Blog

Here’s the scenario: You take over a new job or your coach greenlights your “innovative, new speed program.” Your excitement can’t be contained…until you then realize that you now must organize a workout for 100 players in a time-limited session of an hour.

Welcome to the world of football strength and conditioning!

When planning for these dynamic big group trainings, coaches need to take the sniper’s approach of aim small, miss small, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

From the pre-warm-up to the final session debrief, everything must be planned and rehearsed in advance to ensure the success of this type of session. Efficiency and urgency must play a major role in the outline and design—coaches do not have time for wasted reps or wasted time. When planning for these dynamic big group trainings, coaches need to take the sniper’s approach of aim small, miss small; meaning, you need to have specific goals for the workout and an exact prescription of modalities to address those goals, so that if any element is slightly off you can still hit the day’s main target.

Why Training Speed Is Important

Speed training is highly technical and requires adequate periods of recovery for athletes to perform reps with maximal effort and intent. Intent is king! Without the appropriate rest times, coaches are putting lipstick on a pig—meaning, they aren’t training speed. Learning requires max focus and attention; this cannot be achieved in an exhausted state. Teaching technical skills to large groups is not any easy task—add in the dilemma of time constraints, and it makes it almost impossible.

Many factors impact the effectiveness of speed workouts in large groups—for football, the workout must have a certain feel and flow to it that football coaches are familiar with. Football coaches don’t want to see kids standing around, but properly organizing the flow of a workout can build in rest and still give the feel of “grinding” without an excessive amount of unspecific work.

Factors to Consider When Planning

There are many things to think about when planning and executing a speed workout with more than 30 people. A coach never wants to look unprepared or overwhelmed in the administration of training. To prevent this, you must consider all potential issues and include contingency plans. You must conduct a thorough evaluation of the session’s organization—the term coaches in football often use to describe this process is “self-scout.” Auditing resources in your organization will paint a clearer picture about realistic training plans.

Factors to consider are:

• Number of coaches.
• Number of athletes.
• Equipment available.
• Weather patterns.
• Time in the training year.

These factors will guide and direct all decisions made on training. You can’t outkick your coverage; meaning, don’t set yourself up for failure by overshooting what you can realistically execute in your speed workouts. Don’t get into a session and plan five exercises, then get to the third exercise and run out of time.

You can’t outkick your coverage; meaning, don’t set yourself up for failure by overshooting what you can realistically execute in your speed workouts, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Understand the limitations of your current situation and plan around them. You can’t plan hill sprints if there are no hills! Know the exact time demands of each station and the warm-up. Have all tech issues dialed in before the athletes start the session. Mitigate as many problems beforehand as possible.

Warm-Up

The purpose of the warm-up is to prepare the muscle tissues for the intensity of the upcoming exercises, express ranges of motion that are exhibited in the exercises, and add context for future drills that will be prescribed. When the entire duration of a workout can only be one hour in total, minimalist is the best practice in the design of warm-ups. We want to spend a maximum of 15 minutes on the warm-up. The workout itself will build in intensity, so there’s no need to spend extreme amounts of energy on the warm-up.

Some points of the warm-up will carry more of a sense of urgency than others, as we want to initially increase heart rate and body temperature. General, dynamic movements need fewer rest times, but building rest time into the specific warm-up drills is key so that athletes perform them with great intent and focus. One way to incorporate rest into the warm-up and increase coaching coverage is to separate the team into subgroups. We separate our team into four subgroups:

1. Skill.
2. Fast-mid.
3. Big-mid.
4. Bigs.

This allows extra rest between reps, because we wait for each group to complete the rep fully before sending on the next group, which will perform the given exercise completed by the previous group. Yardages and exercises may be altered to fit different groups—for example, for the skill group a straight leg bound may be prescribed as a 40-yard drill, while for the bigs group it is only a 20-yard drill.

Video 1. A minimalist approach to the warm-up is a must when time restraints are present.

Appearance of the Workout

As previously stated, the look and feel of the workout is extremely important. Coaches don’t like standing around, which is an issue as speed training requires large amounts of recovery to perform the reps in an explosive and fresh state. Coaches emphasize and demand that every rep is performed with maximal intent and effort. The players can’t perform that way under fatigued conditions, but if you like your job, players can’t just be lounging around.

The question becomes: How can the performance coach make 20-30 quality reps over 45 minutes look like a lot of work when it’s not? Optimal rest for speed work is one minute for every 10 yards of sprinting, so to get that recovery time while appearing to be in continual motion we utilize stations, waterfall starts, purposeful drill selection, and races.

Stations

Like the warm-up, having subgroups is an easy way to gain extra recovery in any drill. Essentially, one rep becomes four reps when dividing the team up, allowing for rest. Subgroups also provide more opportunities to coach because they give that coach fewer athletes to watch on a given rep, allowing more instruction on technique in each movement, proper mechanics, and visual examples of athletes performing it right within the subgroup. Having a staff of more than three coaches will give you the ability to run stations, and these allow more individualization because groups can be mailboxed together by either position or deficiency.

Multiple stations operating simultaneously also creates the illusion that a lot of work is being performed, even with the adequate rest periods being employed: football coaches are now watching three things happening instead of one. Stations can build off one another as the workout progresses, and this setup can also benefit organizations that might be short on specific equipment. If sled work or hurdle hops are prescribed, an organization may not have 40 sleds and 50 hurdles but having stations can make the equipment needs more manageable and efficient.

Stations can build off one another as the workout progresses, and this setup can also benefit organizations that might be short on specific equipment, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Waterfall Starts

The system in place for execution of reps will aid rest and recovery if properly planned. I love to utilize waterfall starts, meaning when one player goes that sets off the next player in line to start. This method gives football coaches more eye candy.

Waterfall starts give coaches the ability to home in on one athlete at a time, providing more coaching opportunities and individual interactions. This setup allows coaches to stop the drill for technical interventions—if one athlete is making a technical mistake, chances are several other athletes are. You can catch issues and correct them with the proper cue before the next athlete makes that same mistake.

Another bonus of waterfall starts is that the athletes can watch successful reps and hear the coaches pointing out examples of great technical proficiency or effort. Coaches aren’t going to be able to correct 500 different mistakes, but they can give cues that attack the “big rocks.”

Video 2. Waterfall starts increase rest times significantly, because the next rep does not start until the last player has completed the rep.

Drill Selection

Success leaves clues, and some of the best performance coaches in the industry—such as Boo Schexnayder and Lee Taft—reiterate that the purpose of drills is to give context for skill development. One of my all-time favorite quotes for coaching is from Coach Boo: “If you are looking for drills, go to Ace Hardware—we teach skills.”

Drills should have precise reasons for being prescribed. There should be a why behind all exercises and a progression that feeds the skills being trained. Thought-out progressions lead to less coaching. Some coaches look at this as a negative, but more competent skill expression will lead to higher retention and far less coaching intervention. I know that we are grasping technical proficiency when my team makes workouts boring for me because I have less to coach.

Thought-out progressions lead to less coaching. Some coaches look at this as a negative, but more competent skill expression will lead to higher retention and far less coaching intervention. Share on X

Self-organization is a hot topic in the profession right now, and I believe in what coach Dan Pfaff has spoken about several times: that once an acceptable movement bandwidth is established, coaches can step back and let athletes feel and self-correct. To get to that point, drills need to start at the foundational level, then increase in technical demand followed by an increase in velocity demands. The most successful drills are ones that correct with minimal coaching cues. This is extremely valuable in the large group setting, because you will not catch all mistakes—there is not enough time to correct everyone in the session, and you will miss five kids while correcting one with a long, drawn-out explanation.

Progression of the workout should build according to the difficulty of the skills. I want to add context and clean up movement leading into the most technically demanding exercises of the workout. If we have fly-10s included on that day, we will do some variation of wickets followed by the flys. Progressions aren’t just working out to work out; they can be applied in the workout themselves.

Races

Increasing speed has everything to do with intent. In my experience, coaches can inspire increased intent by timing reps and by placing players in competitive environments. We employ races throughout the off-season in several different ways and in different drills. The moment you ask who the fastest kid on the team is, you better be ready for supra-maximal effort.

We have used distances from 10 yards to full field relays; we have had the entire team lined up to race, and we have paired two players against each other. Bottom line: Races are a great tool that produces results. We use races for most of our acceleration work, and we like to use heats like track meets, where the fastest guys are paired against each other, and the heats are evenly matched for competition purposes.

Getting the sport coaches involved will also increase the competitive atmosphere of any race. Our head coach will come out and call out winners—we want a fun, competitive environment that prepares the players for the stress of competition. Guys can’t hide in the heats: If they don’t give a good effort, they get exposed. We encourage side-betting and trash talk, which provides the workout with excitement and bragging rights for the day.

Video 3. Setting up races adds max effort to any sprint.

Recording

Another critical piece of our training is recording sprint times. Just like racing, being timed has been shown to increase intent. Timing also provides feedback, which reinforces that the training process is doing what is intended: getting the athletes faster. Tony Holler’s Record, Rank, and Publish mantra does wonders for effort and motivation. Timing gives the coaches the ability to self-audit the training program and make adjustments if there is no progress being seen.

Timing gives the coaches the ability to self-audit the training program and make adjustments if there is no progress being seen, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

How do the athletes know they are getting better if you can’t prove it? And an even better question, how do you know that your program works if you don’t test?

Having stations where timing gates are utilized helps coaches get everyone timed efficiently. Dashr can make recording efficient using their app, and Freelap is another timing system that gives coaches the ability to time a lot of athletes at one time. An inexpensive way to time a team is to use a tripod and slow-motion video, with apps such as Coach’s Eye and Dartfish Express giving the coach the ability to generate times. This method is time-intensive, but very effective in certain situations. Additionally, GPS systems like Catapult have allowed us to track mph and acceleration metrics.

Conclusion

Organizing a large group speed session can seem daunting, but as with anything, the preparation work that gets done beforehand makes all the difference. Have a clear vision on what you want to accomplish in the session. Progressions should build within the work as the intensity of the drills increases.

Give football coaches some eye candy by using subgroups and circuits, so that your speed workout has the feel of “grinding” even while providing the adequate amount of rest time. Incorporate races and timing into the workouts to drive intent and competitiveness. Speed can be the difference in games, so find ways to train it in any circumstances.

By programming our speed workouts this way, we were able to improve our power, acceleration, and max velocity—we dropped our average 20-yard dash times by .12 and increased our top speed by almost an entire mph over the course of a summer. Our position coaches have recognized their athletes are playing faster, and we have been more resilient to soft tissue injuries due to the exposure throughout the above-mentioned workouts.

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

We’ve entered the speed era of sports performance; however, we’ve also entered the era of data availability and athlete individualization. Coaches understand that technology can help target training to give each athlete what they specifically need to increase the odds of optimal adaptations for increasing speed. When strength training, you program based on percent of 1 rep max or specific velocity zones rather than putting arbitrary amounts of weight on the bar or using the same weight for everyone; the same concept applies to speed development and resisted sprinting.

Load-velocity profiling is how we stop guessing about how much resistance to use for each athlete in sprint training. It is a holistic assessment to describe an athlete’s ability to perform a certain exercise or movement, typically comparing two variables: in this case, load (resistance) and velocity. The relationship between load and velocity is negatively linear—as the load increases, sprinting velocity decreases.

Load-velocity profiling is how we stop guessing about how much resistance to use for each athlete in sprint training, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

Instead of just doing a 1RM back squat, which only tests an athlete’s ability to squat against maximal loads, or one unresisted timed sprint at max velocity, a profile gives broader insight into their skill on that movement by using 3-5 data points. We can use this relationship to our advantage when programming to have individual athletes sprint at specific speeds to get the desired training adaptations. The catch, however, is that each athlete has their own specific relationship to how load affects their velocity.

*Note 1: This article is specifically about using the 1080 Sprint, but the concepts and principles about load-velocity profiling are universal and can be applied to any resisted sprint training.

*Note 2: I will say “yards” as that is how I determine distances when profiling and programming in training, but the 1080 Sprint measures distance in meters.

Linear Regression

A linear regression is a predictive model aimed not just at measuring the association of two variables, but how one can be used to predict the other. In this situation, if I know the load or velocity of a sprint, can I predict the other? Load-velocity profiling is collecting actual data points about the athlete’s load-velocity relationship when sprinting and using a linear regression to help predict everything else in between.

If we know what velocities we want, we can predict what loads to use to achieve those velocities. This is how the data gets turned into action, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

When individualizing resisted sprint training, the goal is to sprint at certain velocity decrements of the athlete’s fastest velocity. If we know what velocities we want, we can predict what loads to use to achieve those velocities. This is how the data gets turned into action. Each athlete has their own unique relationship of load and velocity and consequently their own regression. 

Acclimation to Resisted Sprinting

In order to get a reliable and valid profile, the athlete has to be familiar with the movement, technology, and resistance they will be performing against. Reliability is the consistency of the test and validity is whether the test actually assesses what you say it is measuring. At the beginning, the athlete will improve due to neuromuscular adaptations simply by becoming more familiar and proficient at that movement (think “newbie gains”); thus, comparison to future profiles is not as meaningful.

For those who have never experienced the feeling of sprinting against a 1080 Sprint with moderately high resistance (15+ kg)—it is quite the challenge. It is an extremely high quality and smooth resistance with the ability to go up to 30 kilograms, which is not for the faint of heart. Let’s just say a first attempt at heavy sprinting is not always pretty.

The athlete will get better at running against the 1080 Sprint the first few times without actually becoming “faster.” The addition of a familiarization session is not just to ensure the reliability and consequent validity of the profile, but also the most accurate pre- and post-test analysis and reflection on the training program. The athlete should be familiar with the 1080 Sprint and similar resistances they will be running against for the profile.

Velocities

We can break “load-velocity profile” into its components: specific “loads” (resistances) relative to the athlete’s fastest “velocities” at those loads. A fundamental part of load-velocity profiling is having the athlete’s truest max velocities at those loads.

The 1080 Sprint is extremely convenient for this because it automatically calculates the fastest 5 meters of every sprint. In the case of alternative methods of load-velocity profiling such as timing gates, you are assuming the athlete will reach their true max velocity within the gates based on how much distance you give them beforehand to accelerate. If it is too much distance, the athlete will be slowing down due to fatigue before the end of the gates; if it is too little distance, the athlete will be at sub-max velocities when they enter the gates.

The issue of having too much distance is mitigated by the 1080 Sprint calculating the fastest 5 meters regardless of where it occurs in the sprint. (However, the issue might arise from having too little distance, which does not allow the athlete to truly reach their max velocity at that load.)

“Peaking Out”

My colleagues and I use the term “peaking out” when there are at least 1-2 complete steps after the fastest 5 meters, which shows that the athlete’s velocity has truly “peaked” during the sprint. On the tablet of the 1080 Sprint, the fastest 5 meters will automatically be bolded, and it will turn a different color on the website. Figure 2 is an example of an athlete who has truly “peaked out” on all four sprints. Each “mountain” from bottom to bottom is a complete step. The first (top) sprint had 3.5 steps after the fastest 5 meters, the second had three, the third had 2.5, and the fourth (bottom) had eight.

In figure 3, would the 5-meter velocities have changed if the sprints were extended 5 more yards? Probably. Would they have changed a substantial amount to alter the profile? Maybe yes, maybe no. Was the athlete close enough to their max velocity? Not for a true load-velocity profile. Want to know the easiest way to leave no doubt that it was their true max velocity? Be certain they peaked out.

Want to know the easiest way to leave no doubt that it was their true max velocity? Be certain the athlete peaked out, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

It is important to note if the athlete “peaked out” or not because future reassessment of the profile might not reflect adaptations and changes in velocity from training, as the distances are not sufficient to reach max velocity. If that is the case, I would recommend adding 5 yards to every sprint and re-profiling the athlete the next training session. Additionally, comparing the profiles of athlete A, who “peaked out,” to athlete B, who did not, might not lead to the most accurate comparisons.

Protocols: Resistances and Distances

Now that we are all on the same page for what profiling is and why it is important, how do we actually do it? First, we pick which resistances to run against. Protocols recommended by sports scientist and resisted-sprint expert Dr. Micheál Cahill include:

• Four total sprints, all reaching true max velocity (aka “peaking out”).
• One unresisted sprint and three resisted sprints, with one of the resisted sprints being slower than a 50% velocity decrement (V_dec).¹

For determining the distances: In a full sprint, is there enough distance for the athlete to achieve max velocity and maintain it for 5 meters, then have one or two slower steps due to fatigue (“peak out”), but not have such an extended sprint distance to where the required rest would be excessive? There is definitely a sweet spot, and I have experimented with different combinations with the four sprints, from 30-25-20-15 yards to 30-25-20-20 yards to 35-30-25-20 yards (my recommendations are below).

How do you know where 50% V_dec is, and what resistance should you utilize for the last sprint? There are a few ways:

1. Do a lot of profiles and be able anecdotally to guess roughly where it is for each athlete (my protocol recommendations for general athlete skill levels are below).
2. Because load and velocity have a negatively linear relationship, you could likely guess after the first two sprints how many more kilograms you will need. If the athlete’s 5-meter velocity of the first sprint was 8.0 m/s at 1 kg and the second sprint was 6.75 m/s at 5 kg, you could reasonably assume that every 4 kg reduces velocity about 1.25 m/s. Nine kilograms would be 5.5 m/s and 13 kg would be 4.25 m/s, which is pretty close to 50% of 8.0 m/s (because 1 kg is essentially an unresisted sprint at max velocity). In that situation, continue with 4 kg increases.

Here are the three standard protocols that we use in our facility:

1. Beginner: 1 kg for 35 yards, 5 kg for 30 yards, 10 kg for 25 yards, 15 kg for 20 yards.

1. • Beginner males, beginner females, and intermediate females.

2. Intermediate: 2 kg for 35 yards, 8 kg for 30 yards, 14 kg for 25 yards, 20 kg for 20 yards.

1. • Intermediate males and advanced females.

3. Advanced: 3 kg for 35 yards, 10 kg for 30 yards, 17 kg for 25 yards, 24 kg for 20 yards.

1. • Advanced males.

The skill groups are recommended based on anecdotal evidence of what resistances their 50% V_dec usually calculate to. There will always be other factors, such as experience sprinting with the 1080 Sprint, body weight, and psychological and physical readiness to train, but those protocols are a great place to start.

“Intermediate” and “advanced” will mean different things to different coaches, but here is an example: Of the nine “advanced” female athletes I have profiled (three high school athletes committed to play in college, five college athletes, and one professional athlete), their profiles yielded an average 50% V_dec of 16.1 kg ± 1.7 (range: 13.8-19.2). With an average 50% V_dec of 16.1 kg and max of 19.2, the “intermediate” protocol would be the most appropriate.

Rest Intervals

To create a true load-velocity profile, you need to ensure that the athlete has recovered and is ready to achieve max velocity before each sprint. A very general rule of thumb for rest periods during speed development is one minute for every 10 yards. However, in the case of resisted sprinting, the same yardage could take twice as long, so that rule does not always apply.

Anecdotally, a minimum of two minutes’ rest between sprints might be the lower limit of adequate rest, with anything above three minutes yielding diminishing returns. As soon as the athlete finishes their sprint, unclips the belt of the 1080 Sprint, and starts walking back, I start the timer on my watch. When it gets to around 2:15 of rest, I have the athlete hop back in the belt and get ready to sprint. That gives us 2:30 of rest.

Whatever rest intervals you choose, try to keep it consistent for repeatable protocols across all your athletes and for retesting purposes, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

I am conscious that there is a fine line between keeping the flow of the session going (especially when profiling multiple athletes), resting to ensure full recovery, and maximizing your time coaching. But if you can get four high-quality resisted sprints in during 10 or 12 minutes while yielding a valid load-velocity profile, I believe that is an effective use of your time. Whatever rest intervals you choose, try to keep it consistent for repeatable protocols across all your athletes and for retesting purposes.

Calculating the Profile

Ever thought you would need to bring back that algebra you learned in middle school? Well, here it is! But this is at least a little more exciting because it has to do with resisted sprint training. Bring back those suppressed memories, because we are talking about linear regressions and the equation Y = M(X) + B.

Here is a cheat sheet for all the variables:

• Y = 5-meter velocity achieved during that sprint (m/s).
• M = slope, ability to sprint against resistance.
• X = load/resistance (kg).
• B = Y-intercept (when load is 0), athlete’s maximum 5-meter velocity (m/s).

M and B are automatically calculated from the regression, so you will be given an equation that looks something like this: Y = -0.1787(X) + 8.0251.

In resisted sprint training, we speak in terms of velocity decrement or reduction from the athlete’s max velocity. Similar to them squatting at 75% of their 1 rep max, they can sprint at 25% V_dec of their max velocity. Every athlete has their own unique equation and will have specific loads required to sprint at certain velocity decrements, which is how training is individualized.

Using algebra and knowing what velocity decrement and consequent actual velocity we want to sprint at (variable Y), we work backward to calculate the load (variable X) to put on the 1080 Sprint to achieve that velocity.

Let’s work through an example using the equation above. If 8.0251 is the max 5-meter velocity, we can calculate the following velocity decrements. Velocity decrement is how much slower from the fastest we are: 10% V_dec is 90% of the fastest, 25% V_dec is 75% of the fastest, 50% V_dec is 50% of the fastest.

• 10% V_dec = 8.0251 * 0.90 = 7.2226 m/s
• 25% V_dec = 8.0251 * 0.75 = 6.0188 m/s
• 50% V_dec = 8.0251 * 0.50 = 4.0126 m/s

Let’s rewrite the equation and work through a 25% V_dec:

• Y = M(X) + B
• Velocity sprinted at for 25% V_dec = slope (kg on 1080 Sprint) + max 5-meter velocity
• 6.0188 = -0.1787(X) + 8.0251
• -2.0063 = -0.1787(X)
• X = 11.2
• Kg on 1080 Sprint = 11.2

In order for the athlete to run at 25% V_dec and achieve a “peaked out” 5-meter velocity of 6.0188 m/s, the load on the 1080 Sprint should be 11.2 kg. Sometimes that number will exactly line up in real life, and it is pretty cool when it does, but humans are not machines or equations. There are multiple factors that could affect the velocity achieved when actually sprinting compared to the calculated: the athlete has improved and will reach a higher velocity, the athlete is fatigued during the session and it will be lower, or the distance was not long enough to peak out. Those are all factors to consider, and the athlete will be close to the calculated number, but that is how you take the guessing out of programming resistances (at least at the beginning).

Personally, I like doing this all in Microsoft Excel, but 1080 Motion has a load-velocity profile function built in. If you do it in Excel, I have an extensive YouTube video on how to do this for sprinting, lifting, and jumping here.

R² Value

The R² of a linear regression is the level of ability the equation has to predict the other variables. A high R² value means it was a reliable profile and fits the negatively linear load-velocity relationship extremely well, making it really good at predicting values based on the four sprints the athlete performed.

The average R² of 73 profiles I have administered across 55 different athletes is 0.992 ± 0.007 with a maximum of 1.000 and minimum of 0.968. R² values can range from 0 (no ability to predict) to 1 (perfect ability to predict). With only eight of the profiles (11%) being below 0.985, an R² of 0.985 is the threshold we use as a reliable profile. Within these 73 profiles, I have used a variety of protocols, including:

• Combinations of distances and resistances
• Assessing athletes from middle school to professional
• Whether it is the athlete’s first time on the 1080 Sprint
• Sometimes not achieving 50% V_dec
• Sometimes not being “peaked out”
• Sometimes using three or five data points

This is all in the process of learning and determining my consistent protocols and still getting an incredibly high R² value.

One of the reasons the R² value of the load-velocity profiles on the 1080 Sprint is very high is the fact that it automatically calculates the fastest 5 meters of every sprint. The 1080 Sprint is extremely effective at describing the relationship of load and velocity and consequently predicting the variables, but the question now becomes whether the protocols and sprints performed truly represent that relationship. Did the athlete “peak out” every sprint? Was it fatigue or effort that made the graph appear it was “peaked out”? Was one sprint slower than 50% V_dec? That is how a reliable profile becomes valid.

Programming

There are aspects of resisted sprint training that we know are associated with optimal loading zones.

• 0%-10% V_dec is the technical zone.
• 10%-40% V_dec is the speed-strength zone.
• 40%-60% V_dec is the power zone.¹
• 50% V_dec is about where max power is.²

Having a 1080 Sprint does not make you a good speed coach, and simply sprinting at certain velocity decrements will not guarantee the best speed improvements. You need a goal, a program, progressions, and coaching to help you get there. Load-velocity profiling just takes the GUESSING out of picking resistances; it does not write your programs or do the coaching for you.

Load-velocity profiling just takes the GUESSING out of picking resistance; it does not write your programs or do the coaching for you, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

Here is an example of how you could program resistances into your sprint development:

1. Phase 1 (Skill Acquisition): resisted mechanics/technique drills at loads consistent with 10%-40% V_dec (4 x 10 yards), paired with contrast sprints at 0%-10% V_dec (4 x 15 yards).
2. Phase 2 (Speed-Strength Development): resisted sprints at 50% V_dec (4-6 x 10-15 yards).
3. Phase 3 (Speed-Realization): resisted sprints at 25% V_dec alternating with contrast sprints at 1 kg (3-4 rounds of one resisted sprint with one contrast sprint, 15-20 yards each).

Understanding what is high or low for the slope (M, the athlete’s ability to sprint against resistance) and the y-intercept (B, the athlete’s max velocity) can help determine where to start focusing training efforts to improve the profile. Additionally, tracking those variables through multiple profiles can provide insight into how the training is affecting the athlete’s performance.

Other Nuances

There are many other factors you also should take into consideration.

Coaching

This nuance is choosing whether or not to coach the athlete between sprints. If you give the athlete a cue between their first and second rep that helps them on their next sprint, it may affect their load-velocity profile for that day. I am not saying give your athlete zero feedback—profiling is a training session, and it should be used to get better—but you have to understand that coaching could affect the athlete’s sprinting ability from rep to rep. I have kept the tablet secret between sprints, not showing my athlete any data, and I have maximized the rest period coaching. There is no right or wrong on this one, just keep it consistent.

Fatigue

Did the athlete “peak out” because of fatigue or effort? Fatigue-wise, they are still trying as hard as possible, they just cannot maintain their max velocity. Effort-wise, they might have stopped trying before they crossed the finish line. Both fatigue and lack of effort will look the same on the graph.

I have seen athletes simply run to the line and stop, meaning they decelerated before the line instead of running through the line. They simply could not be motivated, or they were just not comfortable with a heavy resistance over a moderate distance. This is where you as a coach must decide from visually looking if they “peaked out” from effort or fatigue, which will affect whether it is a valid profile. Your eyes will help you out the most on this one.

Retesting

Load-velocity profiling is an assessment and can be used to track progress over time. How long do you expect it to take to achieve meaningful adaptations from training? Four weeks plus a deload? Do your training blocks typically last six weeks? What numbers will you focus on improving the most? This will all depend on your goals and programming.

It is extremely important to make sure you get a valid profile the first time—that way your protocols do not need to be modified in the future, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

Second, when retesting, you should use the exact same protocols to allow for the most accurate comparison. That is why it is extremely important to make sure you get a valid profile the first time—that way your protocols do not need to be modified in the future.

Familiarization

 Although this pertains to a prior section, including this now will make much more sense with your newly acquired information. Anecdotally, I had nine high school athletes perform two load-velocity profiles 48 hours apart. Some athletes had experience using the 1080 Sprint, while for others it was their first time.

For all variables going into and calculated from the profiles, using a paired (dependent samples) t-test, no variables were statistically significantly different from the first profile to the second besides 5-meter velocity at 10 kg (p < 0.05). The variables analyzed were 5-meter velocities at 1 kg, 5 kg, 10 kg, and 15 kg; the slope (M); max velocity (B); R² of the regression; and predicted loads to run at 10% V_dec, 25% V_dec, and 50% V_dec. With that said, no two profiles were perfectly the same and this caused different resistances to be programmed; however, the average difference for resistances between profiles for 10% V_dec, 25% V_dec, and 50% V_dec was 0.2 kg, 0.5 kg, and 1.0 kg, respectively.

Exceptions

I have also seen many profiles that look like this where the athlete was not “peaked out” for the first two sprints, but “peaked out” for the last two (see figure 4 below). What do you do? Is it invalid? Do you add 5 more yards to the first two sprints but leave the distances for the last two next time? Probably not.

This could mean one of three things:

1. They were not given enough rest and were tired for the last two sprints.
2. They stopped trying for the last two sprints.
3. They are better at running against light resistance and needed more distance for the first two sprints.

I believe it is important to keep the changes in resistance and distance consistent between sprints to achieve a well-rounded profile. It is important to know what a typical profile looks like, so you are aware of when you need to intervene and manage during the sprint, whether that means staying the course, instructing to remember to finish all the way through the line, etc.

Specificity

Although these concepts are universal for training and load-velocity profiling, these numbers are specific to the 1080 Sprint, my coaching style, my programming, and my athletes. You can apply all of this in your setting, but there should be a critical period when you first learn and experiment to see what YOUR numbers look like. Go experiment. Mess around with different resistances and distances and calculate the profiles for your own athletes to see where the 10% V_dec, 25% V_dec, and 50% V_dec are.

Conclusion

Load-velocity profiling on the 1080 Sprint removes the guesswork when assigning resistance, gives consistent assessment and reassessment protocols, and provides objective feedback. Capitalizing on this opportunity to individualize training will help you do your job as a coach when developing speed. Although it takes time to learn this process, the main point to remember is that all nuances and factors come back to ensuring the athlete hits their true max velocity at each resistance and sprint.

As with all sport science, do not load-velocity profile your athletes just because you can. You should have a very solid idea of how the data will directly become action, says @CoachBigToe. Share on X

As with all sport science, do not load-velocity profile your athletes just because you can. You should have a very solid idea of how the data will directly become action. The specifics can change and get sorted out later, but knowing “this profile will dictate what resistances I will use” or “this will be my main objective assessment of progress for the next X weeks based on these two variables” is incredibly more beneficial than “I want to see where my athlete is at.”

Although load-velocity profiling is an assessment tool, the same rules of coaching still apply. As soon as you hit start on the 1080 Sprint’s tablet, watch the athlete throughout the entirety of their sprint. Once that is all done, then see what the graphs and numbers say.

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. Cahill, Micheál. (2020, December). “A targeted approach to resisted sled training for speed development: Assess, prescribe and coach.” Track Football Consortium. https://trackfootballconsortium.com/tfc-2020/

2. Cross, MR, Brughelli M, Samozino P, Brown SR, and Morin JB. “Optimal loading for maximizing power during sled-resisted sprinting.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2017;12:1069-1077.

A rampant and erroneous concept in the speed community is that athletes have to run at maximum or near-maximum velocity in order to get faster. At surface level, the concept makes sense; it seems intuitive, akin to the thought that one must lift heavy in order to get stronger. But neither of these ideologies are accurate. As we know, submaximal lifts indeed can improve maximal strength. Likewise, submaximal sprints indeed can improve maximum speed.

Can athletes get faster by running fast, a la Feed the Cats? Yes, of course.

Is this the only way to improve speed? No.

Tension vs. Peacefulness

Watch the faces of the world’s greatest sprinters. More times than not, they look relaxed. Oftentimes, you’ll see jaws flopping about, that’s how loose they are. Too much tension hurts speed. Olympic lifters know this—in the Olympic lifts, athletes must alternate between tension and relaxation at very fast rates.

Too much tension hurts speed, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Such is the reality of sprinting. We call it “coordination,” referring to the synchronization of muscles turning on and off at certain points in the sprint cycle. It’s harmonious, really (or should be). The faster the hip flexors “turn off,” the faster hip flexion forces are diminished, allowing the hip extensors to pull the thigh down towards the ground more quickly and forcefully.

It’s not unlike tug-of-war. If one side suddenly lets the rope go, the rope goes flying in the other direction. When one set of muscles “let go,” the set of muscles on the other side are no longer opposed, so the leg goes flying in the other direction quickly.

The efficiency of this reciprocal inhibition is, in my mind, a key determinant of stride frequency. My brain thinks in analogies, and the image of two loggers in the 1800s cutting down a tree with a two-man saw comes to mind.

To maximize how fast the saw moves, only one side of it should be pulled at a time. If the loggers on both ends of the saw pull at the same time, obviously the speed of the blade and the efficiency of the cut will be compromised.

Point is, being overly tense hurts speed. To maximize speed, muscle groups must contract powerfully, relax rapidly, and do so at the right times. Submaximal sprints help program that.

To maximize speed, muscle groups must contract powerfully, relax rapidly, and do so at the right times, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

You Want Me to Run…Peacefully?

Credit to Stu McMillan of Altis for the cue “peaceful” in relation to sprinting. He discusses this concept in the Altis Foundation course.

We met in person at the 2021 US Olympic Trials, and this concept came up in discussion. One of the athletes he was coaching was stuck in the 10.2–10.3 second range. Stu went “all-in,” as he said, on submax runs. They went several months without hitting max velocity in training.

Imagine that: a 100m sprint athlete not hitting max velocity in training for months on end. Yet, he eventually PR’d and went sub 10.1.

Stu wrote an e-book about the process. You can find it here.

I’ve had similar breakthroughs with the athletes I work with (for the record, they are mostly high school athletes and not Olympic hopefuls or Olympians like Stu trains). I record flying 10s with a Freelap system, and some athletes—not all, but some—actually PR while sprinting at what they perceive as submaximal efforts.

To be clear on this point—I’m saying that I’ve instructed athletes to run at “85-90% effort” (not 85-90% max speed, but effort) while focusing on running peacefully and fluidly, and as a result they’ve PR’d in their flying 10. In other words: they ran their fastest times ever while feeling like they were only giving 90%. Anecdotal, sure, but this serves as evidence that there’s something to the concept of running peacefully and fluidly.

I hesitate to use the word “relaxed,” because sprinting is not relaxing. It is fast and violent, yet most effective with a calm, present, and focused mind.

Sprinting is fast and violent, yet most effective with a calm, present, and focused mind, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Hence, peaceful.

It’s the mentality I imagine the Samurai had going into battle. I have to think they didn’t psych themselves up and ask their brethren to slap them in the face before entering a duel. Rather, I envision them as calm and methodical, yet precise, decisive, graceful, and incredibly violent with their movements when the time came to strike.

To me, this mental state is the antithesis of trying too hard. Muscling through a sprint is a great way to run slow. The Samurai approach is the path to speed.

Doesn’t make sense to you? Don’t worry, it didn’t to me at first, either.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Allyson Felix (@allysonfelix)

Image 2. The great Olympian Alison Felix, beautifully demonstrating what it looks like to run fast while staying calm and peaceful.

Cueing Peacefulness

When describing the concept to athletes, I usually start with a question and a charades-like demonstration. “Which do you think is a faster way to run: running nice, smooth, and fluid…” (demonstrating these qualities) “…or, muscling your way through a sprint?” Most athletes recognize that smooth and fluid is the way to go.

After that, I’ll introduce the word “peaceful” as distinct from “relaxed.” Many athletes have been told to run relaxed; however, that word may strike an emotional response similar to lethargy in ways that “peaceful” perhaps does not. Maybe this is a matter of semantics and preference, but I feel peaceful is a different mode of operation than relaxed, and that peaceful captures the state that facilitates speed better than relaxed does.

Peaceful is a different mode of operation than relaxed, and peaceful captures the state that facilitates speed better than relaxed does, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Nonetheless, asking athletes to find a smooth and fluid sprint tends to work. “Clear your brain and run” works for those who are more in-tuned with their mind. All in all, though, it takes time and reps. Very few get it on rep one. It’s a difficult concept to understand cognitively, even more difficult to execute.

But when athletes do get it, there’s an “aha” moment. They feel it immediately and can tell the difference. They’ll often report the run felt smoother and more graceful. Like it felt easier. That’s the good stuff. That’s the gold. That’s the sensation athletes need to maintain during maximum efforts to truly reach their peak velocities.

Programming Submax Sprints

Metabolic purposes aside, I see two main uses for submaximal sprints:

1. To create technical changes (teaching technique)
2. To empower athletes to learn how to run peacefully

Although “peacefulness” is not a kinematic parameter, I do think of it as part of sprint technique. Submaximal sprinting allows athletes to focus on things other than running fast, like technique. When it is time to run at max speed, it’s definitely not time to think about how you’re doing it. The time to do that is when you’re running slowly.

When it is time to run at max speed, it’s definitely not time to think about how you’re doing it, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Thus, submax sprints.

Before actually sprinting, however, it can be valuable to practice the concept with drills first. I’ve found dribbles and switching drills (such as boom booms) with an emphasis on smoothness and fluidity to be a helpful primer to actually running.

The facility I work at has 63m of track, so I am constrained with what I can do with athletes. The workouts proposed below are a reflection of that. If I had more space, I would use it. Adapt for your space as you see fit.

Flying Sprints at Submax Efforts

If you have a bone to pick because flying sprints by definition mean max speed in your book…sue me. If you’re new to the term, a flying sprint is a slow build up run (not an explosive start), a short section of what is typically a maximum velocity sprint, followed by a slow, gradual deceleration. It’s a typical workout for max speed development.

In this case, it’s just as described above, but I instruct athletes to build up to a designated percentage of effort, and hold that speed through the end point (usually a cone).

I typically start by requesting 80% effort. If the film looks good and if athletes report feeling confident and comfortable, I’ll bump up in 5% increments. This style of sprinting is also conducive to working on other kinematic variables as well.

In this protocol, when you choose to ask athletes to go 100% is up to you as a coach. In my experience, athletes who are more intense and stiff—or who come across as (or actually are) angry all the time—tend to need more practice with submax sprints before the mind state starts to stick.

Athletes who are more intense and stiff tend to need more practice with submax sprints before the mind state starts to stick, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

My guess is that, in general, the concept of slowing down and achieving a peaceful mind is not attractive or easily achieved psychologically for these types of people. I doubt social media and the rest of modern existence has lent itself towards freeing the mind.

When reviewing film, look for tension in the neck, face, and hands. If you see hands that are sort of floppy, that’s a sure sign that athletes are on the right track. We may not want to see floppy hands when athletes are attempting full speed sprints, but when intentionally going slow, I don’t think it’s a bad thing.

In my experience, more times than not, you will find that actual speeds are higher than athletes’ perceived effort level. For instance, I often notice athletes running at 90 or even 95%+ of their best 10m fly time during reps when they report 80 or 85% effort. I always take the time to communicate this: “You felt like you were giving 85%, but you were actually running at 95% of your top speed. That seems like a good thing, right? Imagine what will happen when you master this smoothness during your actual 100% effort!”

Alternatively, you may challenge your athletes to hit a certain time that you have predetermined (say, 85 or 90% of their PR). I first heard this concept from Sam Portland when he appeared on episode 141 on the Just Fly Performance Podcast. He calls it speed gate golf: challenging athletes to hit certain times as opposed to percent efforts.

Again, in my experience, when athletes get the peaceful concept down, they report lower perceived effort than expected from their times. In other words, they’ll feel like they’re giving 70% effort while hitting 85% of their max speed.

Maybe the relationship between perceived effort and actual speed isn’t 1:1, so perhaps it’s to be expected that these won’t match up. I’m open to that. But honestly, if it boosts athletes’ confidence and provides enhanced expectancies (a la Gabriele Wulf), I’m OK with it and will continue wielding that language to their advantage.

Alternating Flying Sprints

Alternating between a submax and a maximal sprint gives athletes the opportunity to first feel the smooth, fluid, peaceful run and then to incorporate that into an actual full speed effort. I use this method with athletes who seem to have the concept down—they are beyond the learning stage and now need practice incorporating the technique into their “normal.”

Pro tip: film, film, film. Compare the submax to the maximal sprint. They should look the same: beautiful. If technique goes to hell when an athlete puts the pedal to the metal, they may not be ready to give 100% effort yet and may need more time at submax speeds to hone technique.

One athlete I work with improved his flying 10 PR from 1.01s to 0.97s (22.15mph to 23.06mph) using this method. That’s a pretty big jump, and he did it, in my opinion, by finding that peacefulness and fluidity.

In and Outs

I’ve also heard them called floating sprints or re-accelerations, but Al Vermeil calls them in and outs, so I tend to call them that, too.

An in and out is a maximal sprint for X distance, a maintenance sprint by which speed doesn’t change (think cruise control) for X distance, then full speed to the end.

On my 63m track, I usually do a 10m sprint, 20m “float” or cruise control, then a 15m sprint. On a full track, you may do a 15–20m initial sprint, a longer float phase—say, 40–60m—followed by a 20–30m full speed sprint to the finish.

This is also reserved for athletes who have the basic concept down. The goal is to achieve the smoothness going into the float phase, hold it, then maintain as the athlete begins accelerating again towards max speed.

Elastic vs. Strength-Based Athletes: Does it Matter?

The athlete who went from a 1.01 to a .97s flying 10 is highly elastic. The kid hasn’t touched a weight in years (don’t ask). He’s one of those naturally gifted athletes who can pogo through the roof. He’s also highly competitive, so he got down on himself and tried harder when his flying 10 time wasn’t what he wanted. As a result of trying harder, he ran slower, spiraling him into a downward cycle of trying harder, running slower, trying harder, running slower.

For him, I think trying harder meant muscling it more.

Yet, when he released himself from that mentality and ran peacefully, his time dropped significantly. This makes me wonder: do elastic athletes respond better to this type of focus than strength-based athletes do?

I do think that even strength-based (as opposed to elastic) sprinters are at their fastest when they find that peacefulness, based on the physiological rationale presented earlier regarding stride frequency. But I wonder if elastic athletes have more to gain from finding that rhythm than their strength-based counterparts.

In other words, maybe muscling it holds an elastic sprinter back more than it would a strength-based one. If that’s true—and I don’t know if it is—then maybe it warrants spending more time working this concept with elastic athletes.

Maybe muscling it holds an elastic sprinter back more than it would a strength-based one, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Running Slow to Run Fast

I reject the notion that athletes have to sprint maximally or near maximally to get faster. Not only are submaximal sprints excellent avenues by which to make technical changes, they are also highly appropriate for learning, understanding, internalizing, and then realizing the necessary mind state to reach one’s true maximum velocity potential.

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

It was the beginning of the season, and my team was getting ready to practice. As I walked alongside them to the track, the athletes were talking about how hungry they were. Some mentioned they hadn’t eaten since 10 a.m., and others couldn’t wait until after practice to run across the street to grab a donut because it was “buy one, get one free” day. As we passed the long jump pit and headed to the spot under the scoreboard where we meet before warm-up, they continued to talk about how hungry and tired they were.

At that moment, I realized that if my team is distracted every day by feelings of hunger and fatigue, something needs to change.

Even though we talk about the importance of a good diet and its impact on health and performance, these high school kids still don’t know HOW to implement the information. Share on X

I was surprised, because I make a point of constantly discussing the importance of a good diet and its impact on health and performance. Even though we talk about it, however, these high school kids still don’t know how to implement the information. I also realized that they were student-athletes, and their schedule isn’t meal friendly.

The reality for many high school kids is that they want to eat better, but since they are overscheduled with school, sports, and social activity, nutrition gets put on the back burner. Most of their meals are on the go from fast food restaurants, and many parents are busy working so they order out. You listen as athletes tell their friends about skipping breakfast because they aren’t hungry in the morning, then running across the street after practice to grab some fast food because by that point they are starving. They barely drink water during the day and often don’t know the difference between a carbohydrate and a protein.

I realized, “Oh boy, I need to do something. After all, I am the coach, and athletic performance depends on nutrition!” I decided I needed to condense the ABCs of nutrition and lay it out for them: It would be important to give them strategies on how to implement nutritional priorities into their already busy schedule.

Where Do You Start?

First, communicate with your athletes about how it can affect them if they don’t eat right versus what it can do for their performance if they do. Below is an outline of the information I speak about—I simply write it on a whiteboard and work my way down.

You don’t need to make a slide presentation—you can do it on the field in a relaxed environment and make it interactive. This might be a good thing to do on a light day of practice or a recovery day. In the end, I provide strategies on how to implement nutritional priorities one at a time. I start with how to stay hydrated; once they have achieved that, I layer on another one. I keep it simple and attainable, so they feel successful and not defeated. I also learned they will need constant reminders; it’s not a one-time conversation.

The reality is that the schedule for a high school student-athlete doesn’t make it easy to eat a balanced diet. Some work and preparation are definitely needed. Begin with a conversation and ask the athletes how they are feeling, how is their sleep, what have they eaten during the day, whether they understand how those eating habit may impact performance, etc.

The reality is that the schedule for a high school student-athlete doesn’t make it easy to eat a balanced diet. Share on X

I also include links with infographics that are great references for the athletes—I find it beneficial to email or send them in a group text so they can pull them up on their phone.

What We Think Athletes Know About Nutrition and the Reality Are Two Different Things

After talking to my high school athletes, I realized they don’t truly understand how poor nutritional habits can affect them on and off the field. When we started to talk about nutrition, they shared with me how they are too busy with school, social life, and athletics to think about what they are going to eat. Here is a perfect example of how teenagers operate—one day, I noticed an athlete struggling with training. He continued to stop and complain of cramping. The first things I asked was whether he drank enough water and what did he eat today? He told me he’d had an apple and a cup of water, and that was it!

Common habits amongst these athletes were skipping meals, grabbing the first thing they see, and not giving nutrition a second thought. As far as macro nutrients, most didn’t have a clue—they had no idea that food could affect how they felt or how they performed. As a coach, I found this to be the perfect opportunity to make a difference and educate them.

I start the conversation with facts about poor versus healthy habits and how each can make them feel. A few of my athletes shared how when they stopped eating fried food at lunch, they didn’t get stomach cramps anymore and didn’t have to run to the bathroom in the middle of practice.

I explained to my athletes that eating a poor diet could result in:

• Low energy levels.
• Reduced athletic and academic performance.
• Trouble focusing and concentrating and poor memory recall.
• Increased risk for injury, illness, and infection.
• Fatigue and reduced reaction time.
• Muscle loss and an inability to gain lean mass.
• Reduction in strength, power output, and speed.

Then some facts about how a good diet can benefit them:

• Increased ability to focus and memory recall.
• Better ability to recover.
• Increased strength and power.
• Reduced risk of injury and illness.
• Better long-term health.
• Increased overall energy.
• Ability to get the most out of your training.

Give them a convenient visual of what a balanced diet looks like.

I also find it beneficial to educate them on the specific nutritional demands of their sport. For example, if they are a distance athlete, they will benefit from a diet with a higher percent of carbs versus a strength or power athlete who will need more protein.

We’ve Educated Them: Now Let’s Offer Strategies on How to Eat Throughout the Day

As coaches, we need to remember high school students don’t have a meal-friendly time schedule. They usually are up very early and may have lunch at 10 or 11 a.m. (and some students don’t have a lunch period because they’re overloaded with honors classes). By the time they get to practice, they have low energy and can’t focus. These are some of the strategies I recommend:

• Eat early: Train the digestive system to tolerate food in the morning just like we train to get stronger and faster.
• Choose wisely: Give them morning options that are time-efficient and nutrient dense. For example, Ezekiel bread with peanut butter and banana, Greek yogurt with berries and granola, eggs on whole grain toast and fresh fruit, a protein shake with frozen or fresh fruit. I also suggest if they want leftover steak and veggies from last night’s dinner, it’s better than a sugary cereal.
• Eat well: Healthy carbohydrates, proteins, and fats to meet the nutritional demands of their growth and sport.
• Eat often: When possible, a high carb and easily digestible snack approximately 30 minutes before training and simple carbs when training is longer then two hours (fresh or dried fruit, fig bars, granola).
• Consume recovery nutrition: This should be 0-2 hours post training. (If an athlete is unable to have a nutritious meal soon after practice, suggest they have chocolate milk or a protein shake post training to help them with recovery instead of going hungry).
• Time full meals: Consume a full meal 3-4 hours before a training session and don’t try new foods with this meal.

I’ve used the information below as examples of ways they could implement this information:

• It could look something like this: meal-meal-snack-snack-snack-meal. Meal in the morning before school, or if they have lunch at 10:30, then pack snacks for the day. Have one at noon, then another an hour or so before practice, and another after. When they get home, they have another meal. The high school setting is never optimal, but neither is life—we must adapt and prepare accordingly.
• Replenish protein to repair muscle damage accumulated during training and carbohydrates to replace glycogen for energy used during training.
• Rehydrate—drink fluids to replace fluid during training in addition to about half their weight in ounces. Example: a 140-pound female should drink about 70 ounces on a regular basis.
• Get in the habit of reading food labels (e.g., how does sugar hide in ingredients, the importance of fewer ingredients, “low fat” means nothing, whole foods better than processed, etc.). I did this when we traveled and made a food stop…

The high school setting is never optimal, but neither is life—we must adapt and prepare accordingly. Share on X

1. When we travel with the team, we can teach them how to snack! (Coaches too!)

• Teach them how to eat a healthy meal before traveling. If athletes will be on the go for several hours, they should eat something satisfying beforehand, so they don’t end up hungry and reaching for junk.
• 1-2 palms of lean protein.
• 1-2 cupped hands of carbs.
• 1-2 fists of veggies.
• 1-2 thumbs of fats.
• Pack a snack or several: nuts, seeds, hard-boiled eggs, celery with nut butter, raw veggies or fruit, quality protein bars.
• At a travel stop, make good choices: Greek yogurt, string cheese, raw veggies and hummus, fruits.
• In a hotel? Consider booking a room with a kitchenette or arrange the team meals at a restaurant with healthier choices.

2. Let’s get them to understand the importance of hydration. (See this infographic on what to drink more of, some of, and less of.)

• Teach your athletes to look at the color of their urine. They may not associate the headache, cramping, and fatigue with dehydration, but they will remember this. Explain to them it should be pale yellowish and clear. If it’s darker, they need to drink more water. Depending on how much info you want to give your athletes, you can explain further. I use the example of a dry sponge and a sponge soaked in water and how it can bend without damage compared to the dry one—I tell them now imagine the sponge is your muscle.
• I explain that if their output of fluids exceeds their intake of fluids, an imbalance occurs, and dehydration can develop. I discuss how much they sweat, how this influences dehydration, and how it can be measured by weight loss as a percentage. The weather, the activity, and the length of the activity will impact how much the athlete sweats. Have the athletes look at their clothes after practice—some sweat so much they can ring out their shirts. I use this visual, so they know they need to replace what they lost.

I discuss with athletes how much they sweat, how this influences dehydration, and how it can be measured by weight loss as a percentage. Share on X

I talk about how dehydration can cause these symptoms:

• Thirst
• Dry skin
• Fatigue and weakness
• Increased body temperature
• Muscle cramping
• Headaches
• Nausea
• Darker-colored urine
• Dry mouth

 Next, I go over what severe dehydration can feel like: 

• Muscle spasms
• Vomiting
• Dark urine
• Vision problems
• Loss of consciousness
• Kidney and liver failure

When you end practice, ask your athletes is anyone thirsty? Wouldn’t an ice-cold glass of lemonade be great right now? Tell them if you’re thirsty, it’s a signal you’re dehydrated.

If some of your athletes have a tough time drinking during practice, figure 1 below is a guide on hydrating for coaches. If they don’t drink during practice, use this as a guideline to teach them:

• 500 milliliters (16 ounces) of fluid the night before exercise.
• 500 milliliters in the morning.
• 500 to 1,000 milliliters (16-32 ounces), one hour before exercise.
• 250 to 500 milliliters (8-16 ounces), 20 minutes before exercise.

It’s a good idea to have your athletes get in the habit of eating nutrient-dense foods/beverages after exercise to assist in the rehydrating process.

• Those with a history of cramping and “salty sweat” should consider adding salt to foods/beverages after exercising (a quarter to one-half teaspoon).
• For every pound of sweat lost during exercise, rehydrate with two cups of fluid.
• Dark-colored urine can be a sign of a low water reserve in the body. Make sure your urine is light-colored and clear.
• Watermelon, strawberries, peaches, cucumbers, celery, pickles, coconut water, and oranges are good suggestions for hydration post training.

3. Convey the importance of allowing treats.

I find it valuable to teach our athletes that *treats* are something we eat on occasion. We don’t want teenagers to think they can never have ice cream or pizza; we educate them on eating nutritiously most of the time, and that food is our friend. If they know what a healthy diet looks like, then they can have those foods in moderation. I use the 80/20 rule with my athletes: eat a healthy, sound, nutritious diet 80% of the time, then the other 20% you can eat treats in moderation.

If teenagers know what a healthy diet looks like, then they can have foods like ice cream and pizza in moderation. Share on X

4. It’s not one conversation; it’s an ongoing process with constant reminders.

I have found if they know why they should eat better, then they’ll want to. (When they start performing better, they are even more motivated.) Giving them the how strategies is extremely important. Shortcuts I have shared with my athletes are to eat more fresh fruit and also put fruits like bananas, grapes, and any kind of fresh berry in the freezer—they can reach for it when they want something sweet or throw it in a smoothie.

I also suggest eating more veggies, such as cut-up carrots, celery, and peppers as a quick snack with some hummus or whatever dip they might have in the house. I recommend they share the info with their parents so the whole family is onboard. I have had athletes ask me for recipes, because I regularly post meals I make at home and nutrition tips. Sharing nutritional information on social media or group chats has also worked well for me.

Seeing an Impact on the Track

We all know we can’t out-train a bad diet and healthy habits should start young. I have found the best way to do this is to be a resource for my athletes and to sift through the information and give them the facts. For teen athletes, most just eat when they are hungry and don’t give much thought to what it is. I have found that when I start to bring up the subject of nutrition, they start to ask questions and want to know more about how to eat better.

My presentation to my athletes about nutrition has always been positive and prompts them to ask follow-up questions. I bet most coaches would be surprised their athletes don’t know the difference between a carb and a protein. At the end, I always leave time for questions, and there are always plenty that lead to more conversations and education. When we travel for meets and stop to get food, I find this a perfect time to help them make better choices. An athlete of mine brought this up years later, telling me she remembered me explaining how unhealthy soda was and then she stopped drinking it.

When we travel for meets and stop to get food, I find this a perfect time to help them make better food choices. Share on X

Over the years, one behavior I have noticed that has made an impact is improved hydration—with better hydration habits, the athletes who would complain of headaches and muscle cramps stopped complaining and had fewer of these. The athletes who had stomach cramps at practice after eating fries and chicken fingers for lunch changed that dietary habit to a healthier, more digestible choice and didn’t have to run to the bathroom in the middle of practice.

I always remind them on the night of a competition to not try any new foods and to stick with what works for them. We teach our athletes to reach for the low-hanging fruit of nutritional habits and layer one on top of the other. Not overwhelming them with info and giving them other options is key—it’s an ongoing process, so let’s keep the conversation going and MANGIA BENE!

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

In the rehab and strength and conditioning communities, it is widely accepted that programming within a stress-recovery-adaptation (SRA) cycle is an effective methodology for creating sport-specific, targeted adaptations in our high-performance and tactical athletes. Considering the connections between movement quality and stress/physiology that have been established in research, it may be beneficial to use assessment of movement quality (motion analysis) to determine where an athlete’s movement patterns are revealing current stress on the system.

Based on this objective data for each athlete, we can then set specific training and rehab goals and develop highly individualized programming to facilitate precise positive adaptations. Motion analysis also gives us a measurable way to track athlete progress over time—a valuable tool to validate the effectiveness of programming efforts.

Programming Within an SRA Cycle

While many coaches and therapists agree with SRA ideology for promoting positive performance adaptations, few truly understand the underlying neurological mechanisms involved and how to begin designing programs to maximize positive adaptations based on these principles.

Traditionally, the focus of the SRA cycle has been on the physical aspects of stress, recovery, and adaptation. This makes sense in our industry, as improving motor performance and physical readiness is the goal of all training programs, and it is typically the most observable of the adaptations that occur within the cycle (e.g., increased strength, speed, endurance). However, the ability of our bodies to detect, withstand, and adapt from stress is largely a neurological process, primarily dictated by healthy structure and function of the vagus nerve. In order to optimize our athletes’ ability to adapt from stress, we need a deeper understanding of the systemic impacts of stress on the body—and particularly the impacts that stress has on motor performance. Let’s start by looking more closely at the SRA cycle.

To optimize our athletes’ ability to adapt from stress, we need a deeper understanding of the systemic impacts of stress on the body—particularly the impacts it has on motor performance. Share on X

The process of deviating from baseline and returning is commonly described as resilience. The overall goal of the SRA cycle is to prescribe the optimal amount of stress and recovery to the individual athlete, so that the result is a measurable positive adaptation in the targeted baseline skill set. We can strategically apply stress and recovery principles within programming to continuously facilitate positive performance adaptations while simultaneously improving baseline tolerance for the applied stress.

Another important note from the graph is that once the stress is applied, we see a temporary decrease in the targeted skill set. When appropriately assessing our athletes using motion analysis, we can detect stress as a decline in movement quality from the athlete’s baseline. This decline in movement quality (a readiness indicator) is a normal part of our systemic stress response and a valuable clue as to when our programming focus should shift to support recovery and facilitate positive adaptation.

The Vagus Nerve, Stress, and Movement

The vagus nerve (cranial nerve 10) is the longest and most complex of the 12 cranial nerves. It emerges directly from the brain and has both sensory and motor functions. One of the primary roles of the vagus nerve is to modulate activity within the autonomic nervous system, specifically regulating sympathetic (fight-or-flight)/parasympathetic (recovery/relaxation) tone.

The vagus nerve also controls heart rate variability (HRV), which is a measure of a person’s ability to adapt to stress. The sensory and motor fibers of the vagus nerve travel throughout the fascia system, and therefore structure and function of the vagus nerve are largely dependent on a healthy musculoskeletal system and efficient movement patterns. In this sense, when used appropriately, movement has the potential to regulate our physiology and promote positive adaptations from stress. Conversely, movement, especially loaded movement, also has the potential to inhibit positive adaptations when applied without mindfulness regarding the current level of stress. Let’s go a little deeper.

Conversely, movement, especially loaded movement, also has the potential to inhibit positive adaptations when applied without mindfulness regarding the current level of stress. Share on X

The vagus nerve acts as the body’s surveillance system, designed to detect any imbalance or threat to homeostasis, both internally and externally. A threat to homeostasis can be anything from an increase in heart rate during exercise to a heavy external load or an actual physical injury. Any time a threat is detected, the vagus nerve sends warning signals to the brain, which triggers a series of cellular, chemical, and physical reactions to restore homeostasis within the body. This series of reactions to return an individual to baseline is called allostasis.

When an athlete is placed under stress and they are in an allostatic response, we should expect to see a temporary decline in motor functions (recall the graph). Once the person reaches their homeostatic baseline through recovery, the vagus nerve sends signals to the brain that the threat has passed, and the nervous system is in a prime position to integrate the stressful experience and create positive physical adaptations specific to the type of stress. In the case of a stressful situation turning into a positive adaptation, the stress is classified as eustress (good stress/adaptive stress). This is the goal of training within an SRA cycle.

If the athlete does not adequately recover and never reaches their baseline, however, the stress response continues—then, they are unable to transform the experience into a positive adaptation. A positive adaptation cannot occur until the vagus nerve sends signals of safety to the brain. If the stress response continues long term, with no return to baseline, the athlete is at greater risk for negative outcomes, such as injury and even illness. Our bodies are made to withstand short periods of stress, not chronic stress. In the case of an athlete having inadequate recovery, the stress would become distress (negative/maladaptive stress) and would be visible over time with faulty movement patterns and compensations.

One of the most important points from above is that if an athlete is in stress, their motor performance and movement quality will inevitably suffer (decrease from baseline on SRA graph). This provides implications for professionals working with tactical athletes and high-performance athletes to be assessing movement quality at various intervals, to monitor the athlete’s adaptive response to prescriptive programming and applied stress.

Note: Understanding the difference between eustress and distress as it relates to performance is especially important for professionals working with tactical populations, where operational stress puts these athletes at higher risk for allostatic overload (chronic inability to return to baseline). Research is showing that these athletes demonstrate a decline in motor performance and readiness indicators long after intense operational training has ended, and even longer after combat deployments. For best practice, this should be considered when prescribing stress and recovery programming for this population.

Motion Analysis for High-Performance and Tactical Athletes

We’ve established that using standardized assessments of motor performance and physical readiness enables therapists and coaches to develop highly individualized prescriptive programming within a stress-recovery-adaptation cycle. But how do we actually perform a movement assessment? While most coaches rely on their own trained eye to spot imbalances in the musculoskeletal system and faulty movement patterns, recent advances in the fields of bioengineering and sports science have led to the development of high-tech motion analysis equipment, which is slowly being integrated into the industry by various professionals.

Technology from BTS Bioengineering allows for the assessment of neuromuscular activation, multiplanar accelerations/rotations, range of motion, and spatiotemporal parameters within a variety of movement patterns. The data provided allows for the most objective assessment of current performance abilities, including where they might fall on the SRA cycle graph. We can then use this information to develop individualized programming to facilitate specific positive performance adaptations.

BTS Bioengineering

BTS Bioengineering is an Italian-based company that has been researching and developing innovative technologies for motion analysis since 1986. BTS has a plethora of options when it comes to motion analysis equipment. At Elite Performance Concepts (EPC), we have 3D motion capture cameras, force plates, wireless EMG sensors, and inertia sensor all from BTS. BTS equipment has been validated and used in peer-reviewed scientific journals—they are truly a leader in the field.

The equipment comes with some protocols that have normative data already within the software (for example, gait and running analysis, vertical jump indexes, drop jump test, and cervical spine test). These tests have been well researched and allow us to see where an athlete’s scores place them when compared with a group of the normal population.

I can pick and choose which assessments will give the best data based on the athlete’s goals and how they are currently presenting, to create a completely individualized assessment. Share on X

I have also worked with BTS to create custom EMG and 3D motion capture protocols for squat, deadlift, and bench press. While these protocols do not have normative data, they allow me to assess symmetry throughout a movement pattern, as well as track symmetry over time in response to programming. With all the available testing options, I can pick and choose which assessments will give the best data based on the athlete’s goals and how they are currently presenting, to create a completely individualized assessment.

Case Studies

At EPC, we see two sets of clients:

1. Traditional rehab clients. These are people coming to us with a specific injury or issue. On an SRA cycle graph, they would be below their baseline and in stress.
2. Athletes. These clients are at their performance baseline and are looking to improve skills related to a specific sport or activity. These individuals would be at their baseline on the SRA curve or maybe a little below baseline if they have been neglecting recovery.

Despite one set of clients coming in with injuries and the other looking to improve baseline performance abilities, both are in a prime position to strategically apply motion analysis and SRA principles to promote positive performance adaptations. Let’s look at the data of two different clients to get a better understanding of how we can use this equipment to program for our athletes within an SRA cycle.

Case Study 1: Rehab Client

The first client that we will look at is a rehab client. This client is an older adult who has remained extremely physically fit throughout her life. Up until earlier this year—when she tore the meniscus in her right knee—she was strength training regularly in the gym. She had the tear repaired surgically and used traditional physical therapy for her rehab. In one session, she had extreme pain when the therapist forced her knee into terminal extension. She has had swelling and pain in the knee ever since, and recently had an MRI that showed two new tears in the same knee. The client is scheduled for another surgical repair in a few weeks.

For her assessment, I chose to do a gait analysis using EMG and inertia sensors. We did two assessments: one with a crutch on the right side and one without the crutch. We wanted to compare her gait with and without the crutch to determine whether she should continue to use it. Our goal was also to get a pre-op analysis to compare postoperatively. Having data to show progress over time can be an extremely valuable tool for the rehab client’s mentality throughout the process.

The BTS protocol that I used for this client is the Freewalk Protocol. This protocol collects data regarding neuromuscular activation through use of 8 EMG (electromyography) sensors and spatiotemporal parameters of the gait cycle via the G-Sensor (inertia sensor). The G-Sensor is placed at the level of the pelvis and measures angular accelerations in three planes of movement, as well as events within the gait cycle. The EMG probes are placed on the following muscles (right and left sides): tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius medialis, rectus femoris, semitendinosus. Gait kinematics have been researched extensively for several decades, and therefore, the protocol has a high level of validity and compares our client’s data to normative data of the general population.

Data Analysis

Going through the protocol report, the first aspect of gait that we will look at are temporal parameters collected by the G-Sensor. Events would be things like heel strike, toe-off, single support phase, double support phase, stance, and swing phase. Through data analysis, we get multiple symmetry indexes, which give information about timing of events within the gait cycle compared to normative data. Below, find the symmetry indexes for this client with and without the use of the crutch. There are three indexes provided:

The next part of the report we will look at are the pelvic kinematics. These graphs allow us to evaluate pelvic movements in the frontal, sagittal, and transverse planes. The green graph lines represent data from the right gait cycle, while the red graph lines represent data from the left gait cycle. Normative data is represented by the gray band. Pelvic kinematics that are considered “normal” would fall within the gray band.

Pelvic kinematics for this client were pretty similar with (right side) and without (left side) the crutch. The most significant deviation that we see in this client is excessive anterior tilt throughout the entire gait cycle. The norm for adults is about 10 degrees of anterior tilt throughout the cycle. This client has almost 25 degrees of anterior tilt throughout the gait cycle. She also falls outside of normal range for right and left pelvic obliquity; however, the deviation is not as significant as the anterior tilt.

The last piece of data is the EMG data within the gait cycle. First, we will look at the data from the lower leg. The graphs on top look at timing of the right (green) and left gait cycles (red). The gray part of the graph is when we should see peak EMG activity, such as is seen in the left gastroc both with and without a crutch. We should see almost no activity in the white areas (a flat line). As you can see, there is very little activity in the right lower leg both with and without a crutch. We also see the right gastroc firing in the white areas of the graph, where it should be almost flat.

This brings us to the next part of the data, the coactivation index (figure 4).

The coactivation index assesses simultaneous agonist and antagonist muscle activation. Normal values are listed in black on the right side. A coactivation index greater than the normal values would indicate co-contraction of agonist and antagonist muscles (gastroc and tibialis), and poor synchronicity of muscle activation within the gait pattern. Both RLE and LLE showed a high level of coactivation in the lower leg throughout the gait cycle both with and without the crutch. This is typical in clients who have an active injury, as it is the body’s way of protecting the joint.

Looking at the EMG data for the upper leg, we see very little activity in the right quadriceps (rectus femoris) both with and without a crutch. We also see excessive hamstring activity bilaterally in white areas, where there should be almost no activity. This is likely a compensation for the lack of rectus fem engagement.

Coactivation indexes both with and without the crutch fell within normal limits (except left swing phase with crutch), indicating no excessive agonist/antagonist co-contraction in the upper leg, bilaterally.

Interpretation of Results

Based on the data, this client did not have a significant difference in gait cycle quality with or without the crutch. However, since she did have slightly better symmetry without the crutch, I recommended she only use the crutch when leaving her house for community ambulation, as it gave her some peace of mind when walking longer distances.

Overall, this client’s assessment reveals a high level of stress within the musculoskeletal system. We see this with poor temporal symmetry, decreased neuromuscular activation in the lower leg and quads, high coactivation within agonist/antagonist muscle groups, and excessive anterior tilt within the pelvis. Based on this data and her presentation as highly anxious regarding this injury and her current quality of life, I would start this client on a rehab program that initially focuses almost entirely on systemic recovery. This client is stressed physically, mentally, and emotionally over this injury, and is well below her functional baseline on the SRA curve.

The recovery methods we use at EPC include:

• Myofascial release therapy/bodywork.
• Movement re-patterning (Masgutova Neurosensorimotor Reflex Integration techniques).
• Sensory integration techniques (MNRI, Safe and Sound Protocol).
• Far infrared sauna.
• Mild hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT).
• Red light therapy/low-level laser.
• Normatec compression equipment.

Just as we can pick and choose which motion analysis protocols we use for each individual athlete, we can also pick and choose which recovery methods we use, based on individual needs identified on assessment. All of the recovery techniques described are done in a gravity-eliminated position (on a massage table or supported sitting). This decreases external load on the body from gravity and is “safe” for the nervous system since it is how we first learn to move as infants.

I would start this client with passive recovery methods (for example, sauna, red light therapy, myofascial release). After several sessions, I would move toward more movement-based recovery, primarily movement re-patterning (MNRI techniques), still in the gravity-eliminated position. These techniques progress the client through foundational movement patterns starting passively, progressing to isometric, and then to isotonic when the client shows readiness.

Once this client presents with less systemic stress and better foundational movement patterns, I would progress her program to integrate corrective exercise techniques (upright/against gravity), starting with isometrics and progressing to isotonic exercise. We would then strategically increase loading within the corrective exercise phase while continuing to incorporate recovery methods, likely with less intensity and frequency. The strategic application of dense recovery methodology in the initial phases of rehab establishes a strong foundation for this client to be able to move from distress to eustress, returning to baseline and adapting beyond it on the SRA graph.

The strategic application of dense recovery methodology in the initial phases of rehab establishes a strong foundation for this client to be able to move from distress to eustress. Share on X

It is important to periodically reassess movement quality, especially for the rehab client. In this client’s case, I will reassess postoperatively and once a month after that to monitor progress and individual response to programming.

Let’s look at another data set from a performance-based athlete.

Case Study 2: Performance-Based Athlete

The next data we will look at is from a healthy athlete in his late 20s. He is a personal trainer and follows a pretty intense (5-7 days/week) training regimen. He describes his training style as “heavy strength and conditioning,” focused on improving performance and athletic development. This athlete is also very active outside of the gym, with activities such as biking and rock climbing. His injury history is significant, with a right shoulder injury requiring surgical repair, right foot fracture, right knee injury, and possible labral tear in the right hip.

The athlete wanted to use motion analysis to look at neuromuscular symmetry within his squat. The EMG arrangement for the squat protocol is as follows (right and left side electrode placement): rectus femoris, biceps femoris caput longum, rectus abdominis, latissimus dorsi, gluteus maximus. In addition to the squat analysis, I also did a gait analysis to get information about pelvic kinematics. I chose to do the G-Walk protocol for the gait assessment, which uses only one inertia sensor at the level of the pelvis for spatiotemporal kinematics within the gait cycle.

The gait assessment using the G-Walk does not assess neuromuscular activation. The pelvic kinematics analyzed with this protocol are the same as discussed with the previous client. The pelvic data gives a good picture of multiplanar orientation of the pelvis, which is beneficial for planning targeted fascia release within the recovery aspect of treatment. I find it beneficial to correlate the data from these two protocols (gait and squat) to get the most detailed picture of the athlete’s baseline related to posture and motor control.

I find it beneficial to correlate the data from the gait and squat protocols to get the most detailed picture of the athlete’s baseline related to posture and motor control. Share on X

Data Analysis

Pelvic kinematics within the gait analysis reveal several deviations outside of the normative data. In the top graph, which looks at anterior/posterior tilt throughout the gait cycle, we see about 20 degrees of anterior tilt throughout the gait cycle. This is about 10 degrees more anterior tilt compared to the normative data. In the second graph, we also see significant deviation from normative data for left and right pelvic obliquity. The graph basically shows elevation of the left side of the pelvis (approximately 10 degrees) and depression of the right side of the pelvis (approximately 10 degrees). This is maintained throughout the gait cycle.

Moving on to neuromuscular analysis of the athlete’s squat technique, we did trials using bar weight (45 pounds), 135 pounds, and 225 pounds. The goal of our data collection was to identify muscle imbalances within the squat, as well as the most optimal load to re-pattern these imbalances to promote positive neuromuscular adaptations within the movement pattern.

The two muscle groups that showed the greatest asymmetry during the squat cycle were the quads (rectus femoris) and gluteus maximus.

See the data below for neuromuscular activation of the rectus femoris. Green represents the right RF, red represents the left RF, and the gray vertical line represents the bottom of the squat. The top graph is the data for all three squat reps, and the bottom graph is data for each of the trials individually over time.

This client’s left rectus femoris consistently had higher EMG activity compared to the right. The greatest asymmetry was with bar weight (45 pounds), while the most symmetrical activation was at 225 pounds. This is typical with athletes who are consistent lifters, to see better symmetry at higher loads. Their proprioceptive systems become accustomed to being loaded, and they have better body awareness under loads.

It is typical for athletes who lift consistently to see better symmetry at higher loads. Their proprioceptive systems become used to being loaded & they have better body awareness under loads. Share on X

Based on the data, when we work on re-patterning this muscle group for this client, we would choose a load somewhere between 135 pounds and 225 pounds. For re-patterning, I recommend starting with a load where the athlete’s RPE is around a 4, and then progressing through loads of 5-7 RPE. We want enough weight to activate optimal proprioception; however, we don’t want them to struggle under the weight. The struggle (stress) for re-patterning should be in maintaining the mind-body connection of the targeted muscle group throughout the squat cycle.

Now let’s look at data from the gluteus maximus at 45 pounds, 135 pounds, and 225 pounds. Just like we saw in this client’s quadriceps, he shows higher neuromuscular activation in all trials and all weights in the left glute compared to the right. However, the client showed the most symmetrical neuromuscular activity with the 135-pound load. We would likely work on re-patterning this muscle group at or around 135 pounds, depending on RPE.

Figure 9. Gluteus maximus activity at 45 pounds, 135 pounds, and 225 pounds.

Interpretation of Results/Programming Notes

For this client’s programming, I would prioritize working on improving the position of the pelvis and re-patterning muscle activation of the quadriceps femoris and gluteus maximus in the squat. This client presents overall with much less systemic stress than the first client. I would still prioritize recovery initially with this client—primarily fascia release around the pelvis and re-patterning (gravity-eliminated position) of the core and lower extremities. However, his recovery phase would be much shorter prior to moving on to corrective exercise programming. As with the previous client, I would incorporate recovery at a lesser intensity and frequency once moving on to corrective exercise.

Biofeedback techniques that strengthen the mind-body connection, or awareness of muscle activity, are an effective means to create more functional movement patterns. Share on X

The goal of corrective exercise programming is to replace the athlete’s dysfunctional movement patterns with more functional patterns. For this athlete, we would work to improve symmetry within the quads and glutes during the squat cycle. Biofeedback techniques that strengthen the mind-body connection, or awareness of muscle activity, are an effective means to create more functional movement patterns. We can use the BTS EMG sensors in biofeedback mode, which gives visual and auditory cues to the athlete when they deviate from targeted muscle activity range.

Proper cueing from the coach or therapist and use of a mirror are other low-tech biofeedback methods. Since this client showed higher muscle activation on the left side, I would cue them to focus on the right-side muscle group. Typically, this is a good cue to use to balance neuromuscular asymmetries.

See the chart (figure 10) below for a visual of progression of how our athletes replace dysfunctional movement with functional movement using biofeedback methods. When our athletes come to us with a dysfunctional movement pattern, they are likely unaware of the specific faulty pattern (unconscious dysfunction). Through the use of motion analysis, we can bring awareness to these dysfunctional patterns (conscious dysfunction).

Using biofeedback to strengthen mind-body connection to specific muscle groups, we can consciously achieve a more functional movement pattern (conscious function). Repetition of functional movement patterns under an optimal load allows the brain to create new neural pathways, replacing the dysfunctional movement pattern with a more efficient motor pathway. This is through a process called neuroplasticity—this more efficient motor pathway then becomes the dominant pathway and the athlete’s new baseline (unconscious function).

In order to establish that our programming is facilitating the positive adaptations we are targeting, we would complete repeat assessments at various intervals. For this athlete, I’d recommend a reassessment in two to three months to give the body enough time to adapt to programming efforts.

Conclusion

There should be no doubt that using high-tech motion analysis equipment allows professionals to develop highly individualized programming, based on the most objective data available. This has obvious benefits when working with high-performance athletes of any specialization. However, not all equipment is created equal, and this is one area where you truly pay for what you get. While lower cost motion analysis options might seem flashy and appealing, it is important to determine whether the equipment you are considering purchasing for use with your athletes has been validated and used in clinical trials.

It is important to make sure the motion analysis equipment you are considering purchasing for use with your athletes has been validated and used in clinical trials. Share on X

Using research-backed motion analysis systems, such as our BTS system, truly has the potential to revolutionize our industry while maintaining evidence-based practice ideals. It is our goal at EPC to use our equipment to set standards and push forward the boundaries of the human performance industry.

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

If you are like me, when you first started in the sports performance field you had no idea what you were doing. And years later, you still have no idea what you are doing—you just have a better idea of what doesn’t work as well. I used to be a clean guy. I used to box squat. I bought all the bands, chains, and prowlers. They were good, and I developed strong athletes, but something was missing.

After years of trial and error, I was bitten by the speed bug. And bitten hard. I bought jump mats, timing systems, better prowlers, etc. I went all in. However, just like with the bands, chains, and months of trying to teach a clean, something was still missing.

My timing system was good, but I only got times—it did not reveal the full story of the sprint. Was this athlete a good starter? A poor starter? If I wanted to create force-velocity profiles, I had to buy how many more timing system units?

Even a prowler sled—a great tool for acceleration—has its flaws when it comes to individualization in a team workout. As coaches, we have all put one weight on a sled or maybe had the heavier sled and the lighter sled in a workout. The issue there was using the same weight for different athletes, with different body weights, heights, and abilities. For some it would be strength work, some power, and others speed work.

This year, as a change, I only worked with men’s and women’s ice hockey—in terms of specificity, there was now the issue of how to utilize the aforementioned tools on the ice. Timing systems present a similar challenge on ice, in terms of not telling the entire story of a sprint. Resisted skating on ice has its own unique challenges, such as how do you individualize and monitor loads and how do you stop a sled on a frictionless surface?

Resisted skating on ice has its own unique challenges, such as how do you individualize and monitor loads and how do you stop a sled on a frictionless surface? Share on X

It’s not that I had a problem, necessarily; it was more my tools didn’t provide the individualization, data, or instant feedback that I wanted. If you can handle the “Ninja Turtles” reference, over the last few years my Master Splinter has become Chris Korfist. I found him through podcasts, tons of articles on SimpliFaster, and his Track Football Consortium. If you are a fan and follower of Chris Korfist like I am, you know that he is a proud owner and promoter of the 1080 Sprint.

This machine could provide all of the things I was now wanting in my training.*

Getting to Know the 1080

When I knew my 1080 was on the way, I called Chris Korfist to ask for advice. He told me that the first three weeks I have it, I needed to create a velocity decrease of 50%, which would increase the athletes’ power production.

The velocity of a sprint is decreased by adding resistance—and we should try and have the highest resistance possible while only decreasing velocity by 50%. In the figure below, 5 kilograms of load is being used for this athlete to create a velocity decrease (not 50% though). He also mentioned basing things off averages because someone tripping could actually show a higher peak velocity (which I later found to be true). After a repetition, the tablet that operates the 1080 will give you a readout of:

• Distance and time.
• Peak and average speed (velocity).
• Peak and average force.
• Peak and average power.

Armed with Chris’ advice, I did some experimenting and familiarized myself and a few athletes with the unit. The 1080 Sprint has two gears of resistance. The first gear ranges from 1-15 kilograms of resistance and the second gear ranges from 16-30 kilograms. Second gear is smooth, and it is heavy, but it does not allow for as quick a transition from athlete to athlete. When you go into second gear, athletes cannot simply undo the belt around their waist and let the 1080 pull the belt back to the start line.

Second gear requires anchoring the line to an immovable object next to the 1080 unit and a pulley system tethers the line through the belt. If an athlete drops the belt and lets the 1080 pull it back in second gear, the line gets all wrapped up and around the pulley and you spend unnecessary time untangling it. The alternative is having each athlete sprint out in second gear, slowly walk backward to the start, then remove the belt to hand to the next athlete.

I decided to only use first gear to make transitions between athletes as quick as possible. This would allow more efficiency and more repetitions for athletes. Share on X

With only a one-hour workout twice a week in season as my training option, I decided to only use first gear to make transitions between athletes as quick as possible. This would allow more efficiency and more repetitions for athletes. Something to also keep in mind: These workouts were not just 1080 workouts—athletes were completing other strength and performance-related exercises within this hour block.

Video 1. Athletes demonstrating the workout flow with the 1080 Sprint in the Lahaye Ice Center hallway. One athlete completes a sprint and drops the belt, which retracts to the starting point. While this is happening, the operator should pull up the next athlete’s profile and make any necessary adjustments.

However, in first gear, the maximum resistance of 15 kilograms was not enough to get a 50% or even 25% velocity decrease. Uh oh. I had to use a 10% velocity decrease, which worked in first gear. Despite Chris’ advice of a 50% velocity decrease being optimal, in my setting it was not practical. If I were to attempt a higher percent decrease and use second gear, I feared I would not accumulate enough repetitions for a training stimulus. Instead of potentially getting 4-8 repetitions with a 10% decrease, in second gear I may only have time for 1-2 repetitions.

Next, after a few conversations with Vicki Bendus of Brock University, in an attempt to correlate on- and off-ice speed, I decided to have players utilize a crossover start both on and off the ice during training and testing. Excited to see what would happen from a three-week, 10% average velocity decrease program, I looked forward to January when the athletes would return from their winter break and start the spring semester. Once athletes got back, we would have more than 10 full weeks to prepare for Nationals in April.

Video 2. Athlete sprinting with resistance from the 1080 Sprint using a crossover start in the Lahaye Ice Center hallway.

Off-Ice, During Workouts

January finally arrived, and at that point, the women were the number one team in the country and the men’s team was in the top five. With the teams’ success to that point in the year, I was very cautious in introducing this new training variable. I was extremely elementary in my approach, essentially only using the 1080 for resisted sprinting, even though it is capable of so much more. Also, before running my velocity decrease program, I wanted to make sure all athletes felt comfortable using the unit, no one was noticeably sorer a day or two later, and that groins and hips could handle the resisted sprinting on top of all the skating they do in practices.

Here is the fun part of this semester… It was a coronavirus year semester, which means things never went according to plan. Both teams lost two weeks of training time due to a COVID-19 shutdown. We took all of our January and February training weeks to acclimate to the machine. These weeks were spaced out, again, due to a COVID-19 shutdown. Because of the inconsistent training and on-ice practices, it took much longer than anticipated to acclimate athletes to a point where I felt comfortable that my data would be valid and reliable.

After the athletes trained a bit and got familiar, in the first week in March, after weeks of getting used to the 1080 and with six training weeks left before Nationals, we began a 5- to 6-week program. Here’s how each week looked:

• Week 1 – Two workouts where athletes ran 10 meters, crossover start, 1 kilogram of resistance. The highest average velocity was then taken, and a 10% decrease was calculated to be used for the next three weeks.
• Week 2-4 – One to two workouts a week. Athletes ran 10 meters and resistance was added or subtracted to get the athletes as close as possible to a 10% average velocity decrease.
• Weeks 5-6 – Two workouts a week where athletes ran 10 meters, crossover start, 1 kilograms of resistance. The highest average velocity was compared to the highest average velocities from week one.

That is the beauty of the 1080 Sprint: the training is the test; the test is the training. Share on X

Weeks 1, 5, and 6’s testing days were simply mixed into a normal workout. That is the beauty of the 1080 Sprint: the training is the test; the test is the training. I collect useful data, more than just the time, on every single repetition, and it is all individualized.

During the training cycle, all of the athletes followed the same template for their workouts:

• Either a split squat or trap bar deadlift.
• A weighted or unweighted jump.
• A single leg assistance exercise, such as an RDL or step-up.
• Individually resisted, 10-meter sprint with a crossover start.

After they completed their single leg exercise, they would walk out into the hallway of the ice rink and perform their resisted sprint there. I had a designated 1080 operator who would add or subtract resistance based off the player’s previous average velocity in order to maintain a 10% average velocity decrease. The goal for the players was to use the highest resistance possible.

Results

After three weeks of sprinting with a 10% velocity decrease, here are the results for the men’s and women’s hockey teams.

Of 15 men who finished the program, nine saw improvements in their time to 10 meters, as well as their average velocities.

Of 15 women who finished the program, 12 saw improvements in their time to 10 meters, as well as their average velocities.

On Ice

In the entire spring semester, I was able to get seven on-ice sessions, measuring 60 good repetitions. I did not pull away any conclusive data from these, unfortunately. They were too spread out and sporadic throughout the semester. This was not executed as planned—I was hoping for more ice time, but that is not always how it goes.

To test and train athletes on ice, I brought the 1080 to the end of the ice surface, where the ice cleaning machines come out of (the “zam room” for those who speak hockey). I simply used an extension cord to bring the 1080 to the edge of the ice and was fortunate that the lip of the ice surface was just low enough that I could set my 1080 on the ground off ice and it was fine. I ran the unit by sitting in a chair on or off the ice surface. Players typically skated 30 meters, which is from the goal to mid-ice.

Video 3. Athletes skating with 1080 Sprint, using a crossover start, in Lahaye Ice Center.

Despite all of this, when the hockey seasons ended, I compiled data into an Excel sheet to compare on- and off-ice force production, something I was always curious to investigate. To do this, I broke each 10-meter sprint down into 5-meter splits. I wanted to know if athletes’ forces on ice were similar to off ice, in the hallway of the ice rink. In my mind, this would indicate transfer from the hallway to the ice.

I only analyzed 1-kilogram resisted sprints, and hand selected off-ice times to be near on-ice times. For example, Athlete 1 has a personal best 10-meter sprint off-ice of 2.10 seconds, but I selected one of their 2.33 second sprints to compare to a 2.38 second on-ice sprint.

The chart below displays two off-ice and two on-ice 10-meter sprints, with 1 kilogram of resistance and a crossover start. I found it very interesting that despite wearing ice skates and being on ice and wearing equipment and holding a stick, the force production numbers were not far off when comparing on and off ice.

Furthermore, I found on the ice that it was best to use first gear instead of second gear. Second gear was so heavy their stride simply broke down too much. Next, I realized it was easiest to have the players attach the carabiner at the end of the 1080 cord to the loop on the back of their hockey pants.

This was very interesting to me. I thought it would be easier to use the same system as we did in the hallway: one person goes, drops the belt, and the next person puts the belt on.

However, when it comes to having gloves and sticks, it got complicated. On top of that, after reading an article he wrote about the 1080 Sprint, I reached out to Jacob Cohen, Illinois University’s sprints coach.

Jacob mentioned that he does not use the 1080 as a timing system because his athletes are so dialed-in that the belt throws them off, and it may get in their head. I felt like I was experiencing the same thing with my hockey players—despite wearing tons of equipment, they were using the belt as a crutch for a potentially poor time. Therefore, we used their loops instead.

Key Takeaways

First, this experience reestablished in my mind how much athletes love to compete. Whenever a time or certain metric is put to a sprint, everyone competes. Whatever you make a big deal out of, the athletes make a big deal out of.

Resisted sprinting also proved to be extremely valuable for improving acceleration. Sprinting in first gear, dropping the belt, and having it retract is a very efficient way to run larger groups through on the 1080 Sprint. It gives the tablet operator time to click to the next athlete and add or subtract necessary resistance.

Sprinting in first gear, dropping the belt, and having it retract is a very efficient way to run larger groups through on the 1080 Sprint. Share on X

Finally, it seems the forces produced on the ice are similar to the forces being produced off the ice in a 10-meter sprint. This further leads me to believe there is a direct transfer between off-ice and on-ice speed.

Thoughts for the Future

As I look ahead, over the summer I plan to utilize more of the overspeed capabilities of the 1080 Sprint. Keep in mind we were in-season this entire semester. The last thing I could do is risk injury. This summer, I planned to have one or two days where we sprinted overspeed.

On ice, I plan to distinguish training and testing days. On testing days, I may pull the timing system back out for ease of setup and efficiency in running athletes through. On the training days, I may set the 1080 up on a bench and only have players skate 10-15 meters, or the width of the ice. This will make it easier and faster to get it out there, set it up, get the training in, and then I may easily close the bench door. With that setup, I may be able to get players through for 20 minutes before or after a practice.

Other considerations are, what happens when COVID-19 restrictions are over? How will I use this when I have my full 24-26 man/woman roster? For now, I am thinking of something like splitting the team into two groups: one group for speed and power focus, and the other for strength and accessory work.

For those wondering about the results of the teams at the end of the semester, the men’s team lost in the semifinals and the women won. Top 4 and National Champions. Not too bad.

*Author’s Note: Fortunately, through a miracle, Dr. Jared Hornsby of the Allied Health Professions Department reached out in Summer 2020 and asked if we would be interested in conducting research using a 1080 Sprint. I said yes. Through Dr. Hornsby‘s hard work, and convincing my AD it was worth the investment, my 1080 arrived on campus a few months later. I’m very grateful to Dr. Hornsby for his efforts on our behalf.

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

You’ve probably never heard of John Boyd, but there is a good chance that you’ve heard of his most famous creation: the OODA loop. Boyd, who died in 1997, was a United States Air Force Fighter Pilot who became a consultant to the Pentagon before retiring and moving into his own form of academia. Boyd has been highly influential on military strategy across a number of projects—his early work led to the development of the F-15 “Eagle,” F-16 “Fighting Falcon,” and F-18 “Hornet” fighter planes, all of which are still in use today. Following the completion of these projects, Boyd turned to an overall strategic approach and developed his OODA loop, a viewpoint which set the basis for US military strategy in the first Gulf War and which is still in use today.

In Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, author Robert Coram presents Boyd’s biography. In a time of so much information enabling us to shortcut our thinking practices—often not beneficially—never before have we needed a role model like Boyd: someone who could think so differently from everyone else that it led to extreme innovation, effective outcomes, and strategies that are powerful today.

We needed a role model like Boyd: someone who could think so differently from everyone else that it led to extreme innovation, effective outcomes, and strategies that are powerful today, says @craig100m. Share on X

The picture Coram paints is that Boyd was not an easy character to get on with; he had no respect for authority and was more than willing to be difficult to get what he wanted. He was so fixated on his life’s work that, after retiring from the Air Force in 1975, instead of getting a well-paid job as consultant or defense contractor, he instead decided to reduce his needs to zero, so that he could fully focus on developing his theories. This, on the surface, is admirable—but when you have a wife and five children to support, it’s perhaps a very selfish decision to make. Boyd’s children still largely resent his decision to this day.

I highly recommend you read Coram’s book in full, but I want to pull out some key points from Boyd’s story which we might be able to use to better prepare athletes to perform. I’m going to do this through the lens of middle-distance running, which is unusual for me—but I think it’s an area in which Boyd’s concepts can be highly applicable.

Energy-Maneuverability Theory

The first major innovation Boyd produced is termed the Energy-Maneuverability Theory. Boyd was a fighter pilot, accustomed to being involved in air-to-air combat against an enemy. In the mid-1950s, when Boyd was actively flying, traditional fighter pilot training techniques tended to focus on the method of shooting down the enemy fighter—bullets and rockets—or on providing support to ground troops through the use of bombs. Boyd, however, had a different idea on what was important: being able to place a fighter in the best position to shoot down their opponent.

This meant that in order to be successful a pilot had to be able to get directly behind the enemy and maintain that position for long enough to be able to fire their weapons. At the time, fighter training didn’t prioritize this to the extent Boyd felt it deserved—and when they did teach it, he thought they taught it incorrectly. Boyd’s model of flying a plane was linked to energy; when flying in air-to-air combat, the ability to lose speed rapidly (i.e., dump energy) to increase maneuverability was crucial, as was the ability to regain that speed rapidly. Pilots, however, were being taught to turn their plane in a dogfight by using the stick first, then the rudder; Boyd instead taught his students to use the rudder first, as it led to a greater loss of speed in a shorter period of time—decreasing the turning circle and increasing maneuverability.

Boyd’s approach was not to teach a new method of air-to-air combat, but to teach a new way of thinking, says @craig100m. Share on X

In essence, Boyd’s approach was not to teach a new method of air-to-air combat, but to teach a new way of thinking. Using Boyd’s model, pilots were taught to consider their movement options in terms of airspeed—If I do maneuver X, what effect does it have on my speed, and is this positive or negative for what I want to achieve?—while also considering:

• The countermoves available to the enemy pilot.
• The ability to anticipate those countermoves.
• How to maintain sufficient airspeed in order to counter the enemy’s countermoves.

This essentially turned combat in flight into a game of airborne chess.

The Boyd Effect

Boyd’s theories not only changed how pilots were trained, but how their planes were designed. In 1960, Boyd enrolled in Georgia Tech to study for a degree—his second—in industrial engineering. There, Boyd further developed his thinking into what would eventually become his Energy-Maneuverability Theory. Basically, a fighter plane can be viewed as having either kinetic energy or potential energy. Flying at a high altitude—but at low speed—the plane has a lot of potential energy, but very little kinetic energy. When diving from this altitude to engage an enemy, the plane increases its speed (and hence its kinetic energy) but loses its potential energy (because it is converted to kinetic energy).

This is fine when the plane is attacking, as it allows it the element of surprise, but it leaves it vulnerable to counter-attack; as the plane climbs following the attack, it loses kinetic energy, which again becomes potential energy. This has important implications when it comes to designing a fighter plane; it needs to be light enough that it requires little energy to speed up, but also able to link from one maneuver to another in rapid succession.

As the plane climbs following the attack, it loses kinetic energy, which again becomes potential energy, says @craig100m. Share on X

This was in direct opposition to the approach utilized by the US Air Force when it came to designing fighters, which can be summed up as bigger-higher-faster-further; build planes that can fly higher, faster, and further than ever before, and make them increasingly large. This all came with reduced maneuverability, putting Boyd in conflict with his bosses; Boyd wanted to remove as many extraneous pieces of equipment from his design as possible, but his bosses kept wanting to add things (radar, guns, etc.). Boyd had to compromise on the first plane—the F-15—which came in at 12,000kg (considerably less than its closest competitor, the F-111, which weighed 22,000kg), before getting his way with the F-16, which weighs only 8,000kg.

Relating Boyd to Runners

So what does this mean for middle distance runners? Firstly, the goal in these events, at major championships at least, is not necessarily to run fast but to win. This means that athletes who are able to both dictate the tactical flow of the race and respond to the tactical movements of their competitors are at an advantage. As such, we can even view middle distance races as a dogfight, in which everyone jockeys for the right position to be able to deliver the killer blow.

For middle distance runners, this means they need to be maneuverable; they can modify their pace rapidly in response to tactical changes and possess sufficient speed, acceleration, and agility abilities to get themselves out of tight spots. The flip side of this is that repeated accelerations and changes in pace are relatively expensive from a metabolic perspective. Utilizing training sessions that enable the athlete to develop their ability to change pace quickly and efficiently is therefore important. As an example, instead of running a session of, say, 400m repeats at a given target pace for the whole distance, it might be worthwhile to vary the target times for each 100m split, both within the individual rep (e.g., 14 seconds for the first and third 100m, 12 seconds for the second 100m, and then 15 seconds for the last 100m) and between reps (e.g., rep 1 has a fast first and third 100m segment, while rep 2 has a fast first and last 100m segment).

Boyd’s method of training fighter pilots in line with his newly developed theory was to have a student get on his tail and then attempt to throw them off. The longer the student could stay in the firing position directly behind him, the better they were. Again, this could be used in training for middle distance runners: in training sessions where a group is undertaking training reps together, they could have different roles—one is tasked with setting the pace, one with sticking with him, and one to try and block off any counter moves.

Boyd’s method of training fighter pilots in line with his newly developed theory was to have a student get on his tail and then attempt to throw them off, says @craig100m. Share on X

This is in line with Boyd’s key practical take-homes from his Energy-Maneuverability Theory:

• Having pilots consider their movement options in terms of airspeed while also considering the countermoves available to the enemy pilot.
• Being able to anticipate those countermoves.
• Maintaining sufficient airspeed in order to counter the enemies’ countermoves.

For a middle distance runner, this means understanding their various movement options during a race, the movement options available to their competitors, and how to counter their opponents’ moves and nullify their strengths, under the stress and pressure of a race situation.

The OODA Loop

Boyd’s most famous creation, the OODA loop, stands for:

• Observe
• Orient
• Decide
• Act

Here is the OODA loop in diagrammatic form:

This figure makes it look complex, but in essence the OODA loop describes what happens in support of effective outcomes. First we observe what is going on, then we orient ourselves with this information and our own knowledge before making a decision, which we then act upon.

First we observe what is going on, then we orient ourselves with this information and our own knowledge before making a decision, which we then act upon, says @craig100m. Share on X

In air-to-air combat, this would be watching an enemy pilot’s movements, orienting ourselves to their approach (what are they doing and why), making a decision around what to do (e.g., gain altitude), and then carrying out the action. But OODA is a loop, which means we then restart the process: how did the enemy pilot respond to our actions (observation)? The enemy pilot also has their own OODA loop. They watch what you’re doing, orient themselves to your actions, make a decision, act, and then repeat the cycle depending on how you act. The key to success, according to Boyd, is to have a tighter OODA loop than your opponent—you need to be able to observe, orient, decide, and act quicker than they can.

If you’re able to do this, then you can respond to their actions much quicker than they can to yours, leading them to confusion as they try to catch up.

OODA Loop in Running

As you might now be guessing, the OODA loop can be utilized in a tactical middle-distance race. At the start of the race, we look at the start list, understanding the athletes we’re racing against (observation). We then use our prior knowledge of these athletes (their strengths, weaknesses, and tactical preferences) to understand their potential game plan and develop our own approach (orientation). Then, we make a decision on our tactical approach for the race, based on the information worked through in orientation, before starting to deliver that tactical plan in the race (action).

Crucially, however, the process is not finished; we then have to observe the tactical behaviors of our opponents, orienting their actions with both their and our own plans, and then making decisions about how to respond to their movements. Being able to observe-orient-decide-act quicker than our opponents puts them on the back foot; perhaps they don’t respond to a breakaway quite as quickly and so are dropped, or find themselves boxed in close to the inside of the track. As such, middle distance racing is not just a physiological problem to be solved, but it also has a cognitive, decision-making component, which has to be delivered quickly, while fatigued and under stress.

Being able to observe-orient-decide-act quicker than our opponents puts them on the back foot, says @craig100m. Share on X

Understanding this then dramatically changes how you might design training sessions, because now you have to prepare athletes to make tactical decisions quickly—which involves increasing the library of tactical choices available to the athlete, as well as their ability to think. Similar to Boyd’s Energy-Maneuverability Theory, we can even match tactical behavior with physiological requirements: can our athletes respond physically to the change in tactics that unfolds during the race?

As there are four different stages to the OODA loop, there are four different places that mistakes or errors can occur:

1. Errors of observation: the athlete might be fixated on one particular athlete and miss another’s tactical move. Conversely, they might not be tuned in to the need to observe what is going on, and simply don’t have the awareness that they need to be paying attention.
2. Errors of orientation: they are unable to adequately understand what is happing in the race—or to do so in a sufficiently speedy manner—and so then cannot make the right decision. Experience likely plays a large role here; more experienced athletes will have found themselves in a wider variety of situations and will have undertaken more orientations under these circumstances, allowing them to become oriented quicker than novices. Exposing athletes to different tactical scenarios, either through racing or training, is therefore an important part of developing a tighter OODA loop.
3. Decision-making errors: they have all the information through the observation and orientation stages to make the right decision, but they don’t. Again, this can be down to a lack of experience, further underpinning the need to expose athletes to a variety of different situations that require different decisions be made. Feedback as to the effectiveness of any decision made by the athlete is also important in supporting their development.
4. Action errors: in middle-distance events, these are likely to be due to a lack of physical ability (e.g., speed, endurance, agility) to make the required movement—further underpinning the link between physiological and cognitive processes in racing.

Final Thoughts

After Boyd retired, his ideas began to gain traction is the US Military. Dick Cheney, the US Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, had met with Boyd many times, and these meetings factored into the development of US Military strategy during the conflict. The US forces were highly agile; they had multiple thrusts against the Iraqi forces which, when combined with deception operations, caused the enemy to struggle to understand what was truly happening and become slow in their decision-making. US forces were able to “get inside” the OODA loop of the Iraqi forces, which enabled them to operate at increased tempo.

It took years for Boyd’s ideas to become accepted, but following the success of the F-16 fighter and military tactics in the first Gulf War, his approach has become far more accepted. There’s something for all of us involved in sport to ponder here—who has ideas or ways of thinking that are truly innovative (and likely not currently accepted), and how can we utilize these ideas before our competitors do? Finally, it took over 30 years before Boyd’s ideas influenced military strategy—can we afford to wait as long in sport?

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

The high school space may be the fastest growing and most controversial place for the use of velocity-based training. This shouldn’t be a surprise, considering high schools probably have the widest range of coaching philosophies, experience, and education in the field of human performance, as well as a wide variance in athlete skill and training age.

The argument that an advanced protocol like VBT has no place in training for developmental athletes at the high school level is a strong one. Although more-experienced high school athletes may reach a point where they are ready for advanced technology, is it really necessary for the majority of student-athletes to dip into the technology pool? The relative ease of pushing a strength adaptation through simple, slow-paced progressive overload makes it easy for many coaches to dispel the idea of using an additional tool in that process.

There is no doubt that traditional progressive overload will get you where you want to go, just as I can eventually get to California by hopping in my car and starting to drive west. The optimal way of making that trip, however, is to use a map to get there as fast and directly as possible. Leave the old, folded-up map behind and upgrade my tool of choice for this trip to my phone equipped with GPS? Even more precision and saved time.

I propose that not only is VBT something that can be used to optimize the training of your advanced athletes, but if used correctly, it can become an indispensable tool in the development of your student-athletes.

Technology for All Levels

The common misconception with technology such as VBT is that it can only be useful for higher- level, more advanced athletes. In my experience, however, the coach implementing the technology is most often the limiting factor in that situation. The time to use VBT (or other technologies) isn’t when the athlete is strong enough or fast enough or when they have reached a certain randomly-selected training age—it’s when the coach is experienced enough, talented enough, and willing enough to be a great practitioner and excel at the art of coaching.

The time to use VBT is when the coach is experienced enough, talented enough, and willing enough to be a great practitioner and excel at the art of coaching, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

The key factor is to understand that velocity-based training is a tool. Webster’s definition is fitting: A tool is a device or implement used to carry out a particular function or aid in accomplishing a task; a means to an end. As a tool, VBT can carry out the particular function of optimizing training and accomplish a multitude of tasks that help the coach build precision and intent while assisting the athlete to become more technically sound (at least when utilizing Vmaxpro).

VBT helps us to weaponize and gamify the means to all of our ends in this field: transfer of training in an optimal manner. One of the big advantages of using Vmaxpro over other devices is it truly helps the athlete understand the why behind their training. But that why—as well as the how—must already be mastered by the coach or else VBT is a tool best left in the toolbox, regardless of the level of the athlete.

Bar Path Is a Big Deal

There was definitely a time that I too believed using VBT was just for my most advanced athletes from a leveling perspective. That changed after a face-to-face conversation with one of my mentors in the field, who told me that using a velocity floor would allow athletes with lower training ages to find optimal loads for strength training without rushing these inexperienced lifters into a 1RM test. Learning how to train with heavier loads with a guidance system and a way to place a governor on exactly how intense the workout can get is useful in the development of less-experienced athletes. That conversation sent me on a quest to find a method to use VBT technology as a teaching tool and an important part of our overall progression.

When I was introduced to Vmaxpro, within minutes of using the product I recognized that not only could we use the device as a way to set loads and teach intent, but also as a way to teach technique and educate the athlete. Vmaxpro provides instant bar path and bar displacement feedback; not only instant, but with video-game-like graphics.

I had been told about the bar path feature prior to use, and at first, I honestly didn’t think it was that big a deal. My experience with bar path was mostly with the Coach’s Eye app and Olympic lifts: It was time consuming and individualized, and the post-workout feedback made that a less than optimal tool when dealing with team sport athletes. I quickly recognized that instant bar path feedback during the workout could be a seriously powerful tool in the development of our young athletes.

I quickly recognized that instant bar path feedback during the workout could be a seriously powerful tool in the development of our young athletes, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

The device itself can act as an assistant coach simply by providing technique feedback. If we teach our athletes how to use this tool, it allows the process to be less coach-driven and more athlete-driven, even from a technical aspect. I could use this feature to meet my athletes where they were.

The VBT Hook

My first step in developing my process of using VBT as a big part of our progressions for younger athletes grew out of a process that I had already been using but felt VBT could optimize. I was in the process of transitioning our freshman football players from the 1×20 program they had been following since middle school. We work our athletes from 1×20 to 1×14 to 2×8. Eventually, we begin to split off our “big rock” movements into a modified tier using a 5×5 progression.

Day One of that week, I told our athletes that we would be doing sets of five and working up to a 5-rep max—they were excited, as this was the first time I was going to let them load the bar freely and work up to a true rep max lower than 8. The caveat, however, was that I would be attaching a device to the bar that would give us the “speed” the bar was moving. They were allowed to load the bar until their set average was .35 m/s.

Of course, at that point, they all looked at me and had no idea what I was talking about. Mostly, they were just happy I had used the word max. So I let them get to it. As we all know from working with teenage males, they have one goal when lifting: put as much weight on the bar as possible. After a couple sets, I could already see the velocity dropping, so I stopped the entire group.

It was time to educate them.

I gathered them in and asked, “what did you notice happening with the number popping up for each lift as we added weight?” Soon, a hand went up. “The number goes down the more we add.” Hook #1 in place. “So, if .35 is the lowest we can go, how can we make sure we lift the most weight for five reps?” Soon a hand went up again. “We need to make sure we are moving the bar as fast as we can.” Boom. In that instant, every athlete (whose single purpose that day was to lift as much as they could, same as every day) realized that intent mattered. The faster they move the bar, the more weight they can add.

The impact was immediate. I let them go through another set before I stopped them a second time. Hook #2 is the real secret sauce, and it was time. I called the group back again and pointed to the TV screen, which was mirroring one of the iPads. On the screen, I had the bar path from an athlete for a few back-to-back reps: one rep where the bar path was outstanding and one that was not so good.

“So, this is two reps, in the same set, from the same athlete at the same weight. We already know that the heavier the weight, the slower the velocity, correct?” I asked, and all the athletes nodded. “Well then why is one rep .54 m/s and one .44 m/s? Did he get weaker really fast? What’s different?” There was silence for what seemed like 30 seconds, before one of the guys said “Coach, the line is different. The faster the rep is, the more up and down.” Boom. Again. He had said exactly what I hoped he would.

“What’s that mean when it comes to adding as much weight to your 5-rep max as we can today, guys?” I asked. The answer changed the game for our young athletes. “It means if we use better technique but move the bar as fast as we can, we can lift the most weight possible.”

Within five minutes, we had a room full of ninth-grade males watching the bar path and talking bar speed, discussing technique and how to load the bar optimally, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Our athletes only cared about how much they could lift. As coaches, we mainly cared about technique and intent. By making those two things very important in the eyes of the athlete, we had met them where they were. Within five minutes, we had a room full of ninth-grade males watching the bar path and talking bar speed, discussing technique and how to load the bar optimally. Educated and motivated athletes who care about the things that will actually transfer to the field is a powerful place to be.

Squat Depth Made Easy

The very next workout, we decided to ramp up our squat progression. This was not by choice—our head coach asked me to provide him a pathway to get a 1RM back squat number on all our players, including our freshmen. While I had my concerns, we went forward. I knew the Vmaxpro would be a powerful tool in moving our freshman football athletes into the full use of the barbell bilateral back squat: not only would bar path play a huge role, but the live bar displacement feedback would as well. The bar displacement metric would allow us to set a numerical metric for a mutually agreed upon parallel squat depth.

We began our warm-ups with an empty bar, and I had each athlete squat to a depth that they, their rack team, and I all agreed was an acceptable depth. We then had them get to that depth while staying in a ribs stacked position dictated by the live bar path feedback. Not every athlete can get into a perfect, stacked squat but you can ensure optimal performance and spot weakness that may lead to excessive lean and potential injury issues by using bar path as a tool.

We followed a very similar process to the previous session, allowing the athlete to load the bar based on a .35 m/s set average floor. One of the things we agreed upon as a staff was that we would stop each athlete at “technical failure.” Using the feedback from the Vmaxpro to not just set or project load, but also to assess for the squat depth and technique, we were able to judge technical failure with a precision the naked eye does not provide. The coach, the athletes, and their training partners can actually see on the screen where performance begins to drop below the desired level for that session.

Using the feedback from the Vmaxpro to assess for the squat depth and technique, we were able to judge technical failure with a precision the naked eye does not provide, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

The biggest takeaway from this way of using VBT is we do not just present the athlete with the output and say “get to .35 m/s.” We also teach them the why behind the process that gets them to that final output. They learn very quickly how to look at the feedback and adjust to train with optimal technical skill and intent. Simply providing them with a video of themselves and the velocity and/or power outputs is no different than popping on game film for football players who you have not educated on the process of learning from film study.

Moving Forward in the Progression

Now that we have educated and motivated athletes who understand how to use the feedback, we can move to the next step in our progression for the intermediate athlete: using APRE (autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise) combined with VBT to take strength development to new heights.

We run our 5×5 program using just the mean velocity to adjust loads and let the athletes get the feel for how VBT works. Now, we want to add one more layer to that. We have the athlete work up to their previous 5RM at a .35-.45 m/s range. (We moved to ranges from floor for this step, as it is much easier for the athlete to get to that range than to an exact number.) They have three sets of five to get to that goal load using this protocol:

We use the Vmaxpro to measure sets 3 and 4. Set 3 is used as a monitoring set. We tell the athlete if they are above .55 m/s or below .40 m/s on that set to let us know so we can discuss a potential adjustment to the original goal. This is just another important step in the education of our athletes on the VBT system.

We use 85% as the projected goal to start the process, but once we have a goal weight based on mean velocity and adjusted, we simply use that as the goal weight for set 4 of the following week. This combination of VBT and APRE has proven to be a superior process for driving the strength adaptation process for our intermediate athletes.

Once they reach set 4, they will do a maximum of seven reps that must be above .35 m/s. Once they either drop below that velocity or hit seven reps above it, they use the following chart to adjust their load for their final set of five reps. They DO NOT use Vmaxpro for set 5. They simply use it to adjust and attempt to get five reps at that adjusted load.

If they make five reps? Then that is their goal weight for next week’s set 4. If they do not? Then set 4 remains the goal weight for the following week.

Bonus Material

We run that 5×5 program for our “big rock” movements of squat, hex bar pull, and bench press for most athletes until the end of their sophomore year, when they move into our advanced level. During that time, we begin to add in some “bonus” material that helps to tighten up the athletes’ experience even more.

Percentage of Time of Acceleration

The Vmaxpro not only builds out a velocity profile for each athlete and each exercise, it does so for each individual repetition. What we can get from that information is what percentage of the rep the athlete is actually accelerating the bar. The developers of Vmaxpro informed me that based on the studies they have done, the sweet spot for acceleration of the bar producing the best outputs of velo and power is at or above 70% of the total time of the rep.

The developers of Vmaxpro informed me…the sweet spot for acceleration of the bar producing the best outputs of velo and power is at or above 70% of the total time of the rep, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

While this isn’t as quick to look at live as bar path or displacement, it has proven valuable for me as a coach to follow behind and quickly check to see which athletes are finishing their rep and which need additional cueing or help. My go-to cues are:

• Throw your fist through the ceiling on bench press.
• Squeeze the glute at the top of the squat.

In our situation, both of these have shown to improve the bar acceleration time. As your athletes begin to get closer to “strong enough,” and you begin to slide their programming more from the force side of the force velocity curve to focus on speed and power, they will be ahead of the game from a power development standpoint with this technique.

Using “Peak Power” to Drive Intent

Some may argue that peak power is not a great metric to use in a strength movement. My answer is “back to your lab.”

Peak power is a GREAT metric from a practical standpoint and highly effective in developing powerful athletes. While I would agree that peak power is not something we want to use to drive adjustments or loading parameters, it’s what mph is to speed development—and, true, some coaches are not fans of that either. I say who cares what they think. Mph is not a metric we use to drive any programming, but it is one that the kids love and want to see increase. Show me an athlete who has been stuck at 19.7 mph and breaks that 20 mark for the first time, and I will show you a highly motivated athlete.

Peak power on a strength lift is the same. It’s a motivational tool that drives them to move the bar full of plates as fast as possible. If they do that chasing peak power, but mean power, mean velocity, and projected 1RM all increase, then why in the world would I not utilize that?

Peak power on a strength lift is like mph for speed development—a motivational tool that drives athletes to move the bar full of plates as fast as possible, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

With Vmaxpro, you can get metrics on up to two data points per rep recorded. In our strength movements, we track mean velocity (0.81 m/s in top rep of image 7 below) and peak power (2,172 w in same rep) on the instant feedback screen in the app. Guess which one gets the kids the most excited? Speed kills and our athletes see peak power as speed. As a coach, I use the mean velocity as a metric to drive adjustments. Peak power is the metric that drives intent in our kids.

While I have no idea exactly what a great peak power is globally, I do know what we are seeing. Anything over 2,000 watts has proven to be a great number for our athletes. When they hit that, it brings a similar reaction to a sub 1.0 fly 10 or 4.5 40-yard dash. Pure excitement, some fun-loving trash talk, and now a positive part of our team culture.

As with any technology, the key to using VBT doesn’t solely lie in the experience of the athlete. It truly depends on the coach and the coach’s ability to not just use the tech but understand why they are using it and how to use the metrics and data feedback to improve and optimize the athlete’s experience.

This article is not a comprehensive look at how I use VBT, nor is it a user guide to all the features of the Vmaxpro. This is just a snapshot of both that I hope inspires coaches to either utilize their knowledge or pursue the capability of not just using VBT but making it a friend and ally in the pursuit of optimal performance for all levels of athletes in your program.

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

Should there be different approaches to rehabilitation for elite athletes, weekend warriors, adolescents, and sedentary individuals?

At the most basic level, objective data is gathered and combined with subjective reporting and then tested against a hypothesis. This process is repeated again and again until hopefully something changes—at which point the process continues, but the intervention changes. Through this application of the scientific method, which has worked over and over and over in both medicine and science, high-level college and professional athletes around the world get back on the court, pitch, or any field of play.

Why, then, are the steps we take to rehabilitate non-elite athletes different?

There are a host of reasons I’ve seen reported by patients and clinicians as to why this method isn’t used and, subsequently, progress in rehab is not attained. Over the course of the last 15 years, I have worked in private practice with youth and recreational adult athletes, the geriatric population with a variety of diagnoses, and higher-level athletes who were specifically rehabbing to return to sport. Most recently, I have spent my time at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, where I have focused on the treatment of the hip and lower extremity in an active population that includes everyone from recreational adults to professional athletes at the highest levels.

Due to constraints of insurance, patients traveling nationally or internationally to come to HSS, season demands, and coordination with care teams, I can have anywhere from one to 12 sessions over 3-4 months to evaluate and treat these patients. Regardless of who comes in or how long they will be with us, it is critical to gather information that we will use to evaluate and treat them as efficiently as possible.

Addressing Challenges to the Rehab Process for Non-Elite Athletes

Time, money, insurance coverage, motivation, staff availability, and facility limitations all present challenges for the practitioner. These are all valid, but are they insurmountable? Let’s break a few of these down further.

1. Time

The time allotted for a follow-up session of physical therapy in an in-network setting is somewhere in the ballpark of 10-30 minutes of 1:1 care. In that time, the therapist must:

• Get a subjective assessment.
• Test objective measures.
• Assess what, if any, alterations to the plan of care need to be made.

Of course, the overall length of the session is longer, but the amount of undivided attention available after the initial 10-30 minutes is minimal; hopefully, the patient has been put on a path to success and can execute the goals of the session. In an out-of-network or cash-based clinic, the amount of time spent 1:1 is likely higher, but the formulation of the plan must come somewhere in the beginning of that session and needs to be efficient to make sure time—the most precious commodity of all—is not wasted.

2. Money

This is not too different from time, and here again the number of immediately available tools for the treatment of the non-elite athlete may not be as broad as one would like. Access to the combination of force plate testing data, Biodex® isokinetic testing, power testing, and dynamometry (or a similar battery of instruments) is often financially out of reach.

3. Insurance Coverage

This may need the least amount of explanation, but requesting authorization, submitting reauthorization, peer-to-peer calls, and letters of medical necessity all stand in the way of what clinicians actually want to do—which is deliver a high level of care to their patients and get them better.

4. Motivation

This is where things get interesting. Patients are typically very motivated to get better at the start of their care: how could they not be? They can’t do the thing they love, want, or need to do.

However, once they begin to improve and their function increases just enough to accomplish some of their responsibilities in life, rehab becomes a bit less of a priority both in and out of the clinic. It becomes incumbent upon the clinician to find ways to keep patients engaged and moving in the right direction, which takes a toll and often leads to diminishing results and patients falling off the schedule.

The ability to have specific numbers for the percentage of deficit when speaking to coaches, MDs, and insurance companies has proven to be very valuable. Share on X

Clearly, patients truly do want to get better, and clinicians truly do want to help them, but questions remain:

• Why do daily performance and rehabilitation and progress notes lack objective measures that can help guide the care of these patients and help further the case for insurance coverage beyond the initial six sessions that insurance companies (and sometimes patients themselves) think they need?
• Why is objective data for returning to sport taken sporadically and usually measured later in the rehab protocol without comparable data?
• Why do clinic owners invest in cumbersome, non-integrated measurement tools that are difficult to implement during the course of a follow-up session and may not give the specific data clinicians are looking for?
• Why does the interpretation and presentation of this data to clients, MDs, and insurance companies often look like an Excel spreadsheet rather than the kind of colorful and easy-to-follow PDF we can get from a kiosk at a drugstore when choosing orthotics? 

Finding Tools That Combine Performance and Rehabilitation

For many years, I had these frustrations, and I have used many hardware and software solutions with varying degrees of success. Products like the MicroFET®, Lafayette Hand-Held Dynamometer, and Biodex® are all reliable and valid and have stood the test of time. In my practice and in the practice of the clinicians around me, however, it’s very difficult to get user adoption due to time, training, data collection, and delivery. This leads to most of this equipment being bought and then lying in a drawer or taking up a corner of a clinic without being used regularly.

That said, Biodex isokinetic testing is unmatched in its ability to measure specific metrics, and it continues to be used for both practical and research purposes.¹ However, for the purpose of systematically testing patients as a part of their follow-up sessions, it is a bit too time-consuming—not to mention that unless you are a part of a research or teaching institution, the likelihood that one is available to you is low.

Over the last decade, there has been a significant increase in the crossover between performance and rehabilitation products, and companies like VALD Performance have come out with suites of outstanding products to measure strength, acceleration, and power. One major downside is the cost of both hardware and software. Another, which is more clinical, is that the standardization of strength testing with the force frame also limits the positions available to test and does not provide an option to test pull strength—rather, it opts for push dynamometers.

I have used these devices, and as I said, they are all very capable in their own right, and some are even the gold standard. However, in the context of a 10- to 30-minute session—or in the timeframe of testing and re-testing within a longer session—they are limited. The final and maybe most unique limitation is that all this hardware is used overwhelmingly for testing or measuring. It is limited in its ability to apply this data to engage and train the patient/client, making it a bit one-dimensional.

Through a fair amount of trial and lots of error I was able to find Kinvent, a French company that delivers on a very good idea: create a more efficient and effective way for clinicians to measure and implement objective data, then pair it with an easy-to-use iOS and Android app.

Kinvent has designed biofeedback games into the app so that clients and clinicians are able to use the data they have collected to exercise and develop the given body part or movement. Share on X

Having used non-connected, handheld dynamometers before, I was very happy to see max force, averages, rate of force development (RFD), and eccentric load all in real time on Kinvent. Once the app is opened, you can choose to activate a device in “quick” dashboard mode to simply take a measurement without linking to a patient, or you can link a test or combination of tests to a particular patient to track their progress.

Audio and video cues for starting and stopping help the clinician and patient/client progress through the testing, and a report is generated as soon as you’re finished. The other appealing feature is that you are limited only by your creativity in applying the devices. Utilizing the pull dynamometer, Link, you can measure isometric quad strength in patients with anterior knee pain and patella femoral dysfunction, as well as following surgical knee intervention. This has been found to be a key predictor of pain and function.² Similarly, the pull or push dynamometers can be used to measure shoulder external rotation strength when treating non-operative and postoperative shoulder pain (again, a key factor in improving shoulder function and mechanics).^3-6

As we return patients and clients to standing dynamic exercise and function, it is critical that they are able to distribute weight evenly and produce both concentric and eccentric force without deviation and pain. The utilization of force plates to assess this has been established in the literature⁷, and Kinvent’s solution with the “Plates” and the “Delta” allows you to test a wide range of movements quickly and effectively, including squatting, countermovement jump (CMJ), drop jump, single leg hopping, and so on. Further, the push dynamometers can be paired to assess more complex parameters like eccentric hamstring strength using a Nordic testing protocol, which has been shown to assess the risk for injury.⁸Finally, the force plates can be used to assess upper body stability and power using the push-up test⁹ as well as the ASH test for shoulder stability¹⁰.

If that were all Kinvent offered, it would be a very well-rounded suite of integrated hardware and software. Kinvent takes things one step further, however. They have designed biofeedback games into the app so that clients and clinicians are able to use the data they have collected to exercise and develop the given body part or movement. Based on the clinician’s reasoning, they can customize the exercise for the most appropriate amount of load for the patient or client, creating a safer and more effective exercise prescription. The result is a highly efficient and effective testing and treatment protocol.

Having used these Kinvent tools for about a year, I have noticed several things about the technology. First, it is not an alternative to taking a good history and gathering subjective and objective measures through interview, special tests, and measures. It is, however, a much more streamlined way of gathering objective strength, motion, balance, and power data during a session. By no means is it the only piece of equipment I use to assess, but the ability to have specific numbers for the percentage of deficit when speaking to coaches, MDs, and insurance companies has proven to be very valuable.

The Kinvent suite is a much more streamlined way of gathering objective strength, motion, balance, and power data during a session. Share on X

The buy-in from patients has also changed. Patients are now easily able to access their own medical record, and athletes look at how they compare to themselves and others as they train.

It’s become more important than ever to track progress and keep everyone on the same page. It is not just what we’re doing, but why we’re doing it. The objective data that backs up the why is critical to success. There has always been and will continue to be some resistance to the addition of more technology into the patient experience, but when the technology allows a clinician to evaluate and treat the patient more efficiently and effectively, it’s worth trying.

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. Zawadzki J, Bober T, and Siemieński A. “Validity analysis of the Biodex System 3 dynamometer under static and isokinetic conditions.” Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics. 2010;12(4):25-32. PMID: 21361253.

2. Palmieri-Smith RM and Lepley LK. “Quadriceps Strength Asymmetry After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Alters Knee Joint Biomechanics and Functional Performance at Time of Return to Activity.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;43(7):1662-1669. doi:10.1177/0363546515578252

3. Wilk KE, Andrews JR, Arrigo CA, et al. “The strength characteristics of internal and external rotator muscles in professional baseball pitchers.” American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1993;21:61-66.

4. Reinold MM, Escamilla RF, and Wilk KE. “Current concepts in the scientific and clinical rationale behind exercises for glenohumeral and scapulothoracic musculature.” Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2009;39:105-117.

5. Clarsen B, Bahr R, Andersson SH, et al. “Reduced glenohumeral rotation, external rotation weakness and scapular dyskinesis are risk factors for shoulder injuries among elite male handball players: a prospective cohort study.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;48:1327-1333.

6. Uga D, Nakazawa R, and Sakamoto M. “Strength and muscle activity of shoulder external rotation of subjects with and without scapular dyskinesis.” The Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2016;28(4):1100-1105. doi:10.1589/jpts.28.1100

7. Lake J, Mundy P, Comfort P, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, and Carden P. “Concurrent Validity of a Portable Force Plate Using Vertical Jump Force-Time Characteristics.” Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2018 Oct 1;34(5):410-413. doi: 10.1123/jab.2017-0371. Epub 2018 Oct 11. PMID: 29809100.

8. Wiesinger HP, Gressenbauer C, Kösters A, Scharinger M, and Müller E. “Device and method matter: A critical evaluation of eccentric hamstring muscle strength assessments.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2020;30(2):217-226. doi:10.1111/sms.13569

9. Hashim A, Ariffin A, Hashim T, and Yusof AB. “Reliability and Validity of the 90º Push-Ups Test Protocol.” International Journal of Scientific Research and Management. 2018;6(06). 10.18535/ijsrm/v6i6.pe01.

10. Ashworth B, Hogben P, Singh N, et al. “The Athletic Shoulder (ASH) test: reliability of a novel upper body isometric strength test in elite rugby players.” BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2018;4:e000365. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000365.