Blog

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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”).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

3. Train Across the Body

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.

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.

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.

The relative importance of in-season vs. off-season training is often debated, and through my eight years of being a sports performance coach at the collegiate level, there is no doubt in my mind that in-season training is the most valuable training period of the year.

In-season is when we are competing at the highest level in our pursuit of a championship. This is the time when we want to be at our peak performance levels, and to limit our training at this time of year is dangerous and setting the team up for failure. Training in-season isn’t as simple as prescribing reps and sets and letting the players get to work; it is a science to be able to run an effective plan while priming players for game day.

In this article, I am going to discuss how to map out an effective in-season training plan, what to include throughout your training week, and how you can maximize time with your players so they are performing at peak levels on game day.

Establishing an Outline

It is impossible to make an effective training plan without understanding the demands of practice and competition. First, I would connect with your sports coach and find the answers to a few simple questions:

• What days are competitions? (You can do this yourself by looking at your team’s schedule.)
• How long is pre-season/in-season/post-season?
• Are there different themes to practice for different days of the week?
• Which days will we be conducting workouts?
• Will we be conducting workouts before or after practice?

These are crucial questions you need to answer before beginning to outline your plan. Do not go in blind when creating your program—that can be extremely problematic when it comes to preparing the athletes for competition and could potentially lead to harmful situations such as overuse, neural fatigue, and injuries.

First, and most importantly, you have to know how the game schedule is set up for the week. This can change from week to week depending on the sport you work with, but you need to have a plan for certain outlines of multiple-competition weeks. For example, a workout week consisting of competitions on Wednesday/Saturday, will look completely different from a week where you compete Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday. Map out how many times these instances occur and map out different plans for those weeks.

Next, understand how the season outline will go and map out the length of each training period:

• Pre-Season
• In-Season
• Post-Season

For example, with our volleyball program, we will always have two weeks of pre-season training followed by an 11-week regular season, one-week conference tournament, and one or two weeks of NCAA play. Knowing this allows us to plan what qualities we will work on at different points in the year and how long we have to train each one. We start every athlete that hasn’t been with us for quite some time in a general preparation block. There is a ton of value in building a foundation and teaching your athletes better movement. Start from there to set yourself up for training success throughout the whole year.

Next, understand the demands of practice. If you are lucky to work with coaches that understand nervous system demand, you will be able to structure your workouts to fit the theme of the practice. For example, if I know that we are about to have a high-speed practice that will have a high CNS output effect, these are days we will incorporate our max velocity work prior to practice.

Based on this understanding, the next step is to figure out what days of the week your workouts will be held. Full disclaimer: there are certain days that are more ideal than others, but you can hold workouts any day throughout the week. Just remember the main goal will always be to have them primed for game day. I usually like to pick one day early in the week, preferably Monday, and the day immediately after competition. I will go into the structure of the workouts shortly, but this has been my go-to plan for most of the teams I train.

The last piece of the puzzle is to establish what time workouts will be conducted: before or after practice. There is no question in my mind that the best time to hold workouts is prior to practice. The reason is simple: there are things we need to develop from an athletic standpoint that will simply not be effective after practicing for 2-3 hours. When referencing these qualities, I am 100% talking about speed and power work. I have done workouts before and after practices and speed work is simply not effective post-practice because the athlete is fatigued.

Meanwhile, there are ways to structure your workouts to prime the athletes for the practice ahead with any type of low volume speed work and a total body lift. This really isn’t up to debate within my programming anymore—if we have the opportunity to train before, we will. If not, we will have to figure out another plan of attack.

Define Which Qualities Matter the Most

This has completely changed for me over my years of being a sports performance coach. I used to be hell-bent on training strength and being strong throughout the entire season. Although I wasn’t 100% wrong in my pursuit of strength, I wasn’t necessarily right either. It is important to maintain strength levels for three primary reasons:

1. Sets the foundation for acceleration development.
2. Sets the foundation for training other weight room qualities (power and speed).
3. Lowers the incidence of injury.

There is no question that you must be strong and work consistently if you want to stay healthy throughout the duration of a season. However, how much will strength carry over to helping your players become better athletes? For freshmen, I believe the carry over is high. A lot of the positive adaptations for freshman will come from being exposed to a new stimulus. That is why I believe the first one to two years of development for incoming players must focus on better movement and improving strength levels.

I would love to sit here and give you a number that is “strong enough,” but there are too many variables from individual to individual for that. Not only is there an individual factor, but the sport being played matters as well. This is my rule of thumb when it comes to strength development: if they are continuing to improve qualities that matter (speed and power), then continue to work that stimulus. As soon as they stagnate in their development, it is time to switch up your plan.

Here is a list of assessments you can do in-season to assess different qualities.

1. Speed – This is where you need to invest in a fully automated timing system to get objective data to guide your program. My go-to assessment for speed is the 30m sprint, and from this one assessment I can get force, power, and velocity for each athlete. I am fortunate enough to have the Muscle Lab Continuous Laser, but if you are in a budget crunch, buying the MySprint App and a few cones will do just fine.

JB Morin has an amazing force-velocity spreadsheet that will spit out a range of metrics once you input them for the player. Most athletes that I work with hit peak velocity at 25-30m, so most of the time a 30m sprint will be enough distance for you to get an idea on their peak velocity. However, I will also use a fly variation somewhere between 10-20m with a 20m run-in to get a read on peak velocity as well. A simpler version of all of this would be to just get splits for anything 20m and under. If I only had two points, I would do 10-20m sprints for all my athletes to measure acceleration and fly 10-20m to measure velocity. If you have no timing gates whatsoever, a stopwatch can be used as well.

2. Repeated Power – If you are lucky enough to get a contact grid or jump mat system that measures repeated power outputs, then the Scandinavian rebound jump (5 jumps) would be my go-to test. Not only does this provide a ton of valuable information about the vertical power outputs of the athlete, but it will give you a really great reading on athlete readiness. This test is easy to implement and can be used at any point throughout the week (even gameday). If none of these options are available to you, then a triple broad jump is another great test.

3. Power – This one is simple. Use either a standing vertical jump or broad jump to measure singular power output

4. Strength – My go-to strength assessment is the isometric belt pull. The main reason for this is that there is usually a learning curve on most strength exercises to get an accurate read on strength levels. The isometric belt pull is an easy test to perform that requires a low skill level. Without it, I found it challenging to gauge where my freshman athletes were at with regards to strength, because a lot of them came in with no weight room experience. Now, if you don’t have access to a force sensor to accurately measure the belt squat, I wouldn’t recommend testing strength in-season without the use of velocity based training devices. This is where investing in velocity devices such as Vmaxpro come in handy. Instead of looking at a number like 1 RM, you can easily look at the velocity measurement of a given day compared to previous days and see if strength levels are improving. While this is at the bottom of my list for assessments, it is still extremely valuable to assess strength throughout the in-season for health reasons.

Building Out Your Daily Workout

Once you establish all of the criteria I’ve discussed to this point, you can begin building out your workout plan. I am a big proponent of utilizing the block model. Simply put, you are focusing on one specific quality in the weight room as opposed to multiple at the same time. The three main qualities we will work on throughout the year are:

• Strength
• Power
• Speed

I also believe that your acceleration work should be matched to this theme. For example, if I am working on developing strength, I will also work on force development within my acceleration work. The only quality I will not pair with my strength work is peak velocity. Everyone needs to be fast at all times, regardless of the sport or position they play. That means that everyone should be training the peak velocity stimulus at all times throughout the year.

For freshman and incoming athletes, I follow this simple outline:

1. GPP
2. Strength
3. Power/Speed

We will train these qualities continuously; first by establishing a base of better movement with our foundational exercises, then by building strength, then switching the focus to power/speed as we get closer to our conference tournament and NCAAs.

For upperclassmen, in order to figure out what type of training they need, you need to figure out what assessment you will be using. This is where you need to find things that are based around athletic success. That is why I focus my assessments around two main skills:

1. Sprinting Assessments

• Force Velocity Profile
• 10/20 Sprint Tool by Cal Dietz

Nothing too complex here. I have my athletes complete a 30m sprint, then look at the slope of the force velocity curve. If my athlete is force-dominant, we will work on speed work for the weight room and transition to max velocity for acceleration. If my athlete is velocity dominant, we will work on strength for the weight room and force with regards to our acceleration work. If my athlete is a balance of both, we will focus on power development in the weight room and with our acceleration work.

If you don’t have the time or tools to do that, Cal Dietz has done an incredible job with the 10/20 sprint tool. Basically, have your athlete run a 20 yard/meter sprint, with a 10 meter/yard split, plug it into the calculator, and work in the zone where your athletes need the most improvement.

2. Jumping Assessments

• Eccentric Utilization Ratio/Stretch Shortening Cycle Percentage

Another easy one to perform. With their hands on their hips, have your athlete do a countermovement jump squat, followed by a rest period, then a squat jump with a 3-second pause. Use the following formula:

SSC% = (CMJ – SJ)/SJ

If I have an athlete above 10%, the emphasis of their plyo work needs to be on strength; less than 10%, the emphasis needs to be on reactive plyos. And if they are in that 10% range, the athlete can do a combination of both (French contrast method works well for this group).

Once our assessments are established, it’s time to build our workout. All of my workouts use the following structure:

1. Reflexive Performance Reset
2. Sprint Mechanics (drills based on acceleration vs. peak velocity focus)
3. Throws (acceleration only)
4. Sprint-Specific Work
5. Plyos
6. Lift

I like to match themes, so on my acceleration-based days we will do the following:

1. MB Throw Variations
2. Resisted Sprint Work (chains, hill, sleds)
3. Horizontal Plyos
4. Lower CNS Output Lifts (squat, deadlift, upper body press, pull, single leg movement, hamstring)

On peak velocity days we will do the following:

1. Low Ground Contact Time Sprint Drills (hops, a-switches)
2. Vertical Plyos
3. Speed Bounds
4. Fly Variations, Buildups, Drive Floats
5. Olympic Lifts

I have found that the themed-based workouts work really well. I usually put peak velocity-based days in the beginning of the week because that’s when my athletes were the freshest. I do acceleration-based workouts the day after competition because the stress is lower on the athletes’ bodies and we are still able to get quality work in.

In-Season Work Is Paramount

There is no questioning the importance of training in-season as it relates to the development of the athlete. We want to be in the most primed state in our pursuit of competing for a championship—designing and implementing an effective in-season training plan has provided my athletes with that opportunity.

By establishing an outline prior to the year to understand the demands of the practice and game schedule, I have been able to build out a strategy to train certain developmental qualities. I establish early on what qualities matter most to the success of the sport, and how I am going to assess those qualities throughout the season—you must assess if you are trying to optimize your in-season program. I develop a structure to my workouts and educate my players on the specifics of each day—at the end of the day, athlete buy-in is the most critical factor to the program’s success. Having them understand the why of the program is paramount for continuing to improve all the way through post-season competition.

Build a plan, follow through, make adjustments where necessary, and continue to grow your mindset and there is no question you will be able to implement a successful in-season sports performance program as well.

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