation so they could see from our perspective the different kind of challenges we have to go through to survive in the industry.

I also wanted to involve male coaches in the conversation so they could see from our perspective the different kind of challenges we go through to survive in the industry, says @ivicasagrande. Share on X

On the other hand, it was very cool to see that, a lot of times, the male coaches’ challenges were very similar to ours. I had people reaching out to me and sharing that they made amazing friends from those sessions. I saw some of them meeting each other in different countries and shadowing each other’s work in their jobs, so that was extremely rewarding. I am looking forward to continuing those sessions in the near future.

I have been very lucky to have had amazing mentors since I started as a coach; mentors who were not afraid to tell me the tough things about being in the sports industry. I learned a lot from them, and I keep fostering those relationships daily with all those people I really look up to and now see as friends.

The biggest advice I give to young coaches when reaching out to other people in the industry is that networking should be more than just picking their brains as to what they do in their jobs as a coach, but also looking to be open and discussing the tough things too. Learning how they use their coping strategies with some of the challenges of being in the elite environment and the lessons they learned that they can pass on. Lastly, don’t forget that those “networking” conversations shouldn’t be just for the sake of you getting all their knowledge and walking away, but rather should be a relationship that will be fostered and cherished for the long term.

Photo by Andrew Bershaw/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


Curvilinear Plyos

Training Transitions Between Movement Patterns to Improve Athleticism

Blog| ByJason Feairheller

Curvilinear Plyos

There have been a number of articles on this site dedicated to all aspects of movement in sports, such as acceleration, max speed, and change of direction patterns. The skill of moving well in competition is not solely about doing each of these movement patterns in isolation—it’s about being able to transition from one movement pattern to another or to link patterns. I define good athletic movement as choosing the appropriate movement pattern at the appropriate time and executing it exactly as you want to. Athletes must not only be able to recognize and choose the correct movement pattern—which is a skill itself—but they also must be physically capable of fluidly transitioning from one movement pattern to another.

I define good athletic movement as choosing the appropriate movement pattern at the appropriate time and executing it exactly as you want to. Share on X

The movement patterns you see in athletics consist of a lateral shuffle, lateral run, hip turn, plyo step, and backpedal, curvilinear running, and linear running. In a previous article on multidirectional plyometrics, I covered these movements patterns and discussed examples of when you may see them in sport. It’s important that your athletes become proficient in each of these patterns, and depending on the sport and position, they may need to be exceptional in a few of these patterns.

Why Do We Need to Move Well?

Improving speed directly coincides with coordinating transitions between movement patterns with better timing and fluidity. Performing only agility drills—which are drills that involve a cognitive component—will not ensure quality movement transitioning between all patterns of movement. Frans Bosch explains this in his book Anatomy of Agility: “the information filter is determined not only by the quality of perception but also by the motor solutions that can be planned in the light of the information; so the filter also depends on the capabilities of the body.”1 Once again, perception is only one part of the movement equation: if you do not have the physical capacity to coordinate between movement patterns, you are missing one of the most critical pieces of athletic development.

If you do not have the physical capacity to coordinate between movement patterns, you are missing one of the most critical pieces of athletic development. Share on X

Most sports do not involve movement from a static position. Therefore, being able to transition from one movement to another becomes even more critical. Here’s a quick example of just how often these types of transitions happen in sport:

A soccer defender performs a backpedal as an opposing wing approaches him. As the wing gets closer, the defender positions himself to direct that opponent toward the sideline. As the attacking player continues to approach with more speed, the defender performs a hip turn to transition from a backpedal to a lateral run. The attacker continues to pick up speed in an attempt to beat the defender wide and cut toward the goal. As this happens, the defender transitions from a lateral run to a curvilinear run. 

As you can see, in a simple game-like scenario, there are multiple transitions among movement patterns. Performing any of those linking patterns poorly could be the difference between allowing a scoring chance and making a stop. Going back to the example, what if the defender is not good at transitioning from a backpedal to a lateral run and this leads to a scoring opportunity? Was this caused by his perception or a lack of ability to fluidly link these movement patterns?

It’s this question that all coaches must answer—an athlete’s perception may tell them what to do, but they just may be poor at executing the transition.

Fluidly Linking Movement Patterns Together

I’ve referenced being able to fluidly transition from one movement pattern to another, but what exactly does that look like? When analyzing movement, you can get into extremely detailed discussions of joint angles and creating force through various positions, but for the purposes of this article, I’ll talk about some broad concepts of good movement. Most coaches can identify good movement when they see it, but unless you are looking at movement through video, it can be difficult to identify exactly what led to a poor transition from one pattern to another. The more video you watch of athletes of all skill levels and abilities, the easier it will be to pick up on some of the big differences.

Begin by looking at the movement in general. Does it appear to be somewhat robotic or are there smooth transitions between patterns? Robotic movement demonstrates a lack of coordination among joints. Some of the movement may be fluid, while other parts are not as smooth. It will look as if certain joints are frozen together.

After looking in general at the movement, begin looking at the foot and then work your way up the body. Look for a stiff plant from the foot upon any sort of repositioning or changing pattern. A stiff foot plant indicates more force directed into the ground. This is important because it helps maintain the stride frequency of the athlete. Athletes who move better from one pattern to the other are able to maintain their gait cycle compared to lesser-skilled movers. If less force goes into the ground when linking movement patterns, the frequency of an athlete’s gait will decrease, which means their overall speed is decreasing.

Continuing to work our way up the chain, we’ll take a look at what’s going on with the upper body. When performing any sort of directional change, the upper body should lead the movement. If an athlete is sprinting straight ahead and they make a cut to the side, the upper body should slightly turn that direction prior to the hips turning that direction. If it were the other way around—where the hips lead the movement—the upper body would lag behind, which makes that change of direction slower and less efficient.

It’s not uncommon to see an athlete perform transitions between certain patterns well and others not so well. You may also notice an athlete performing transitions well toward one direction compared to the other. I’ve specifically noticed this with defenders who play on one side of the field all the time. Often, a defender tries to take away the middle of the field and push the offensive player toward the sidelines. If a defender is playing the right side of the field, they are turning to their right far more often than their left. However, getting out of position and being forced to turn to their left can expose a poor linking skill.

Create a Theme for the Day

As strength coaches, most of us don’t have the ability to train our athletes for endless amounts of time. We may get one hour to train them. One hour is not enough time when you start to include a warm-up, plyometrics, speed training, and resistance training—you may only get about 15 minutes of actual speed training for the day. If that’s the case, you’ll be hard-pressed to expose your athlete to all patterns of movement without a well-thought-out plan.

Creating a theme for the day will give you a general focus as a coach and allow you to explore some other movement possibilities in terms of speed training. You may want your athletes to work on curvilinear running one session—instead of just having them run curves from a standard static start, you can begin to work on transitions by performing them prior to your curvilinear run. A hip turn, linear sprint, lateral run, and lateral shuffle can all be mixed in prior to running around a curve. While the focus may be on curvilinear running, you are still exposing your athletes to a variety of movement skills.

Try to find movement transitions that challenge the physical ability of the athlete. If every drill you do is easy, the athlete already has the physical capacity to perform the skill. Share on X

Try to find movement transitions that challenge the physical ability of the athlete. If every drill you do is easy, the athlete already has the physical capacity to perform that skill. Continuing to perform this skill will not expand their movement library. You can create more or less difficulty by manipulating the speed going into the transition as well as the angle coming out of the transition. Be sure to add variety into your training to enhance learning and build a bigger movement foundation.


Video 1. The transitions in this clip demonstrate how you can target one specific pattern—in this case a curvilinear run—while still incorporating a variety of other movement patterns. 

Multidirectional Plyometrics for Specific Movement Patterns

When I think about the greatest impact I can have on an athlete as far as transferring what I do in the gym out to the field, it’s improving the quality of linking skills and improving the speed and power at which the athlete performs transitions. These types of drills are great for teaching athletes to produce a high amount of force while limiting time on the ground.

Similar to choosing a theme for your speed training each day, you can perform multidirectional plyometrics to match a specific type of pattern you may be looking to improve. It may be improving power at an angle forward or backward or even directly to the side. Too often, we rely on only vertical or horizontal plyometrics, but as I discussed earlier, power on the field happens when transitioning between patterns—and that can happen at all angles and directions.


Video 2. The first part of the video shows a hip turn to a lateral run, followed by a sprint. Following this initial drill are a couple progressions to demonstrate how to develop more explosiveness when transitioning from the lateral run into the sprint.

Wrap-Up

As a coach, when you really start to look at how we can impact performance, it starts with improving the speed, power, and coordination ability of our athletes on the field. Moving well is a skill. Some athletes naturally have it, while others need to be taught.

Regardless of the level of experience of the athlete, continue to improve their physical capacity to move well, in addition to challenging and expanding their movement library.

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


Reference

1. Bosch, F. Anatomy of Agility: Movement Analysis in Sport. 20/10 Publishers. 2020.

Asymmetries Loading

Determining Functional vs. Nonfunctional Asymmetries

Blog| ByDanny Foley

Asymmetries Loading

A few years back, I began working with an athlete who was coming off a very serious and rare form of thoracic cancer. For the sake of this article, we’ll call him Jake. He underwent multiple major surgeries over several years that required doctors to cut through his pec muscles, serratus anterior, lat, and about 40% of his upper abdomen; all of these surgeries were on the right side of his body. Due to the location of his tumors, they also had to break his sternum and several ribs to get to what they needed. His body was ravaged—a truly harrowing experience, to say the least.

Despite the hardships, Jake was fully committed to seeing his career through and was working his way back to being operationally fit for duty. I was extremely fortunate to be a small part of his return.

Debates on whether unilateral imbalances are detrimental, beneficial, or completely insignificant to sport have been fevered for years. And, in most cases, they have often been very siloed and shortsighted. The experience of working with profound cases, such as Jake’s, has helped me develop a broader perspective on the entirety of asymmetries. As such, in this article, I’d like to focus the discussion on the spectrum of asymmetrical imbalance and how it affects athletes/individuals spanning a variety of sport backgrounds.

Assessing Asymmetries

Rather than simply seeing asymmetries in sport as either good or bad, we need to appreciate the complexity and nuance. But the first priority is understanding that there are several variables to consider and numerous ways to discern the significance of unilateral imbalances. These factors are more or less significant depending on the athlete’s stage of development, the demands of their sport, and the position they play. A short list of the more prominent factors can be found in the graphic below.

Contributing Factors
Figure 1. Variables to consider when assessing asymmetries.

Additionally, there are numerous ways to assess unilateral imbalances; again, with the testing priority and significance being determined on an individual basis. A few of my unilateral baseline assessments typically include left/right muscle girth (muscle atrophy), functional unilateral movements such as a loaded skater squat (strength), and a Y-balance test (stability/mobility). These are reasonably simple tests with high degrees of reliability that allow you to observe the margin of difference between sides with your athletes.

Assessing Asymmetries
Figure 2. These tests have high degrees of reliability for determining the margin of difference between an athlete’s left and right sides.

Few coaches would argue that comprehensive unilateral testing is a logical part of an athlete’s training process; however, the heated question remains whether these margins of difference should or shouldn’t be addressed or “corrected” with our athletes. The unfortunate reality is this just isn’t a cut-and-dried situation, and rather than seeking empirical boundaries or ranges, unilateral deficits should be viewed individually and as a spectrum—or, as I see it, functional or nonfunctional.

Few coaches would argue that comprehensive unilateral testing is a logical part of an athlete’s training process, but they disagree on whether the margins of difference should be ‘corrected.’ Share on X

Functional vs. Nonfunctional Asymmetries

A subtlety to the military population is recognizing that a large portion of their work demands are unilaterally dominant (e.g., shooting stance, swimming stroke, vehicle position, kit/weapon positioning). Given the extreme volumes and intensities they are exposed to, not only do unilateral imbalances result, but damage and injury are all but inevitable. Thus, almost every athlete I work with has nonfunctional asymmetries, and a robust injury history.

By determining whether an athlete’s asymmetries are functional or nonfunctional, we can create a clear delineation that can help guide training priorities and programming selections. This does not indict the athlete in any way; as I see it, this is just an arbitrary way for coaches to have a better foundation for training prioritization and specificity. Functional imbalances do not need to be deliberately addressed, as they likely offer more benefit to sport performance than they do potential injury risk.

Nonfunctional imbalances, on the other hand, should be a top training priority, as egregious margins of difference between sides can become an impediment to performance and an injury vulnerability. The predominant factors outlined above, in conjunction with the amount of asymmetrical imbalance, will determine how much we should emphasize reducing the margins of difference in training.

Functional vs Nonfunctional
Figure 3. Not all asymmetries are equal, and some don’t need to be corrected.

We need to recognize that all asymmetries are not created equal. Speaking specifically for athletes—especially at higher levels—they need unilateral dominance. I see this as “protective tension,” whereby the demands of competition over the course of several years have driven unique, specialized differences in morphology or function that are optimal for their performance. Sticking with the baseball example, consider the throwing shoulder and contralateral hip of a pitcher. The throwing arm will have unique adaptations—hyperlaxity (elbow), increased rotator cuff thickness, lat extensibility, etc.—that are needed for them to perform at a high level.

We need to recognize that all asymmetries are not created equal. Speaking specifically for athletes—especially at higher levels—they need unilateral dominance, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

I believe there are two priorities here:

  1. Don’t disrupt the imbalances too much while in-season; let the player help determine what the best ratio of differences may be.
  2. During the off-season, address these margins of difference to recalibrate equilibrium and avoid egregious discrepancies.

The goal will be to work the athletes back away from the outer (extreme) ranges, so they go into the following season with more room for regression throughout the year. Analyzing it this way, you see why simply saying “asymmetries don’t matter” or “asymmetries always matter” is shortsighted and incomplete.


Video 1. Dumbbell offset single leg RDL. Off-season training may be the best time to program exercises to address asymmetries.

Determining Significance

It all comes down to what coaches/practitioners deem to be a significant difference, given the constructs of their sport. Considering my tactical population doesn’t need much unilateral dominance for the sake of performance, I try to simplify this by observing four primary criteria:

  1. Muscular strength.
  2. Joint ROM.
  3. Muscular girth.
  4. Stability/motor control.

Within each of these, I’ve observed that ~20% unilateral difference is loosely indicative of impaired biomechanical function and injury vulnerability for what their job demands of them.

Determining Function
Figure 4. I’ve observed that ~20% unilateral difference indicates an impairment.

We can then identify asymmetries as mild, significant, or extreme.

  • Mild asymmetries are functional imbalances that present no increased likelihood for performance decrement or injury risk. This speaks to most non-specialized athletes and most individuals; in this case, unilateral deficits do not need to be a training priority.
  • Significant imbalances are those that meet the criteria outlined above but may or may not provide functional advantage. This speaks to specialized athletes (i.e., throwing/OH athletes, stick sports, and field event athletes). You will need to strategically place the management of the margin of deficit throughout your training calendar.
  • Extreme deficits occur mostly through injury (return to play), chronic development, or traumatic situations such as Jake’s. With these athletes, closing the gap is the main priority.
Asymmetry Spectrum
Figure 5. I classify the asymmetries as mild, significant, or extreme to determine whether they need to be a training priority.

One area of the unilateral debate that appears to be less contentious is return to play. Dr. Matt Jordan, a world-class coach renowned for his extensive research on the neuromuscular aspects of return to play, is someone I’ve learned a lot from on this subject. In one of his studies on ACL return to play, the research team suggested that greater than 20% differences in L/R force profiles following ACL reconstruction place the athlete at a greater risk for reinjury. This was determined using the equation provided below. It was also importantly noted that strength deficits in this instance aren’t only injured versus uninjured side, but also the injured leg post-injury compared to pre-injury.

Matt Jordan Index
Figure 6. Equation used by Dr. Matt Jordan and his research team to determine return to play readiness after an ACL injury.

In the case of return to play, I would advise strength coaches to be vigilant in testing/assessing unilateral deficits once they’ve finished formal physical therapy. Bear in mind that in most PT/rehab settings, the protocols are often localized and isolated in nature. Where the PT’s job is to restore independent function and localized strength, I see our side of the return to play spectrum as restoring strength in a global and integrated sort of way.

Strength coaches should be vigilant in testing/assessing unilateral deficits once an athlete finishes formal PT. Our side of return to play is restoring strength in a global and integrated way. Share on X

Using the post ACL rehab example here, the PT will improve things like knee flexion/extension ROM and strength, while we improve load tolerance on split squats and the ability to cut/change direction between the injured and uninjured leg.

Addressing Deficits

There are three specific ways I go about addressing unilateral deficits, which for the most part can correspond to the degree of significance as outlined above. These strategies are removing bilateral loading (mild asymmetries), using biased training parameters (significant/extreme), and offset loading, which can be used in a variety of ways across the spectrums of asymmetry.

Stratifying Asymmetries
Figure 7. The three ways I address unilateral deficits in the athletes I train, corresponding to the degree of asymmetry.

1. Removing Bilateral Loading

Removing bilateral movements from programming effectively forces each side to work independently for itself. This can be a good way to exploit less obvious unilateral deficits and challenge the athlete to work on less familiar patterns. When used strategically, this can be a simple and effective strategy to keep the body honest unilaterally. One population that I feel this is particularly applicable with is Olympic weightlifters. Although the sport of Oly is largely bilateral in nature, there is a high volume of unilateral dominance that accumulates over time due to the mechanics of the split jerk.

Considering the jerk is always performed with the same leg coming forward, this can take a toll on the hips and low backs of Oly athletes. Another subtlety to consider with the split jerk is the disproportionate stress placed on the feet and ankles during the jerk actions. A disruption to the ankle/foot (e.g., chronic turf toe in the back leg, immobilizing the talus on front leg) can have a global impact and become a significant impediment to training.

2. Biasing Program Parameters

This is something reserved exclusively for athletes who’ve exhibited significant, nonfunctional asymmetries. The use of programming bias is a nuanced approach and something that can be undertaken in a variety of ways. But to keep this simple, the purpose of using biased programming is to stress the non-dominant side “X%” more in training.

Broadly speaking, I use increased volume (i.e., more sets—not reps—on the nondominant side) to address muscular atrophy in early phase programming. Then, in later phase programming, I use increased intensity (i.e., relative higher loads on nondominant side) to close the gap on strength/power deficits.

3. Offset Loading

Offset is a versatile training application with an array of benefits. I recently published an article describing the benefits of offset loading for a sport performance population, but, as it applies in this context, offset work can be beneficial for addressing unilateral imbalances. In a sense, offset loading provides a unique effect in that it emphasizes one side of the body but still demands output from both. Movements become more demanding on trunk stability and core musculature and, I’d argue, collectively demand more from muscle groups (increased motor unit recruitment).

In a sense, offset loading provides a unique effect in that it emphasizes one side of the body but still demands output from both, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X
Biomechanics of Offset Loading
Figure 8. The movements in offset work become more demanding on trunk stability and core musculature, which proves beneficial in tackling unilateral imbalances.

When we have a substantial margin of difference between the left and right extremities, there are numerous trunk adaptations that must subsequently take place to accommodate this unilateral dominance. And a residual effect of this can become the amount of torsion experienced at the spine, as the athlete has recurring disproportionate stress at certain junctions or on the discs themselves. While this may be difficult to measure in the practical sense, it’s important to appreciate that margins of difference between deep core muscles and offset loading offer a very simple way to attack the deficits effectively.

Programming Considerations

Programming variables are collectively based on how significant the deficits are and in accordance with the demands of sport/specialized development. Functional asymmetries do not need to be stressed as a priority; however, I believe there is merit to utilizing some of these strategies irrespective of imbalances. When specifically addressing nonfunctional imbalances, however, we should address the margins of difference by modifying programming variables and exercise selection.

In the case of Jake, over time the nature of his injuries shifted the way he did everything—from his posture to his gait and everything in between, he now accommodated for his right-side deficits. During our initial assessment, Jake had a more than 20-degree difference between left and right hip extension (deficit on left leg), significant differences in hamstring strength (deficit on left leg), and ankle dorsiflexion (deficit on right ankle). So, in addition to the more obvious unilateral imbalances on the right side of his upper body, we were really attacking this from all angles.

When specifically addressing nonfunctional imbalances, we should address the margins of difference by modifying programming variables and exercise selection, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

I’ve used biased programming in a handful of cases, and this was certainly a feature of Jake’s programming. We followed a protocol of progressively increasing volume discrepancy (2:1, 3:1, and 4:1) with concurrent decreases in load discrepancy across a six-week training split. The volume bias proved to be effective, as we reduced the difference in arm circumference from around 4 inches to around 2 inches between the right and left biceps. We also worked in a good bit of offset loading, which I felt was specifically beneficial for his general motor control and trunk stability. A full breakdown of our programming split can be found in the graphic below.

Programming Spectrum
Figure 9. A look at an example six-week training split for the athlete profiled in this article.


Video 2. Dumbbell offset incline press.

On a micro view, the main goal with our primary lifts was to find exercises we could apply heavy loads to and create a high CNS strain. For Jake, these mainly included hex bar deadlifts and push press variations. I like to “double down” on primary lifts, loading both conventionally and in an offset fashion (see 1A/2A below). The secondary focus was to challenge motor control and trunk stability. We accomplished this utilizing a number of offset variations—DB/KB uneven applications for presses, pulling, and hinge patterns as well as a lot of band offset movements: split squat, marching, and bridge variations. A full sample is shown below:

Sample Program
Figure 10. Micro view of the specific lifts and offset variations used by this athlete.

Jake was one of those athletes who will forever stick with me. Not just because our time together became a catalyst for how I perceive training methods, but more so due to the indelible impression his valor and determination made on me. In a relatively short time frame (six weeks), Jake saw tremendous progress, adding 11 pounds of muscle, dropping about 2% body fat, and showing significant improvements in strength and capacity. Although we didn’t completely resolve Jake’s unilateral deficits, arbitrarily I would say he went from ~50% margins to ~25% across the board. This enabled him to continue his career, have control over his future, and, most importantly, continue to be a husband and father…which is what matters most.

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


GPP

5 Common Misconceptions About GPP (General Physical Preparedness)

Blog| ByMissy Mitchell-McBeth

GPP

Another day, another misused term in the strength and conditioning industry. And thank goodness! Without these arguments of semantics, what on Earth would everyone do on Twitter? We could post content, but we all know that gets less than 10% of the engagement brought about by inflammatory statements. So put on your fingerless gloves, pop that mouthpiece in, and step into the octagon.

On the card for tonight’s fight is general physical preparedness (GPP): actual definition versus interpretation. For purposes of this discussion, I’ll be using the Biblical definition:

“The GPP is intended to provide balanced physical conditioning in endurance, strength, speed, flexibility, and other basic factors of fitness.”

Didn’t run across that in the Old or New Testament? I’m referring to Mel Siff’s Supertraining, the bible every self-respecting strength coach lists in their top 5 books but few have actually read.

So, let’s start unpacking some of the misinterpretations of GPP.

Misconception #1: GPP Means High-Volume/Low-Intensity Work

In writing this article, I did a little poking around through the most credible academic source there is: Google. I ran across an article that eloquently defined GPP using Siff’s work. The author continued with a beautiful interpretation of the concept, then made a hard pivot into low-intensity sled pushes/pulls as the only correct implementation of GPP.

Face. Palm.

There are two misconceptions in this line of thinking, but let’s start with the first: the complete overlooking of anything after the word “endurance” in Siff’s quote. As I tell the athletes that I train:

“All the words in the sentence are important.”

The proper interpretation is right there in the definition if you read all the words. It isn’t just endurance. Speed, strength, flexibility, and more are all components of GPP.

To be clear, one can sprint, jump, throw medicine balls, and lift, and it still falls under the heading of GPP. In fact, anything that isn’t sport skill practice could be classified as GPP.

One can sprint, jump, throw med balls, and lift, and it still falls under the heading of GPP. In fact, anything that isn’t sport skill practice could be classified as GPP, says @missEmitche11. Share on X

So, toss out the idea that GPP can only mean circuit training, sled pushes, and long, slow distance running. (While we’re at it, unless you train distance runners, go ahead and kick LSD running to the curb, please and thank you.) Instead, hold on to the fact that GPP means a comprehensive and well-designed strength and conditioning program.

I mentioned a second problem in the “low-intensity sled” statement above, so here we go next.

Misconception #2: GPP Means Using Certain Tools and Not Others

It’s early off-season, OMG DON’T TOUCH THAT BARBELL THIS IS GPP ONLY.

While there is certainly a time and a place to get athletes out from under a bar, to reduce their intensity, or to focus on different types of movements, that doesn’t make dumbbells/sleds/bands the only available tools for GPP.

As outlined above, any tool you would ordinarily use in the course of your strength and conditioning program can be used to develop GPP. Because, again, your strength and conditioning program is GPP.

GPP is about achieving physiological adaptations, not about showing preference to specific implements.

Misconception #3: Athletes Don’t Need GPP, They Need Sport-Specific Training

This nasty little lie is particularly prevalent in non-football sports, and it is absurd. Athletes need BOTH.

For clarity, there is a difference between sport-specific training and sport mimicry. Sport-specific training is playing and practicing your sport. Sport mimicry is attempting to devise specialized exercises that look like sport skills to promote greater transfer to the field of play. Sometimes this is done well! Zach Dechant and his use of various forms of resistance to load the lower body mechanics of pitchers comes to mind.


Video 1. An example of sport mimicry done well: Coach Zach Dechant using resistance bands to load the lower body mechanics of his throwing athletes.  

Unfortunately, sport mimicry is typically done horribly.

I worked with a volleyball coach who designed contraptions that were belts with arm and leg tubing attached. The athletes would take spike approaches wearing them for “sport-specific training.” However, the tension on the bands was enough that mechanics weren’t even within range of what might be required to hit a volleyball. The attempt at loading the desired movement was a massive failure. In truth, most attempts at sport mimicry do exactly this: fail because they significantly alter the mechanics of the skill to the point there is very little transfer.

With sport specificity clearly defined, let’s discuss training volumes. Athletes in today’s sport model take an absurdly high volume of sport-specific reps. I’m not here to argue that the skill demands of sports don’t dictate that. However, if an athlete is playing year-round and already taking a large number of these reps, do they really need more of the same movement patterns in the weight room? Absolutely not—particularly when they have no mastery of basic movements like squat patterns, hinge patterns, pushing, pulling, and bracing. The goal of GPP is to fill buckets that may not be addressed in the sport but are relevant to the sport. The goal is not to add to already overflowing buckets.

The goal of GPP is to fill buckets that may not be addressed in the sport but are relevant to the sport. The goal IS NOT to add to already overflowing buckets, says @missEmitche11. Share on X

But allow me to clarify: any inclusion in the strength and conditioning sessions should transfer to sport performance. If it doesn’t, it’s a waste of time. Circling back to LSD running or high-volume circuits—they will improve some physical capacity in your athletes…but is it one that will help them in their sport? Nope. So don’t waste valuable training time and/or your athlete’s limited energy.

Misconception #4: GPP Is Only for the Off-Season

If we use the operational definition above (that a comprehensive strength and conditioning program is GPP), it should be clear that this needs to be present in some amount year-round in an athlete’s training program. I will concede that in-season, GPP should take a definite back seat to the sport itself. But this doesn’t mean the complete elimination of it from the training program. In fact, the season is the longest, uninterrupted training phase for many athletes. Shouldn’t we use this to continue developing the total athlete, particularly at lower levels of sport?

Yes. Yes, we should.

But we need to be intelligent with our dosage. Practice and competitive volumes are already quite high, so our GPP volume should be reduced overall. Intensity can (and should) remain relatively high to maintain and even improve metrics like speed, strength, and power. Speed could be dosed into an athlete’s weekly plan via Feed the Cats style workouts where fatigue is the enemy, not the training goal. One might even see *gasp* improvements in KPIs by continuing to train during season.

Revolutionary concept: being at our absolute best in-season when our best is required.

Misconception #5: GPP Is Best Used with Non-Football Athletes Because They Won’t End Up Getting Bulky

I laugh so hard at this I almost fall off my dinosaur. Somehow, despite all of the science and common sense in the world, this narrative still persists.

Before continuing to propagate this misconception, ask yourself a few questions:

  • Will athletes benefit from gains in strength in my sport?
  • Will athletes benefit from being more powerful in my sport?
  • Will athletes benefit from being fast in my sport?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then your athletes will likely benefit from working in the repetition ranges and percentage zones that best address these qualities. An exact description of each is outside of the scope of this article, but you can find more info on the topic here.

Another consideration to combat this narrative is as follows: most individuals who are making a focused effort to gain lean body mass struggle to achieve what the layperson would define as “bulk.” So, unless your athletes are genetic anomalies, it simply won’t happen. (I’m looking at you, coaches of female athletes.) What might happen instead is your athletes will become better prepared for the demands of their sport.

I’m also going to take a little side rant here: stop focusing on aesthetics in girl’s/women’s sports. You do nothing to make them better athletes by telling them they want “long and lean muscles.” Instead, you may be doing psychological damage by promoting the societal construct of what a woman is supposed to look like. Let them be strong, powerful, and aggressive. If you aren’t able to overcome this fallacy, you aren’t part of the problem, you very much are the problem.

Conclusion?

Instead of following the standard writing guidelines of using a snappy summary to wrap up a piece, I’ll leave you with a bonus misconception, one near and dear to my heart:

Bonus Misconception: GPP Builds Mental Toughness

Oh look, my favorite topic: poorly designed workouts with the express purpose of inducing fatigue. Somewhere along the lines, coaches believed this was the move to develop mentally tough athletes.

Somewhere along the lines, coaches started to believe that poorly designed workouts with the express purpose of inducing fatigue was the right move to develop mentally tough athletes. Share on X

Mental toughness has a number of components, but at the end of the day, it can be simply defined as the ability to give your best when the circumstances aren’t optimal.

More often than not, the types of workouts I’m referring to teach quite the opposite: they teach athletes to conserve and give just enough effort to not get screamed at. Not only are we missing out on the physical traits needed for the sports, we are creating the wrong mental ones.

I also find it comical when mental toughness “phases” are built into training programs. Basically, what you’re saying is hey, y’all have to stay behind the line for starts during this bootcamp, but the rest of the year as a coaching staff we are far too busy to enforce the little things.

Instead of doing ridiculous workouts during certain times of the year, how about we just train smart and hold athletes accountable to relevant details all the time? What if…full-time consistency beats part-time intensity?

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


Reactive Strength Ratio

Reactive Strength Ratio: A New Way of Evaluating and Monitoring Plyometrics

Blog| ByMatt McInnes Watson

Reactive Strength Ratio

By Matt McInnes Watson and Ash Buckman

Plyometrics are a powerful training method used by many athletes within speed and power sports. The effectiveness of the training can transform an athlete’s ability to utilize and produce force quickly, with greater precision and locomotive control. The development of plyometrics as a training tool and its link with sport-specific expression of movement has grown in recent years and led to an increased use of plyometric exercises. The variations of plyometric movements range from highly dynamic, intense movements in a linear fashion to a large array of extensive landings and takeoffs in multiple directions and planes.

Despite the growth of the training method, the testing of plyometrics has been limited to vertical, angular, momentum-based (on the spot, up and down) movements. This type of movement enables us to determine simple measurements of ground contact time (GCT) and jump height/flight time (JH/FT) to calculate metrics like the reactive strength index (RSI). Although this may be deemed an effective way to measure forms of reactive strength and plyometric potency, it does not have the capacity to measure influences of horizontal-based momentum.

Although RSI may be deemed an effective way to measure forms of reactive strength and plyometric potency, it does not have the capacity to measure the influences of horizontal-based momentum. Share on X

Measuring jump height and/or the incoming momentum of a movement that possesses more of a horizontal focus (e.g., bounding) is difficult using force plate, camera, and VBT technologies. The influences on landings—such as incoming descent angle and velocity—can often produce data that is difficult for coaches to understand and use as part of their movement assessments. The sport science and coaching community understands the specificity of more horizontally focused plyometrics and their link to sporting movement—therefore, the need for a new testing and monitoring metric is critical!

Outputs and Momentum

As previously mentioned, RSI is a widely credited testing metric for providing simple output data to assess an athlete’s reactive strength. That being said, the data that is recorded may be deemed symptomatic, showing the outcome of a movement. Yet understanding the reasoning behind outcome variables can be more important and can often provide greater clarity on the athlete’s performance. In plyometric movements with varying approaches, we can identify differences in outcome performance through comparison of the incoming momentum of the previous movement.

When it comes to truly understanding what is happening at a given moment within sport or training, we must analyze influencing factors to determine the reasoning of the outcome. This can follow a process similar to a physical therapist taking medical assessments, looking at what contributed to the injury, and linking this to the symptoms. If we’re being overly critical of the output measures, we are only getting half the story, and it can become difficult for coaches to truly understand how to further change and impact these output metrics and athlete performance.

So how can different incoming momentums change the outcomes of a takeoff?

We need to consider the loading pattern and what influences that loading pattern:

  • Did the athlete fall vertically?
  • Did the athlete fall horizontally?
  • Was the incoming momentum affected by a greater entrance velocity?
  • Is that landing affected by a higher velocity produced by an increase in negative foot speed?

When you consider these questions, you can start to understand how just considering output metrics in dynamic movement is half the story. Another important consideration when asking those four questions is: what are the output metrics telling us?

There are three potential outcomes:

  1. The athlete is gaining momentum.
  2. The athlete is losing momentum.
  3. The athlete is maintaining momentum. (Although this may be deemed as important, the likelihood of exact momentum maintenance is very low, and each landing to takeoff varies slightly.)

If we bring these influencing factors together with the potential outcomes, we often see these typical occurrences:

  • Too fast incoming momentum = losing momentum (often seen in the triple jump).
  • Too long falling momentum = losing momentum (often seen with depth jumps).
  • Smaller incoming momentum = gaining momentum (often seen in acceleration-based practices).

When looking back at the first two examples here where the athlete is likely to lose momentum, be it speed and/or jump distance, we as coaches must assess how these influencing factors that may negatively affect performance can eventually be used advantageously for the athlete.

We need to understand how to assess our athletes’ movements & use a new form of plyometric testing to help positively impact their output capacities when dealing w/greater incoming momentums. Share on X

The reasons for declines in momentum in these instances are that the athlete cannot handle the eccentric forces upon landing and/or the rate in which the eccentric portion of the landing is loaded. It’s therefore our mission as coaches to understand how we can assess our athletes’ movements and use a new form of plyometric testing to help positively impact their output capacities when dealing with greater incoming momentums. By just assessing output metrics, it becomes difficult to disseminate this data into our coaching and identify ways in which we can affect technique and task to improve performance.


Video 1. Bounding exercise with flight times and RSR calculated.

The Reactive Strength Ratio (RSR)

The RSR is a measurement of both the incoming and outgoing momentum of a plyometric landing and its influence on the ground contact.

When looking to calculate RSR, the FT before and after a landing should be measured while monitoring GCT. By accounting for both FTs, the incoming approach can be used to assess its influence on GCT, outgoing FT, and the performance outcome (RSI). Both FTs are individually divided by the GCT, giving two initial RSI scores. The outgoing RSI is then divided by the incoming RSI to give a ratio of 1 based on the impact of incoming versus outgoing capacities.

    RSR = (Outgoing RSI)/(Incoming RSI)

    Incoming RSI: Flight time – 0.35/0.17 GCT = 2.05

    Outgoing RSI: Flight time – 0.37/0.17 GCT = 2.17

    RSR: 2.17/2.05 = 1.059

RSR Phases

Understanding the Ratio

When delving into the data, it’s important to understand the ratio and what it tells us. A perfect ratio of 1 relates back to the maintenance of momentum, which could be classed as a state of equilibrium. We can then base all other movements, whether they’re <1 or >1, and account for them having either lost momentum or gained momentum.

Ratios greater than 1 (>1) suggest that the incoming flight time is managed well upon eccentric loading for the athlete and they’re able to handle the force to propel themselves out of the takeoff, creating a larger outgoing flight time (increasing momentum).

Ratios lower than 1 (<1) suggest a greater incoming flight time (e.g., a high platform depth jump) that the athlete struggles to couple the energy of to create an equal or larger outgoing flight time (losing momentum).

RSR Continuum

Due to the previously mentioned difficulties of achieving a perfect ratio of 1, bandwidths are used to gain a greater perspective of the athlete’s ability to utilize or not utilize incoming momentum. The initial bandwidths are set within the 10 percentiles of the ratio of 1 to provide coaches and athletes with a guide to get the most out of plyometric adaptations.

The reasoning behind staying within the bandwidths of 0.90 to 1.10 is to ensure that athletes are training within elastic/plyometric zones, whether that’s overloading the athlete by spiking the eccentric GRF or looking to produce a higher output through the concentric takeoff portion of a movement. It’s important to understand that when we step too far outside these bandwidths there becomes a point of diminishing return. Saying that using just movements that possess a ratio of 1 is the way to train for plyometric adaptations would be foolish, and obvious forms of overload (especially through eccentric loading—ratio of 0.90) are critical for developing athletes.

But too often, coaches and athletes bang on the doors of plyometric overload and leave aside critical areas for developing the velocity side of landings. We must understand that high GRF must come with rapid GCTs in order for movements to be reactive, elastic, and, most importantly, efficient.

It must be noted too that the optimal ratio of 1 can be a sign of locomotive rhythm for the athlete in a given exercise. Rhythm can be the foundation of force-velocity acquisition, showing that an athlete’s competencies at a given movement in time are handled with efficient locomotive properties.

Using the Data to Guide the Coaching Process

The common practice of dividing plyometrics into intensive and extensive movements has given coaches a simplistic way to program dynamic training. The split is a similar reflection of maximal and submaximal categorization of movement, which also has implications when measuring RSR.

Intensive or maximal plyometrics will be most critical for monitoring RSR bandwidth. Often, the use of maximal intent for a given task shows the true colors of how the body reacts to maximal output stimuli. This may highlight weak links and disconnects of skills that result in biomechanical faults that inherently diminish the performance of said task or movement.

Analysis of the movement using the RSR could be a way of discovering asymmetrical discrepancies or a lack of eccentric loading control of the given movement, says @mcinneswatson. Share on X

Coaches can be left second-guessing or unaware that an athlete’s RSI score may be low due to an overwhelmingly low ratio of <0.90 (high eccentric loading). Equally, monitoring of RSR bandwidth can be used to detect if the eccentric loading is placing enough stress on the athletes, with regard to producing ratios >1. This also plays a critical role in monitoring fatigue and potential overuse or stress-based injuries.

Extensive or submaximal plyometrics have a fundamentally different emphasis and intent—loading or output are not always KPIs. Submaximal strategies are implemented for physiological and neuromuscular adaptive reasons, such as:

  • Higher landing volume to accommodate tendon CSA growth/stiffness.
  • Better timing and efficiency of the SSC.
  • Heightened proprioceptive awareness.
  • Overall mechanical landing improvement.

As with many submaximal or extensive strategies for training, rhythm becomes the foundation of movement. It is usually the case that submaximal effort can give way to conscious, relaxed states to then place further efforts on smooth locomotion. This is achieved through, ideally, an optimal RSR of 1, when athletes are able to utilize and produce force efficiently. If an athlete is struggling to maintain speed, fluidity, or rhythm during an extensive plyometric activity, then analysis of the movement using the RSR could be a way of discovering asymmetrical discrepancies or a lack of eccentric loading control of the given movement.



Videos 2 & 3. Extensive crossover bounds and extensive split exchange leaps.

Optimal locomotive performance often requires movement in the most intense manner but is also achieved in the smoothest and most efficient way. Often in sport, the fastest and best performers aren’t always producing the highest force but are using it effectively to accomplish the sporting skill best (whether that’s sprinting, pitching a ball, or outmaneuvering a defender).

Therefore, our utmost aim as coaches is to develop movers who execute specifically intense movements like sprinting or bounding for distance with an optimal RSR of 1.

Our utmost aim as coaches is to develop movers who execute specifically intense movements like sprinting or bounding for distance with an optimal RSR of 1, says @mcinneswatson. Share on X

Further Observations and a Sampler of Unilateral Landings

There are two options for unilateral plyometrics:

  • Hopping (unipedal—moving on just one leg).
  • Bounding (bipedal—alternating legs).

Although both are considered unilateral, they have some inherent differences when it comes to landing forces, mechanics, and neuromuscular stimulus. A consideration and finding from the RSR brings up the asymmetrical differences that may be observed during bounding.

All athletes will possess an asymmetrical balance between legs, with what may be considered a dominant and nondominant leg. Other descriptions may be a “strength leg” and “speed leg” that are based on takeoff preferences in jumping actions.

This difference brings up scenarios during bounding that may sway the use of maximal intent versions. For an athlete with a dominant left leg, when bounding for distance left to right, due to the left leg’s capacity, the flight time of the incoming right leg landing is likely to be high. This subsequently has a knock-on effect due to the nondominant right side then having to deal with the larger incoming flight that will inevitably spike a high eccentric ground reaction force. The right leg’s inferior capacities can potentially have a further effect when coupling energy from what may be deemed a supramaximal landing, which cannot produce an equal outgoing flight time (= RSR <1).

This continues to have a knock-on effect with the lack of influence it may bring when alternating back to the dominant left side as it receives what should be maximal—but is in fact a submaximal—loading of the next landing due to the nondominant leg’s incapacities to utilize and express force. This leads the dominant left to then proceed in having to recreate momentum again (= positive RSR >1).

The scenario can create a vicious cycle where both legs are not training within the zones a coach may wish for, especially if the intent is to work on maximal output. This might be the typical response we may want with plyometrics, by highly loading the eccentric phase, but when using unilateral bipedal movement (bounding), this may bring up some faulty patterns that could lead to potential asymmetrical landing injuries.

It must be noted, too, that a certain level of dominance will always be there for some athletes but must only be present at a minimal level. Negative influences that were previously discussed must be monitored through the ratio to help determine further if gait and loading mechanics are leading to overuse and/or potential injury.

Final Takeaways

The RSR can be a great tool for evaluating and monitoring a particular plyometric or dynamic movement in time. The ratio can provide athletes with a measurement of their capacity to deal with all landing and takeoff scenarios, no matter the trajectory of the incoming movement.

The reactive strength ratio can provide athletes with a measurement of their capacity to deal with all landing and takeoff scenarios, no matter the trajectory of the incoming movement. Share on X

What’s important about the ratio is that it does not replace RSI but becomes part of the story for movement assessments. Output RSI is always present when measuring RSR, so you still get a value to determine the output capacity of an athlete’s reactive strength. With both load tolerance measured in the ratio and dynamic output from RSI, we can now better understand the reactive abilities of our athletes.

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



Ash BuckmanAsh Buckman is a performance coach based in the U.K. who has a master’s degree in sport science. He has worked within many high-performance environments across sports including basketball, track and field, and motorsport. His work includes strength and conditioning and soft tissue therapy, with a strong interest in the use of plyometrics in sports performance.

Volleyball Match

Improving the Quality of Life in and After Sport for Female Athletes with Sam Moore

Freelap Friday Five| BySam Moore, ByNathan Huffstutter

Volleyball Match

Sam Moore is an applied sport scientist who recently joined University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Exercise and Sport Science graduate school as a research fellow in the Applied Physiology Lab under the direction of Dr. Abbie Smith-Ryan. Prior to UNC, Sam was with the NC State Wolfpack from 2019-2021 as the Director of Sport Science and Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach.

After two season-ending knee surgeries during her dual-sport collegiate athletic career, Moore was drawn to the starkly different experience entering the “real world” as a former female athlete compared to that of male athletes. This was the inception of what would later establish her as the topic expert in the field of female athlete physiology in the pursuit of gender equity in collegiate women’s sports.

As the first woman to serve as a Director of Sport Science in the NCAA, Sam implemented a revolutionary and evidence-informed framework of women’s specific training design based on the hormonal landscape of the Wolfpack female athletes. Sam has presented at major conferences on topics ranging from metabolic and performance effects of female sex hormones to bigger-picture issues of social and gender justice for collegiate athletes.

Freelap USA: Working as a sport scientist and performance coach at North Carolina State, one of your roles was to implement menstrual cycle-based periodization and athlete management strategies. What were some of the most effective strategies that you were able to provide through that process and what performance outcomes did that effort help bring about? In addition, what type of feedback did you receive from the athletes while applying this model?

Sam Moore: I would consider the most impactful outcome to be the empowerment that arose from the education provided to my athletes. So few women are taught about their own physiology, whether that be about menstrual cycles, oral birth control, implants, etc., and how these hormonal changes affect their lives and their training.

At NCSU, empowerment looked like women taking the initiative on behavioral interventions to lessen the severity of symptoms at different points in their cycle, having conversations with their healthcare professionals about their options and what is best for them at that point in their lives, and using the information to improve their lives. That’s the best possible outcome for any coach.

Every athlete needs to hear their physiology, experience, and place in sport is valued, respected, and worthy of time and resources, says @SamMooreStrong. Share on X

The feedback from the athletes was nothing but positive. The strength of the relationships I developed in my time at NCSU was unlike any other I’ve experienced, from the 17-year-old athlete who came to college halfway through their senior year to the 23-year-old redshirt senior dealing with constant injuries. Every athlete needs to hear their physiology, experience, and place in sport is valued, respected, and worthy of time and resources.

Freelap USA: With any training method or protocol, some elements scale from the adult/elite level to the youth level and some do not—with regard to accounting for an athlete’s menstrual cycle as a factor in training and performance, are there any specific takeaways that coaches at the early teen level can adapt or simplify from the program you implemented at NC State? Additionally, for youth and high school coaches, do you have any “best practices” you can suggest as general guidelines for understanding the evolving hormonal landscape of their female athletes?

Sam Moore: Absolutely. I understand not every strength and conditioning coach or sport coach has the time and resources I’ve been given to develop the frameworks I was able to implement.

Two important strategies come to mind. The first needs to happen as early as possible, and that’s simply functional movement training. I know some people have opinions on both sides of that term, but from where I see it, these athletes need the basics. The anthropometrical changes associated with estrogen-dominated puberty are so significant that athletes develop bodies that can move much differently compared with their bodies prior to menarche. Our female athletes need to be taught how to navigate fundamental movement patterns effectively and safely during the peri-puberty, puberty, and post-puberty stages.

The second strategy is choice. Give athletes choice in anything you can possibly manage it for. Programming, exercise selection, intensity, volume, even when they practice (if it’s feasible). If you have adequately educated your athletes on the why behind everything you do, then by giving them ownership in their training combined with the skill of personal attunement to biofeedback, you have empowered them for the rest of their lives.

Our female athletes need to be taught how to navigate fundamental movement patterns effectively and safely during the peri-puberty, puberty, and post-puberty stages, says @SamMooreStrong. Share on X

I think one of my biggest mistakes early on came from a genuine attempt to explain how important female physiology is and how we, as a discipline, need to be better. Through conversations with colleagues, clients, and a fair bit of self-reflection, I realized what I had been doing was ultimately gatekeeping female physiology education and applications for coaches at levels that might have prevented them from having the time and resources to pursue the narrow-minded strategies I laid in front of them.

I’ve tried to widen my scope of consideration when creating applications for coaches of different levels and disciplines. It’s important that these applications get to all coaches who need them. Prioritizing accessibility has been a big shift in my work and with my company moving forward.

Freelap USA: How has the diversity of your athletic background—having competed collegiately in both volleyball and the track multi-events—been an asset and informed your ability to work across different disciplines as a sport scientist and performance coach? What challenges did you have to overcome to be able to compete in multiple sports, particularly on the volleyball side where early specialization and year-round competition is the norm?

Sam Moore: I grew up in a small town on the Oregon coast. This meant a lot of community support, but not as many elite-level athletic resources. I just so happened to be born with two collegiate All-Americans for parents. Growing up, I played every sport I could, and while track was my first sport, volleyball quickly became my favorite.

The biggest asset I gained from volleyball that carried over was my “jack-of-all-trades” experience. I specialized as a setter around sixth grade, when I was small and young for my grade, a bit of a late bloomer athletically speaking. I graduated at 6’0” tall, with school records in the long, triple, and high jumps and several other events. Because of my late puberty, when I got to high school, I didn’t fit the “setter” stereotype.

I remember going to a Boise State volleyball camp and not telling anyone my position. I went through half the camp as an outside hitter before the coaches figured it out. And that’s mostly how my college career went, with starts at every position except for libero. Injuries would cut out pin hitter numbers, so I would play outside for a few weeks. A setter quit our team once, so I went back to setting for a while.

Sometimes it would change based on our competition as well. If we were preparing for a team with a dominant middle, I would play middle in the front row and set in the back row. I learned early on that good footwork and court vision transferred to every position. It made my player-to-coach transition much different than most. Instead of starting my career working with the specific position group that I played, I saw positions not as people, but as a list of constraints that needed to be satisfied to do the job well, which could be done through a wide range of athlete types.

Viewing the game as malleable components of a larger framework helped as a multi-event specialist as well. Unfortunately, I had a significant knee injury my freshman year in college, which meant I needed to learn to high jump and long jump off my nondominant leg. I thought about similar patterns from my volleyball experience, like when I learned to jump off one leg for a slide attack as a middle in college and used it to help visualize what high jumping would feel like on that leg.

My knee injury also provided a level of humility that I needed. Coaches always talk about “the bigger picture,” but until I was forced to confront the possibility of life after sport, I thought my entire purpose here was to play volleyball. Learning the hard way that my competitive career was finite helped me keep things in perspective as I navigated the rest of my collegiate career. It changed my major from English to Exercise Science as well, so hindsight—I’m pretty grateful for it.

Freelap USA: What is the focus of your current research at UNC Chapel Hill and what are some of the projects you expect to work on during your time there? What direction do you expect this course of study to take you once you’ve completed your PhD?

Sam Moore: If you’re asking what I want to be when I grow up, I have no idea. Just kidding.

There are a few reasons I came to UNC Chapel Hill rather than pursue the other professional opportunities I had in front of me. The first is to be an independent researcher. I kept coming up against the same barrier of “there’s just not enough research for us to try that” when it came to female athlete strategies. That frustrated me beyond words. Because while I agree there’s not enough research with women athletes, strength and conditioning as a whole creates and implements innovative applications without sufficient or applicable research all the time. So I thought, if there’s not enough research, I’ll go learn how to do it myself.

While I agree there isn’t enough research with women athletes, S&C as a whole creates and implements innovative applications without sufficient or applicable research all the time. Share on X

The second is my mentor, Dr. Abbie Smith-Ryan. I love educating people on female athlete-related topics—it’s what makes me feel like I’m truly fulfilling my purpose here. But there are seasons when I get so exhausted with convincing people these topics even matter in the first place. The misogyny ingrained in these systems can emotionally wear on me. I felt it was a priority for me to never have to navigate the conversation of “I promise this matters” with my mentor. I wanted a mentor who understood that women deserve better in their sport, their health, and their lives, before I even walked in the door. That was Dr. Smith-Ryan.

Projects often largely depend on grant funding, which is difficult to predict, but it’s been an incredible opportunity to be part of the Applied Physiology Lab and some of the ongoing projects here already. Discussions are constantly evolving on what are the most critical barriers faced by women and female athletes, what capabilities do we have to contribute to the removal of those barriers, and what’s the best way to do so? I feel confident in saying that my purpose of improving the quality of experience, health, and life after sport for female athletes is fully supported and encouraged by my lab team and our leader.

Freelap USA: Institutionally, throughout the pathway from youth sports organizations to high schools to universities to professional teams, what are some proactive steps that those making hiring decisions can take to increase the overall number of female sport and performance coaches and, just as importantly, better retain, progress, and promote those female coaches over time?

Sam Moore: This is such an important but often unasked question. The first step is to take a critical lens to the demographics of the current coaching staff and hiring process. Does your current hiring process include women already at your institution or in the field? Because it should.

How was the job description written, and by who? Job descriptions shouldn’t be crafted for or by the last person who held the job, though I understand that’s often the path of least resistance. Job descriptions often list requirements that aren’t really all that concrete, yet listing them as “required” can dissuade women from applying if they don’t have all the parts satisfied.

Lastly, what’s the experience of women currently or formerly in the department? Were the demands of the position feasible for working mothers and how does that speak to the resources allocated to the department? And if you’ve never had a woman in a full- time position, that’s probably something worth your attention in itself.

I’m not a diversity, equity, or inclusion expert, and I don’t claim to be. But I know that we have systemic biases and persistent microaggressions for women, and women of color, in the sport community. I also know that everyone needs a seat at the table for it to ever improve.

We want a doorstop for the most qualified coaches that might look different than the “expectation,” because just sitting at the table isn’t good enough for us anymore, says @SamMooreStrong. Share on X

I thank the women that came before me. The women that busted down the door by coaching circles around their male counterparts just to get the same, and often less, exposure and salary. The women who put their lives on hold to get a seat at that infamous “table,” because without them I wouldn’t be where I am.

It’s with their accomplishments we can build. Because we don’t just want a seat at the table to close the door behind us. We want a doorstop for the most qualified coaches that might look different than the “expectation,” because just sitting at the table isn’t good enough for us anymore. Now we’re here to run the whole show.

Lead photo by Scott Winters/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


FAU Speed Power

Misconceptions About Speed and Power Training for Team Sports

Blog| ByJoey Guarascio

FAU Speed Power

From the soccer pitch to the football end zone, speed is one of the ultimate, game-breaking physical attributes. Sports are determined by inches at times, and speed is the measurement of an athlete’s time to cover a given distance. Increase this, and it gives athletes a competitive advantage no matter the event. Explosive plays change games and are fueled by speed.

In college football, speed is an extremely important commodity and is recruited accordingly. You understand how important speed is for success in field sports when you don’t have it! Fast athletes make big plays, as evidenced by nearly every SportsCenter “Top Ten.”

There are many misconceptions about training speed and power in the group setting. Whether application, principles, or modalities, it can be easy to lose sight of the forest through the trees. I created this article in the hope of clarifying eight of the major misconceptions that frequently pop up in conversations with coaches.

1. Speed Is Everything in Field Sports

Speed is important, speed is a game-changer…but speed is not everything. The goal of training general athletic qualities is to increase the athlete’s ability to perform sport-specific movements with faster execution and increased proficiency. Sport-specific skill development will (and has to) rank higher than any general training ability. To be good at sports, you must train to be good at the sport.

Speed is important, speed is a game-changer…but speed is not EVERYTHING in field sports, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X


Video 1. Sport-specific skill development must take a higher precedence in training once general athletic qualities increase to minimize negative transfer and interference effects. To be good at a specific sport, the skills required must rehearsed.

Deliberate practice of fine motor skills such as catching, throwing, dribbling, or any other specific skill will be the ultimate determination in technical ability in sports. Bridging the gap from general to specific will be based on the reinforcement of newly acquired increases in speed and power in sport movements. The goal, after all, is to be better at the sport.

2. More Speed Is Always Better

The only sport that runs uninterrupted in a straight line is track. All court and field-based sports require COD and deceleration. Negative speed, or deceleration, has major implications on the success of athletes in court and field sports. What’s the point of having a race car that can travel at 200 mph if it can’t put on the brakes? What makes many athletes special is their ability to manipulate speeds in rapid fashion. Barry Sanders could run full speed, stop his momentum instantly, and change his direction, making him almost impossible to track.

To achieve high levels of speed, athletes must accelerate. A definition for acceleration from Websters is: “… the rate of change of the velocity of an object with respect to time.” Understanding that the definition of acceleration doesn’t specify positive or negative, we can classify the ability to decelerate as negative acceleration and put it in the speed category.

In training, coaches spend countless hours fine-tuning acceleration angles and front side mechanics for increasing speed, but often neglect what McBurnie, Harper, Jones, and Dos’Santos coined “the ability to skillfully dissipate braking loads, develop mechanically robust musculoskeletal structures, and ensure frequent high-intensity horizontal exposure in order to accustom athletes to the potentially damaging effects of intense decelerations that athletes will frequently perform in competition.”1 As we design comprehensive training programs for field and court sports, we as coaches must attack deceleration training with the same vigor and focus that most put into acceleration and max velocity training.

As we design comprehensive training programs for field & court sports, we must attack deceleration training w/the same vigor and focus that we put into acceleration and max velocity training. Share on X
Study
Figure 1. Pictured above is a fantastic chart from an article titled “Deceleration Training in Team Sports: Another Potential ‘Vaccine’ for Sports Related Injury?” (1) The article describes the performance and injury prevention benefits of focused deceleration training. Deceleration training is negative acceleration and must be trained from a kinematic and kinetic standpoint, as it is so prevalent in all court and field sports

3. You Are Training “Plyometrics”

It has become common practice in strength and conditioning to label any jump activity as plyometric training—this has been going on since long before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The clarification of what constitutes true plyometric training is well described in the book Supertraining2 by the Godfather of the exercise. Shock training is a “method of mechanical shock stimulation to force the muscle to produce as much tension as possible.”2 Defined, a plyometric action has “a sequential combination of eccentric (lengthening) and concentric (shortening) muscle action which was termed SSC.”3

Plyometric action and plyometric training are not interchangeable, as true plyometric training will differ from exercises that have plyometric actions by the shock and GCT of the event. The stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) drastically increase concentric work due to the rapid lengthening and shortening, which stimulates stretch reflexes (muscle spindles) and storage and reutilization of elastic energy in the muscle-tendon unit (MTU). The key word in all of this is rapid.

Plyometric action and plyometric training are not interchangeable, as true plyometric training will differ from exercises that have plyometric actions by the shock and GCT of the event, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Plyometric training comes in the commonly used forms of bounding, depth jumps, drop jumps, sprinting, and hurdle hops. If the movement has prolonged GCT, the exercise is now utilizing the contractile properties to generate power versus the utilization of the MTU through the SSC. In Supertraining, they termed the prolonged GCT version of these exercises “Powermetrics.”2

Hansen Chart
Figure 2. This is a graphic adapted from Derek Hansen with the addition of average sporting movements in football and weight room exercises. There is a significant difference between events happening at 100 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds. Once movement time exceeds around 250 milliseconds, it will shift from reactive ability to explosive ability.

Plyometric (shock) exercises are meant to increase reactive ability and explosive-strength. The premise of this method is to create a stiffer spring, as stiffer springs are better at storing and returning energy. Box jumps, single-response vertical jumps, and rudimentary hops are not true plyometric training—even though they do contain prolonged elements of the stretch-shortening cycle—because the elastic energy stored in the elastic components will dissipate as heat after an extremely short time (hundredths of a second).

True plyometric exercises are suggested to contain GCTs less than 250 milliseconds4 as to maximize elastic properties of the MTU. Verkhoshansky and Siff go even further, stating “if the transition phase (or coupling phase) is prolonged by more than .15 seconds, the actions may be considered to constitute ordinary jumping and not classical training plyometrics.”2 So to train in this fashion, coaches should emphasize extremely fast GCT, and the exercise should appear jarring on ground contact.


Video 2. True plyometric training must keep GCT under 250 milliseconds to utilize the elastic energy generated in the rapid stretch to avoid the energy dissipating as heat.

4. You Are Training Speed Even If You Are Only Running up to 20 Yards

Vaccine has become a very popular word lately. In sports, it is imperative that coaches perform a needs analysis to understand the demands of the game and properly prepare the athletes for those demands. In many sports, a necessity for max velocity sprinting exists—if not trained, there is a potential for injury risk when exposed to these stresses in sport.

If this is the case in the majority of sports, why do some strength and conditioning coaches limit speed training to only 20 yards?

Acceleration is the rate in change of velocity. If an object has the potential to keep accelerating—but is cut short prior to terminal velocity—would that be considered adequate stimulus to vaccinate athletes against potential injuries associated with max velocity running? At 20 yards, a football player at the NFL combine is at roughly 90%-95% of maximal velocity.5

Graph
Figure 3. Graph of velocity versus distance for the slowest athlete at the NFL combine, athletes representing the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles, and the fastest athlete at the combine. On average, an estimated distance of roughly 30 meters was where these athletes hit top speed. (Credit: Ken Clark)

That leaves 5%-10% of their top speed untouched. This doesn’t sound like a huge difference, but let’s break it down.

  • Athlete A has a top speed of 22 mph.
  • 90% of 22 mph is 19.8 mph; round up and it’s 2 mph short of full-speed capabilities.
  • 95% of 22 mph is 20.9 mph; round up and it’s 1 mph short of full-speed capabilities.

High-speed running training is not only necessary from a preparation standpoint, but it is critical from a performance standpoint—so, why avoid it? In the same study mentioned above5, Ken Clark hypothesized that an increase in maximal speed capabilities will increase the entire acceleration profile. As Tony Holler has stated repeatedly, this is the reason why “speed is the tide that lifts all ships.” The performance benefits of training above 95% of top speed include increased rate of force development (RFD), increased reactive ability, increased inter-muscle coordination, and increased intra-muscle coordination.

The performance benefits of training above 95% of top speed include increased rate of force development (RFD), reactive ability, inter-muscle coordination, and intra-muscle coordination. Share on X

Another benefit is seen in running economy and speed reserve. If an athlete increases their max speed (say by 1 mph), it has dramatic effects on that athlete’s ability to maintain higher velocities under fatigue.

  • Athlete A has top speed of 22 mph; when fatigued, athlete A can maintain 80% of top speed for a mph of 17.6.
  • Athlete B has top speed of 20 mph; when fatigued, athlete B can maintain 80% of top speed for a mph of 16.
  • Athlete A beats Athlete B in this situation.
Zanot Figure
Figure 4. The difference in mph in yards—train accordingly! (Graphic adapted from Dominic Zanot, Athletics Westchester.)

Training high-speed running not only increases terminal velocity but also trains the ability to hold higher running velocities longer, which I believe is a game-changer. It’s great an athlete can get to 20 mph, but how long can they hold it? If acceleration between two athletes is consistent but max velocity maintenance is different, one athlete will pull away even though the rate at which they got to that specific velocity was the same. Bottom line: If you are going to train speed, train all aspects of it.

Training high-speed running not only increases terminal velocity but also trains the ability to hold higher running velocities longer, which I believe is a game-changer, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

5. High-Speed Running Will Prevent All Soft Tissue Injuries

There has been an emergence of research such as “Proximal Neuromuscular Control Protects Against Hamstring Injuries in Male Soccer Players: A Prospective Study With Electromyography Time-Series Analysis During Maximal Sprinting,”6 on the protective nature of high-speed running (HSR) for soft tissue injuries. High-speed running is a staple in my program for this specific reason (amongst others), but to say that it protects against all soft tissue injuries is naïve. HSR does increase reactive ability and overall tissue stress capacity, but it is specific to those stressors. Sports have change of direction and deceleration, which at times have higher ground reaction forces than HSR. Vaccines only deter the disease they are made for.

High-speed deceleration training, along with COD training, increases an athlete’s robustness against soft tissue issues and works alongside high-speed running in the fight against soft tissue injuries. In a recently submitted article “Deceleration training in team sports: another potential ‘vaccine’ for sports related injury?” McBurnie and authors state “high intensity horizontal decelerations are performed frequently in team sports match play and possess unique biomechanical and physiological characteristics.”1 This means that as strength and conditioning coaches, we must provide solutions to problems. The first part of this is identifying problems. Understanding the sport being trained is not only necessary, but it is borderline irresponsible to not know the demands of the sport.

Integrating high-velocity decelerations into training increases tissue stress capacity in that flexed hip and knee position as that negative impulse is applied. Most hamstring injuries occur with the foot in front of the athlete’s center of mass followed by a rapid eccentric contraction. This sequence happens every deceleration, and the muscle can be strengthened in these positions with training. The best ability is availability, so keep your players off the sideline and train both deceleration and HSR.


Video 3. Training the technical demands of specific cuts and decelerations that an athlete will be exposed to frequently will act as a vaccine against some of the major injuries that occur in these movements.

6. Strength Is Not Important for Speed

Strength is defined as the “ability to exert force on an external resistance.” (Stone, 1993) Newton explained to us through his second law that a force must be applied to accelerate and change the velocity of an object to make it move. The total force to accelerate this object is known as an impulse.

To change velocity or the velocity of another object, an impulse is required—meaning that a force is required. More impulse means more total force, which also means greater change in velocity. Dan Cleather states in his book Force: “in order to improve our performance, we need to increase the amount of impulse that we apply during a movement.”

Getting stronger allows for higher levels of peak force, thus increasing impulse. Use the example of an athlete who increases lower body strength and obtains higher jump performance in a countermovement jump. The previous GCT would be similar, but the peak force and ground reaction forces would have increased due to the newly acquired strength. Strength is still, and will always be, important in the development of speed and power.

When you look at size, there needs to be a linear relationship with maximal force capabilities. The bigger the athlete, the more force necessary to move their own inertia (a fancy way of saying their body). If the adequate amount of force cannot not be applied due to inadequate levels of strength by the athlete, a slower, less explosive movement will ensue. Also, add in the fact that majority of field sports require some sort of collision—from a kinetic viewpoint, this increases the peak force demand because now the athlete is dealing with preserving their momentum while an outside force applies high negative impulses to them.

GRF Chart
Figure 5. This is an example of an impulse curve from a countermovement jump. Increasing strength will increase the height of the curve, which produces a more powerful impulse. (Credit: P. Walder Sport Division, School of Sport and Leisure Management, Sheffield Hallam University.)

7. Sled Training Is Training Speed

Sled work is not speed work. It’s too slow, as 60% BW has shown decrements in speed by almost double. Yes, as the load decreases to around 10%, velocities are faster; still, these do not constitute true “speed work” because the ground contact times remain slower than normal acceleration GCT and rely on strength and power of the contractile properties and less on RFD and reactive ability. Depending on the load, sled training could be classified like concentric training in the weight room, as there is a direct correlation between load and velocity.

  • <100% BW absolute strength
  • 60%-100% BW accelerative strength
  • 20%-60% BW strength speed
  • 10%-20% BW speed strength


Video 4. Here is an example of an extremely strong athlete towing a 10% BW load and still seeing elongated GCT all the way through his first five steps of acceleration. The impulse needed to change the velocity of the athlete needs to be longer (GCT) to produce the force.

There are many ways to calculate the appropriate load for the desired stimulus a coach is trying to impose. JB Morin has a ton of research on how to force-velocity profile to get the proper load for the desired stress.

Let’s look at the reason the GCTs are elongated. To accelerate, the impulse applied must be greater than the inertia of the object that is increasing velocity. When a load is applied to an object, like a sled to an athlete, the mass of the object has increased, thus increasing the necessary amount of force to accelerate the new heavier object. To apply a more forceful impulse, which will increase the velocity of the sled, the duration of the impulse must be lengthened to develop the force necessary for acceleration. To increase the duration of the impulse, the athlete must push longer, leading to longer GCT.

This has been our practical experience here at FAU, through slo-mo video and Dartfish analysis: we saw with a 10% BW load on the sled that GCTs on the athlete’s third and fourth steps of acceleration were increased on average by 65% compared to the unloaded sprint.

8. Sprinting Is Time-Consuming

Thirty-minute warm-ups and 15-minute rest periods: this is what many strength and conditioning coaches imagine as they contemplate programming speed sessions.

In a team setting, with sometimes up to 100+ athletes in one session, this seems like an unachievable task. The reason I believe that some coaches don’t plan speed sessions is they think they are time-consuming. Twitter is a fantastic resource but can influence coaches into thinking that they need fancy equipment and extravagant exercise selection. You need 10 minutes to get warm and enough space to run. Running fast is what gets you fast.

The reason I believe that some coaches don’t plan speed sessions is they think they are time-consuming. You need 10 minutes to get warm and enough space to run. Running fast is what gets you fast. Share on X

Having timing gates and 10 different sleds is fun and a plus, but people have gotten fast without any equipment. Some people didn’t even have shoes to train in and still managed to get fast. Understanding the prescription of sprint distances and total yard accumulation is necessary to make sure the athletes aren’t biting off more than they can chew. Knowing that, on average for team sports, the minimal effective dose for sprinting is around 90 yards will also put this misconception to rest. Sprinting can be done in a timely fashion with a lot of athletes at one time.

What’s the alternative—your athletes don’t sprint and lose out on all the benefits that occur when sprinting is trained?

Lead image by Aaron Gilbert/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


References;

1. McBurnie AJ, Harper DJ, Jones PA, and Dos’Santos T.“Deceleration Training in Team Sports: Another Potential ‘Vaccine’ for Sports-Related Injury?” Sports Medicine. October 2021.

2. Verkhoshansky YV and Siff MC. Supertraining. 6th ed.; p. 268.

3. Cavanagh PR and Komi PV. “Electromechanical delay in human skeletal muscle under concentric and eccentric contractions.” European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. 1979;42:159-163.

4. Walsh M, Arampatzis A, Schade F., and Brüggermann G-P. “The Effect of Drop Jump Starting Height and Contact Time on Power, Work Performed, and Moment of Force.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2004;18(3):561-566.

5. Clark KP, Rieger RH, Bruno RF, and Stearne DJ. “The National Football League Combine 40-yd Dash: How Important is Maximum Velocity?” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2019;33(6):1542-1550. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002081. PMID: 28658072.

6. Schuermans J, Danneels L, Van Tiggelen D, Palmans T, and Witvrouw E. “Proximal Neuromuscular Control Protects Against Hamstring Injuries in Male Soccer Players: A Prospective Study With Electromyography Time-Series Analysis During Maximal Sprinting.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017;45(6):1315-1325. doi: 10.1177/0363546516687750. Epub 2017 Mar 1. PMID: 28263670.

Medicine Ball Slam

What They Didn’t Teach Us About Fascia in Grad School

Blog| ByDrew Hill

Medicine Ball Slam

Anyone who has taken biomechanics courses in college and survived to tell the tale understands how the academic world looks at human movement. It’s taught that the body consists of a series of muscles, connective tissues, and bones: this is a system of levers and pulleys creating locomotion.

While crunching complicated equations, most of us begin to compartmentalize action based on the surrounding muscle groups. And why wouldn’t we? The entire strength and conditioning field revolves around strengthening particular muscle groups. We have machines for biceps and entire days dedicated to legs. The internet is full of gurus whose Instagram handles include the words knee, hamstring, glute, etc. Our field mocks bodybuilders for their training methodologies and then applies the same kind of muscle idolization in its training.

So, how did this happen? To answer that, travel with me back to 2016, when I finished my master’s thesis (see the abstract for “The Impact of Three Different Forms of Warm Up on Performance”).

Drew Hill S-C
Image 1. Strength & Conditioning at Midwestern State University in Texas.

From the Playing Field to Academia

Before I conducted my research, I spent the year coaching athletes in the strength and conditioning program at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas. Having played football and powerlifted for my university, I already knew what it was like to do the training. Like any new coach and grad student, I ate up the new nuggets of knowledge I gained. The purpose of my thesis was to check how different forms of warm-ups could positively or negatively affect power performance. I looked at the differences between the impact of dynamic warm-ups, static stretches, and foam rolling on peak power and range of motion.

At this time, there was a great deal of debate about whether foam rollers were worth the energy for a sports program. Old-school coaches looked at it as a waste of time, stating that rolling on a piece of plastic was a horrible way to start a workout. On the opposite side of the spectrum, new age gurus claimed a simple piece of foam could break down scar tissue within the muscle. (Fun fact: it cannot). For more than a year, I had started every session with rolling out, and I believed it improved how well I moved during my workout. This made me want to investigate two things:

  1. Does myofascial release (foam rolling) have any positive or negative impact on training and performance?
  2. If there is a positive impact, how does it work?

To answer the first question simply—foam rolling did seem to affect peak power or improve range of motion. To answer the second question complexly—a lot happens when pressure is applied to muscle and its connective tissue.

So, like any good grad student, I began researching how foam rolling affects the body and why it impacts performance. After a few weeks down the rabbit hole, I looked at myofascial release therapy and its effect on fascia. At this point in my career, I had compartmentalized the body into more than 600 different muscle groups. If your quad hurts, you need to fix your quad. If your shoulder blade “pinches,” you need to fix the muscles around your shoulder blade. After all, muscles are the main character in this movie.

Apparently not. I learned that our bodies are covered in an intertwining organ that is full of sensory receptors that can affect everything. From “tightness” to how the body can transfer energy between limbs, myofascia played a huge role. I had spent years thinking of the body as this series of segmented levers. All school taught me about fascia was that it covers our muscles—that was about it. It was during my own research that I learned the positive effect of foam rolling comes partly from the pressure feedback within the myofascia. This creates a cascade of events that not only improve the range of motion, but also the power an athlete can produce.

My light bulb moment: If the function of fascia can improve from rolling out, then emphasizing it in training surely would enhance performance, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

I had never considered the impact of how fascia can aid (or impair) movement. LIGHT BULB.

If the function of fascia can improve from rolling out, then emphasizing it in training surely would enhance performance! This organ doesn’t stop and restart at each bone like muscles; rather, it covers EVERYTHING. This is why you can stretch or massage the glute and relieve shoulder blade tension. Or how you can have someone who is weight room weak produce massive amounts of power and speed on the field. Skinny pitchers and lanky basketball players can do things that no elite-level powerlifter could dream of. This “discovery” helped me realize two huge concepts:

  1. Anytime an athlete trains, we should organize sessions, microcycles, and macrocycles around more than just traditional strength training.
  2. What made me into a great powerlifter might have been the same thing that made me such an injury-prone and average football player.

So, the big question is: “how do we train fascia?” The truth is that almost everything you do in sports and the weight room will train your fascia. Now, if you stop reading at that line, you will miss out on the UGLY truth of fascia: How you train affects your fascia.

Fascia is an interesting organ because of its adaptability. It can act like a sail, catching and sharing power across the body using mechano and chemoreceptors littered throughout. Not only does it adapt to stress in the form of normal loading, but it also can adapt specifically to the velocity at which it loads.1

Fascia is an interesting organ because of its adaptability…Not only does it adapt to stress in the form of normal loading, but it can also adapt specifically to the velocity at which it loads. Share on X

In other words, if you only move slow, you create slow fascia. If you move in one pattern, your fascia will create lines of efficiency in these directions. The inverse is true as well. And unlike muscle, which can have growth and neurological adaptations in only weeks, fascia takes months to change. This becomes a problem when we neglect higher velocity training for predominantly heavy weight-based workouts.

During the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020, athletes across many sports (except for a few basketball players in Disneyland) found themselves trapped in their houses and apartments. Gyms were closed, and nobody knew if it was safe to interact with each other in public. We were a community of individuals doing our best to get by. This resulted in elite-level athletes performing bootcamp-style workouts in their living rooms. Unfortunately, this predicament lasted longer than six weeks for most people. They went from sprinting, jumping, and moving at high speeds many times a week to doing nothing at all for months in a row.

Finally, once competitive athletics resumed, sports like football gave their top performers only a few short weeks to get back to “game speed.” This was when we saw the largest number of soft tissue injuries ever in the NFL. Between hamstrings, Achilles, and ACLs, some of the league’s best athletes were out for the year.2 Although there isn’t a single source of blame, low-velocity workouts done for months with only a short time allowed for correction seems to just scream that it’s one of the culprits.

This is where my personal history comes into play—I was a perfect soldier of a football player. If you asked me to run through a brick wall, I would. No questions asked. My high school coach told me that if I wanted to be a great at football, I needed to do power cleans and squats—so I did. In college, I was the strongest in my class, so I always lifted with the upperclassmen. I enjoyed that title, and my strength coaches praised me for my weight room abilities. I got strong, I improved my vertical, and I got decently fast—but I was always getting hurt.

I also struggled with certain athletic traits that I knew I should be better at. I could dunk from a standing position, but barely jumped higher with an approach. I was a great 10-yard sprinter but was inconsistent with 40-yard distances. What I (and many coaches today) failed to realize was that I had spent so much time focused on muscle-specific strength training that I had neglected the fascial side of human performance: the athletic side, if you will.

How to Train Fascia

Go to any AAU basketball tournament and you will see some of the most athletic movements performed by the most gangly of individuals. A combination of explosive dunks, extreme footwork, and powerful sprints are done by “weight room weak” individuals. This has to make the most seasoned strength coach pause in their tracks when building the best programs for their athletes. Break basketball down into its base components, and it’s just jumping, sprinting, decelerating, and throwing. Because of the nature of the sport, there are more than 60 jumps per game and dozens of speed changes.3

AAU
Image 2. Can you believe most of these kids wound up playing D1 basketball?

If that is all it takes to create astounding athletes, why don’t we do more of that in the weight room?

In NO WAY am I saying that we should neglect the many benefits of strength training in the weight room. The sad truth, though, is that many high school and college coaches have turned the weight room into powerlifting, Olympic lifting, and body building centric zones. I believe that strength is the foundation to performance enhancement, but it, in and of itself, does not create the most athletic of individuals. If you’ve ever seen Usain Bolt’s weight room training, it will haunt your nightmares.

The way Bolt trained in the weight room likely had nothing to do with his world-record success. So, let’s look past the barbells, bands, and squat racks to determine what we can do for our athletes to create positive fascial adaptations. Many coaches already incorporate these things, but as the “garnish” of their workouts. I argue that we should find ways to make these the steak and potatoes of the hour. Squats, presses, and pulls will still be integral in building great athletes, but we need more of these four qualities in each session:

1. Throw Things

Throwing medicine balls is not just a baseball player’s job anymore. The way that the body has to transfer force from the ankle to the knee, to the hips, to the spine, to the shoulder, to the arm, and out of the hand, maximizes the fascial “sail.” Our facility has anecdotally used medicine ball throws with our varsity football players before sprinting with great return. The better the body is at transferring energy throughout, the more it will be able to handle energy during athletic performance.


Video 1. Athletes play med ball volleyball to further build explosiveness at the tail end of a summer development program with Endunamoo Strength & Conditioning.

2. Jump, Sprint, Land

Jumping and sprinting are some of the most primal of movements when it comes to being human. Although these movements can be very force dominant, you cannot deny the velocity-explicit components. A max effort jump will utilize the entire body to produce force both vertically and horizontally.

The more in tune with fascial transfer an athlete is, the better they seem to perform things like continuous jumps. The strongest powerlifter is NOT the fastest sprinter for many reasons, but one of them is the inability to rapidly transfer force across the body. Sprint fast and sprint often to convert muscular strength into athletic strength. Sports play is full of rapid eccentrics, but if I walked into any random high school or college weight room, I would most likely see nothing but tempo-controlled lifts. Rapid eccentric movements seem to excite more eccentric overload and induce greater stretch shortening cycles.4 Exercises such as depth drops, depth jumps, and even “rapid eccentric” weight room exercises will benefit most athletes.


Video 2. Advanced phases of a box jump progression targeting improved ground contact times.

3. Train Across the Body

If you want to understand how fascia connects our body, just watch sports. We instinctively know to apply forces across the body from one foot to the opposite hand, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

If you want to understand how fascia connects our body, just watch sports. A pitcher plants with their left foot before throwing from their right hand. A sprinter simultaneously drives the opposite knee and hand while running. A basketball player leaps off their left foot while winding up their right hand for a dunk. We instinctively know to apply forces across the body from one foot to the opposite hand.

Adding in training that works across the body can build these already natural fascial pathways. Things like landmine movements with rotation, single limb dynamic movements, and even trunk rotating exercises should be added at the appropriate times and intensities.


Video 3. Baseball players working cross chops and suspension rows to target the trunk muscles responsible for rotation/counter-rotation and scapular control. 

4. Train Along Lines

I am still surprised at how little people know about fascial lines. Granted, I researched fascia in grad school and had no clue this concept even existed. Many of the best coaches in today’s industry have concurred that the body contains “lines” that we can train to maximize. I’ve mentioned different exercises above that work across the body, but we cannot neglect these lines:

  • Front line.
  • Superficial back line.
  • Lateral line.
  • Spiral line.
  • Back functional line.
  • Front functional line.

Adding Intent to Common Practice

This sounds so simple, and most experienced strength coaches will scoff “I already do this.”

So did I.

It’s only when the intent behind these core principles matches our weight training intensity that the results are maximized. We program percentages and rep schemes and treat them like gospel, but things like plyometrics are usually an afterthought. When you look at your old workouts, how often are your athletes performing max effort or measured jumps? Does most of your running involve full speed trials or is it predominantly conditioning? Do your kids perform intentional deceleration work, or do you let “the game” take care of that?

If your goal is to build a powerlifter, then continue to neglect the athletic side of training. But if you want a team of elite athletes, you’re going to have to train them like elite athletes. Share on X

If your goal is to build a powerlifter, then continue to neglect the athletic side of training. But if you want a team of elite athletes, you’re going to have to train them like elite athletes.

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.Myers, Thomas. Anatomy Trains. Churchill Livingstone: 2001.

2. Blumenthal, D. “NFL injury rate rises in 2020 as culprits range from Covid to turf.” Sportico.com. January 29, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.sportico.com/leagues/football/2021/nfl-injury-rate-rise-2020-1234621442/.

3. McInnes, S.E., Carlson, J.S., Jones, C.J. and McKenna, M.J. “The physiological load imposed on basketball players during competition.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 1995;13(5):387-397.

4. Hernandez J. L, Sabido R., and Blazevich A.J. “High-speed stretch-shortening cycle exercises as a strategy to provide eccentric overload during resistance training.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. September 2021.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 49
  • Page 50
  • Page 51
  • Page 52
  • Page 53
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 164
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

FEATURED

  • Using Speed and Power Data to Bucket and Train Faster Athletes
  • Plyometric Training Systems: Developmental vs. Progressive
  • 9 (Fun!) Games to Develop Movement Skills and Athleticism

Latest Posts

  • Rapid Fire—Episode #15 Featuring Kyle Brown: What is Universal Speed Rating (USR)?
  • Why We Don’t Perform Hang Cleans
  • 1080 Sprint: Four Essential Tips You Won’t Find in the Manual

Topics

  • Adult training
  • App features
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Athlete
  • Athlete performance
  • Baseball
  • Buyer's Guide
  • Career
  • Certifications
  • Changing with the Game
  • Coach
  • Coaching
  • Coaching workflows
  • Coching
  • College athlete
  • Course Reviews
  • Dasher
  • Data management
  • EMG
  • Force plates
  • Future innovations
  • Game On Series
  • Getting Started
  • Injury prevention
  • Misconceptions Series
  • Motion tracking
  • Out of My Lane Series
  • Performance technology
  • Physical education
  • Plyometric training
  • Pneumatic resistance
  • Power
  • Power development
  • Practice
  • Rapid Fire
  • Reflectorless timing system
  • Running
  • Speed
  • Sports
  • Sports technology
  • Sprinters
  • Strength and conditioning
  • Strength training
  • Summer School with Dan Mullins
  • The Croc Show
  • Track and field
  • Training
  • Training efficiency
  • Wave loading
  • What I've Added/What I've Dropped Series
  • Youth athletics
  • Youth coaching

Categories

  • Blog
  • Buyer's Guide
  • Freelap Friday Five
  • Podcasts

COMPANY

  • Contact Us
  • Write for SimpliFaster
  • Affiliate Program
  • Terms of Use
  • SimpliFaster Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
  • Return and Refund Policy
  • Disclaimer

Coaches Resources

  • Shop Online
  • SimpliFaster Blog
  • Buyer’s Guide
  • Freelap Friday Five
  • Coaches Job Listing

CONTACT INFORMATION

13100 Tech City Circle Suite 200

Alachua, FL 32615

(925) 461-5990 (office)

(925) 461-5991 (fax)

(800) 634-5990 (toll free in US)

Logo of BuyBoard Purchasing Cooperative. The word Buy is yellow and shaped like a shopping cart, while Board and Purchasing Cooperative are in blue text.
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

SIGNUP FOR NEWSLETTER

Loading

Copyright © 2025 SimpliFaster. All Rights Reserved.