Blog

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.

In the world of strength and conditioning for football, the true definition of “conditioning” has been lost. A lack of understanding for the true demands of the game runs rampant, as these prehistoric prescriptions of “conditioning” fail to solve the problems of football fitness that are associated with robustness and performance in the sport. How many 110 tests and 300-yard shuttles does it take to see that we, as S&C coaches, are not coming close to the metabolic or mechanical demands that sport will determine as fit?

As Tony Holler says, it’s easy to get someone tired, but does it serve the purpose of preparing the athlete for the game?

Let’s look at the root of the problem and acknowledge that most S&C coaches don’t truly comprehend the definition of the word “conditioning.” According to Webster, conditioning is to: “train or accustom (someone or something) to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances.” The key words in this definition are accept certain circumstances, as this idea that coaches are conditioning for games is insane!

Football players practice four times the amount that they play. It is naive to think that the full residual effects of our summer training will still be in place five weeks post-summer. S&C coaches have a responsibility to bring these athletes into a desired state where they cannot only withstand a practice but thrive in it!

Coaches recruit speed, but then encourage training programs that not only dampen speed and power but increase injury risk by not preparing the player for the speed & violence of the game. Share on X

Many components of training are missing in the traditional run them into the ground approach. Football is a game of repeat speed bouts and repeat explosive bouts, yet we don’t identify these abilities as “conditioning.” Games are won with explosive plays by explosive athletes. Coaches recruit speed, but then encourage and welcome training programs that not only dampen speed and power but increase injury risk by not preparing the players for the speed and violence of the game. Plyometric exercises are as much conditioning as running 110’s, and a modern approach will consider two crucial factors for each position prior to prescription of conditioning means:

1. Metabolic demand of the position.
2. Biomechanical demand of the position.

Key Factors to Assess

To know how to condition, the S&C coach must know what is happening in practice. An in-depth analysis of the specific practices your organization conducts must be performed. Communication on the ebb and flow of practice from the head football coach is a necessity prior to planning out a training program.

The following general components will give the S&C coach the perspective they need:

• Duration (total time on the field)
• Time of day (determine sun exposure)
• Dress of the day (collisions increase stress)
• Type of offense/defense (main factor determining metabolic stress)
• Tempo of practice (two spot: running plays with the ones and twos simultaneously/recovery times between reps in individual periods)
• Depth of position groups (how many athletes will determine rep count)

This alone will only provide the S&C coach with a piece of the puzzle. Remember, it’s the S&C coach’s responsibility to elevate the athlete into a desired state to perform at a high level, not just survive. Understanding positional differences is crucial in the preparation process. Football is a game of many games. The demands are not the same throughout—in fact, they are very different. O-linemen and D-linemen play in a 10-yard box, whereas a DB may cover up to 80 yards on a given play.

Remember, it’s the S&C coach’s responsibility to elevate the athlete into a desired state to PERFORM at a high level, not just SURVIVE, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

The problem manifests itself in the fact that there is a disconnect between general off-season training and skill development. A great painter paints every day—meaning, if you want to become better at any activity, there must be deliberate practice of that activity.

As a reminder, the definition of conditioning is to become accustomed to certain circumstances. How can a player become accustomed to the demands of their position if they only practice the skill in camp and in-season? The strength and conditioning coach must develop the underlying abilities of sports skill such as speed, strength, and power. Just developing general abilities and hoping that they transfer is like playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey in the dark. Have periods of planned skill development through exposures to game movements and situations.

S.A.I.D. and Energy System Development

The beauty of programming is that there are scientific principles that govern decisions (or there should be). One of these gives us the answer to the question in the above scenario: the S.A.I.D. principle (specific adaptation to imposed demands). In its simplest form, the S.A.I.D. principle holds that the athlete’s body will adapt and become more robust to the training element it is most frequently exposed to.

So, in the absence of exposure to the most important training element, coaches can’t expect their players to be “in shape” for the actual training stimulus. S&C coaches are scared to give up “their” time to increase specific skill development for fear of feeling less valued. There must be a harmonious relationship between all coaches, as the end goal is to produce better football players and win more games.

Having an open mind to ideas and advice from the sports coaches themselves will only benefit the S&C coach and the players. Alex Bliss and Rob Harley stated, “Strength and Conditioning Coaches are encouraged to work closely with skills-based coaches in the development and implementation of appropriate small-sided games to help enhance and maintain aerobic fitness while affording physical and technical benefits.”

It’s the S&C coach’s responsibility to not just elevate general athletic qualities, but also increase robustness for the game—and the only way to do this is by exposure to regressed versions of the game. Most coaches have experienced that moment when they’ve looked around practice at the players looking gassed on day 1 and wondered how do we look out of shape with all that running we did during the summer training phase?

This all comes back to the fact that conditioning for football is more than just volume. Intensity can crush players. Coach Tom Myslinski, longtime NFL S&C coach for the Jaguars, has said: “the intensity and deliberate practice of NFL practices crushes rookies because they have never been exposed to these elements.”

This basically states that small-sided games provide growth in specific skill development and in specific fitness levels of the sport. Start with general modalities and work toward specific modalities. The puzzle becomes how to incorporate small-sided games (conditioning for specific energy system development) and technical/tactical development into your micro cycles to be compatible with the speed and power training performed in the week.

The puzzle becomes how to incorporate small-sided games and technical/tactical development into your micro cycles to be compatible with the speed & power training performed in the week. Share on X

We utilize a high/low approach where we stack our conditioning days (small-sided games) on Tuesday and Friday prior to off days. Though the volume is higher on these days, the intensity is lower, which gives great complementary training stimuli throughout the week and does not cause interference with speed and power training being performed on Monday and Thursday.

Conditioning for football is not implemented just to increase the aerobic state of the athlete. Yes, aerobic capacity will play a huge part in the replenishment of ATP throughout the duration of practice, but if the coach focuses solely on this biomotor ability, several other issues will arise. Fatigued is defined as one’s inability to maintain a desired intensity, or the body’s ability to replenish energy sources for a given rate of work. If the preparation lacks intensity, the athlete will not be prepared for the degree of stress and will look unfit when exposed to intensity in competition.

There are many examples of this, as the start of camp yields a plethora of cramps and soft tissue injuries. Conditioning supports the athlete’s ability to be explosive repeatedly, but the athlete must train explosive to raise power and speed abilities as football fitness rises. You are what you train most, so depleting metabolic resources solely on conditioning will have a negative effect on what wins games: explosive ability.

You are what you train most, so depleting metabolic resources solely on conditioning will have a negative effect on what wins games: explosive ability, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

The practice of building a base has been around since the creation of training, but a base is the foundation of something: meaning it is a remedial version that lacks the intensity of the event one is working toward. Due to its lower intensity, the base can be performed at a much higher volume. This is applicable as the S&C coach starts to program and prescribe volume to specific training elements.

Understanding the Two Factors Affecting Fatigue

Fatigue is multifaceted, as there are two types of fatigue: CNS and peripheral.

“Central nervous system fatigue, or central fatigue, is a form of fatigue that is associated with changes in the synaptic concentration of neurotransmitters within the central nervous system (CNS; including the brain and spinal cord) which affects exercise performance and muscle function.” (Davis J. M., Bailey S. P. (1997)). This is the intensity! To prepare the athlete for practice and be conditioned is to expose them to similar levels of intensity that will stimulate the nervous system in a way that will cause similar fatigue levels.

Looking at the chart of Al Vermeil’s hierarchy of athletic development (figure 6), training, speed, reactive strength, and explosive strength should hold more importance when planning the buildup of sport-specific fitness levels. Injuries happen at fast speeds, not at a jogging pace. Training speed and explosive abilities conditions the athlete for the tissue stresses of practice, serving as a multi-purpose function of the training process.

Video 1. Speed training is conditioning (an accumulation of high-speed demands).

It’s extremely important to understand the intensity requirements of each position group, because this is more important than just accumulating lower-intensity volumes. The athlete must be accustomed to these stresses before they set foot in the practice itself. Creativity in training comes from researching the actual demands of the game for each position. There can be no purist when it comes to increasing the durability of a football player.

Creativity in training comes from researching the actual demands of the game for each position. There can be no purist when it comes to increasing the durability of a football player. Share on X

During the course of a single practice, football players are exposed to all three elements in the above chart from Charlie Francis (figure 7). Saying it is only alactic is missing the boat—alactic abilities can determine performance, but only if they are sustainable throughout the game. Aerobic development and glycolytic development are paramount for football players to thrive in practice. To say a football player will not be exposed to extreme levels of lactate is to not understand practices. Lactate training isn’t the devil and is unavoidable in the sport. Take a player’s mmol levels after a no-huddle, 10-play drive and see if lactate training is necessary.

The second type of fatigue to consider is one S&C coaches are very familiar with: “Peripheral fatigue results from an overactivity-induced decline in muscle function that originates from non-central nervous system mechanisms” (Randall E. Keyser). This is the volume! Football S&C coaches must know and research what movements are being performed with high volume and what the average volumes are. These will be accounted for in the total volumes accumulated throughout the training week and are not limited to just yardage. Total load in the weight room will build up the body’s ability to cope with peripheral fatigue. Targeting potential injury areas that have overuse injuries will be a high priority in the weight room.

Know the Demands, Condition Accordingly

The only way to be prepared for the rigors of football is to play football. Take the demands of each position and reverse-engineer them to the remedial versions and train them. Stop doing things because someone else did it or you think it may work. If it’s not close, it’s not close!

Intensity and volume of each position group will give the S&C coach the map to proper preparation. Train general qualities, but do not neglect specific skill development.

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

Time moves in one direction. We wish we had more. We also believe that we can cram everything into these short time periods. The reality is that whether you are a coach, an athlete, or a person who works a 9-5 job, time will always be a limiting factor.

I had an aha moment during my recent podcast with legendary coach Dan Pfaff, in terms of using density patterns as a main driver in training. These frequent “hits” of training can be used as daily vitamins for athletes. I began to brainstorm ways in which I can pilot this approach into my own specific situation. The article that follows will hopefully outline my thought process and ways to implement the micro sessions into a physical preparation program.

My Situation

I am lucky enough to teach at a K-12 school where I also have the opportunity to coach athletic teams:

• Middle school (grades 6-8, ages 11-13)
  • Track & field
  • Golf
  • Girls’ basketball
  • Girls’ soccer
• High School (grades 9-12, ages 14-18)
  • Boys’ basketball
  • Boys’ lacrosse

With that being said, there are challenges when it comes to training student-athletes. I work at a smaller school that relies on multisport participation to field full teams. This makes for limited opportunities to expose athletes to consistent training, whether it is on-field work or in the fitness center. The emergence of club sports and non-school-related athletic programs has also muddied the waters.

Time is a major variable…and being concise is important. So, I had to ask myself, ‘how can I trim the fat off my training program to tick off the most boxes for athletes?’ Share on X

Time is a major variable for me as a coach. I always wish I had more. I also have to take into account the athletes’ time. In today’s climate, life is lived in 280 characters. Being concise is important. So, the question I had to ask myself was, “how can I trim the fat off my training program to tick off the most boxes for my athletes?”

It took some time to fully accept that there will be trade-offs and that it wouldn’t be the perfect training program according to the textbooks. But I have to live in reality here.

How It Came Together

After talking with Dan Pfaff, I started thinking about how manipulating training density patterns could fit into a developing athlete’s preparation. The concept of microdosing that has made its way into the physical preparation profession immediately came to mind. For those new to the microdosing concept, I’m not talking pharmacological intervention—I am simply using the general idea as a framework to plan athlete training. Derek Hansen has written extensively on the topic for those seeking clarification or a more detailed description.

Dan John’s “one lift a day” program completely eliminates fluff and forces you to really think about what’s important to accomplish for that day. That simplicity struck me. Share on X

Around the same time, I was preparing for an upcoming podcast with Coach Dan John. Dan is an avid writer and is well-known for his book Easy Strength. I was reading some of Dan’s work and I stumbled across one of his articles, “The One Lift a Day Program.” In it, he basically lays out that you pick one movement for that day and do it. It completely eliminates any fluff and forces you to really think about what’s important to accomplish for that day.

That simplicity struck me. There was no sense chasing my tail trying to fit all these pieces into my daily sessions. It was time to reevaluate my program (and my ego).

Where to Start?

As an assistant sport coach and lead strength coach, most of my training window falls within school and after-school athletic hours. There were two major time periods where I could insert this approach daily. The first was prior to school. This works particularly well for older varsity athletes who can drive themselves to school. The second was immediately after school or as a part of an extended warm-up before sport practice. We have the middle-schoolers during the final period of the school day, and I see my high school athletes immediately following the end of the school day.

An example of a typical daily training window is:

The most time I have on any given day is around 30 minutes. The low end would be 15 minutes. The next question is what are the essential KPIs that we want to improve? With that information and a general needs analysis, I could start thinking about how training would look.

One important piece of the puzzle reveals itself once you’ve reverse-engineered back from the target date. Your KPIs will fluctuate quite a bit if you only have six weeks with an athlete versus, say, four years. An example is if you had six weeks to make someone a better basketball player, then the bulk of your time should probably be spent on the game itself. In my case, I had to respect both the short and long term. I can slow cook development while also picking my spots to push the envelope a bit.

Two models that I’ve found useful in determining where to direct your training are Dan Pfaff’s generational framework and Dr. Bondarchuk’s exercise classifications. They both seem to get at what the differentiation between general and specific training means. In Dan’s model, the first-generation items are closely related to the sporting actions. The second generation gets less specific. The third, fourth, etc. generation menu items are basically general training means by their nature. Bondarchuk’s model provides a similar representation.

What Does It Look Like?

Once I figured out some of the training ergonomics, it was time to start determining how the program would look. Below are two examples—one lifting and the other running-based—of how I planned out these micro sessions. The first is during an off-season period. The second is during a pre-season period.

The training menu that I usually pick from contains the following main categories:

• Sprint training
• Tempo running
• Jumps/plyometrics
• Strength training
• Medicine ball training

The exercises/movements I choose will have to fit my athletes and their needs. Based on those categories, what do I believe will give them the most bang for their buck? It’s difficult at first to only choose one to two things. Mapping out a cost-benefit analysis helped ease any second guessing and kept me seeing things in a more objective light.

The amount of time I have during each daily session will dictate my options for training. This program relies heavily on consistency of training. Below is a diagram that outlines how training could be allocated based on time constraints.

Off-Season, Boys Basketball – General Strength

Here is an example of a 20-minute after-school strength training segment for grade 9-12 varsity boys’ basketball players. The goal during this period is to raise general work capacity in our main lifts. An easy way to do that is to add a set each week. These sessions served as a main stimulus for some students, and for those playing other sports or pick-up games it acted as an extended warm-up and/or maintenance.

As coaches, we can play with set/rep schemes in order to accommodate different athletes. If I have a large group without enough equipment, I’ll have some athletes start with different movements so that our rotations are staggered. Instead of doing movement A on Monday, for example, movement A will be a Thursday choice for some athletes.

When doing a program that is highly dependent on time, I found that keeping a running clock was the best way to keep things on schedule. For example, if we are doing 8×2 on the squat, I set a countdown from eight minutes, and the athlete will do a set EMOM (every minute on the minute) style. If there are two athletes working, set the clock to 8:30. One starts on the minute (00:00, 01:00, 02:00, etc.) and the other starts at the 30-second mark (00:30, 1:30, 2:30, etc.).

Video 1. Sped-up version of EMOM “daily vitamin” lift.

Exercise choices can be switched once we get through the fourth week. Examples of some transitions are deadlift to clean variation, strict press to push press, inverted row to chin-up, split squat to front squat, and bench press to incline press. Again, the goal is simplicity and compliance. The sets and reps may look low and in favor of max strength, but that’s not entirely the case.

I believe strength is a skill. Each set should work toward “greasing the groove.” We should never miss a training rep. On some days we can push the gas and work up above 85% 1RM, while on others we will drop the weight well below submaximal and add in a slow rep cadence for recovery. That’s what makes coaching a science and an art.

If I have an injured athlete or a first-year lifter, I move to plan B. However, I need to make plan B as close to plan A as possible, so I can still give the athlete something to adapt to—the flexibility of this type of program is another benefit.

One caveat is the possibility of soreness when you are doing one lift a day and that lift once per week. It’s important to progress the volume, intensity, and exercise choice appropriately. Share on X

One caveat I want to point out is the possibility of soreness when you are doing one lift a day and that lift once per week. It’s important to progress the volume, intensity, and exercise choice appropriately. Again, each training session should be in service to your major KPIs and the needs of your population.

Pre-Season, Girls Soccer – Acceleration Training

Here is an example of a 25-minute acceleration training segment during the pre-season period for some middle school and varsity girls’ soccer players.

The weekly template is planned to follow a high-low intensity scheme. The orange blocks would be considered a medium intensity. The red blocks are high intensity. The blue block acts as a low-intensity, active recovery session.

We are still following the “daily vitamin” approach during the weekly sessions, only the dosages will vary to allow the athletes to recover and adapt. To reiterate, daily vitamins in this context is an allegory that describes using small, frequent training sessions on a consistent basis. A daily vitamin is as easy as waking up, getting it, and taking it. It’s simple and easy, and the same idea applies with training sessions. You get in and you get out.

To reiterate, ‘daily vitamins’ in this context is an allegory that describes using small, frequent training sessions on a consistent basis. Share on X

Starting on Monday, the team will go through their on-field warm-up. The end of the warm-up period is when we dose in some short accelerations. The girls follow the field work with a brief strength training session. Deadlifts are done with moderate loads (80%-85% 1RM) and athletes drop the bar at the top of each rep. The press can be either horizontal or vertical. The weight will be moderate, and the focus will be on smooth, quality reps.

Tuesday is player-led pick-up games. This day is treated as a “high” intensity day.

Coming off playing on Tuesday, Wednesday is a tempo-based recovery day. Based on how the girls feel, the session will be a mix of linear and multidirectional drills. Each drill is done below 75% effort, and the focus is on movement efficiency and exposing their tissues to a variety of planes, postures, etc. Most of the movement sessions will be time-based. The total yardage is kept fairly low, between 750 and 1,200 meters, compared to a traditional off-season tempo run sessionfor a soccer player (3,000-4,000 meters).

Wednesday’s session ends with medicine ball throws. The typical menu items for throws include:

• Overhead backward throw.
• Broad jump forward throw.
• Between legs forward throw.
• Overhead step/throw.
• Rotational low to high throw.

Thursday is a similar session to Tuesday. The only difference is we use a squat variation with a lighter weight and a slow, controlled rep cadence. During these recovery squats, I like to have athletes go pretty deep so that the hamstring and calf meet.

A progression I like to use is from Coach Alan Bishop. I have athletes start with an elevated heel front squat and slowly progress to a feet flat back squat. Alan’s article outlines the full progression. The girls also perform a vertical or horizontal pull exercise. My go-tos are any chin-up or inverted row variations. If we chose a horizontal row, I might bump the reps up to 8-10 in order to build some volume and balance out the back musculature.

Video 2. Part of a “daily vitamin” squat progression.

Friday is our gas pedal session. We do hard accelerations out to 20 yards. Rest periods between sprints range from 60-120 seconds. After the first set of five sprints, the girls have a five-minute break to act as a buffer. After the break, we complete the second set of sprints. Our high-intensity acceleration day finishes up with some standing broad jumps up a hill. I typically start out with single jumps, then progress to doubles and triples once they look smooth.

Each session is subject to change based on countless factors. The training sets, reps, and volumes will fluctuate, but the graphic displays a solid general template. Based on your situation, you can expand or condense this template to fit your program’s schedule.

Practical Applications

Spots where these “daily vitamin” training sessions can fit into your program:

• The warm-up.
• During sport practice.
• During training sessions.
• During the summer or periods where you are away from athletes.

The warm-up is a perfect time to plug in some extra work. Whether it’s adding in movements that act as a screen or having athletes perform accelerations, the warm-up is an underutilized piece of a session. With more research focusing on soft tissue injury, many elite coaches are using top speed running to act as a type of “vaccination” to hamstring injuries. What this means is that athletes perform a baseline number of max velocity efforts that, in turn, expose their tissues to those high velocities and contractions.

Whether it’s adding in movements that act as a screen or having athletes perform accelerations, the warm-up is an underutilized piece of a session. Share on X

In talking with Dan Pfaff, he found having athletes perform five runs out to 40-50 yards at top speed once a week was enough of an exposure to keep them fit throughout the season. Dan has also collected data from many European sport athletes that suggests three to four accelerations out to 20-30 yards, three to four times a week was enough to maintain that sprinting quality.

Both accelerations and top speed runs can be done at the tail end of the warm-up, prior to practice. Another alternate warm-up method is to use the weight room as a bridge to sport practice. I remember listening to NBA strength coach Cory Schlesinger talk about how he had athletes come in and do a mini training session before practice. These mini sessions substituted for their traditional warm-up. In doing this, Cory not only got their strength/power work in, but he also broke up the staleness that comes along with doing the same warm-up day in and day out.

Another opportunity to microdose certain qualities is during the sport practice itself. From a purely training perspective, exposure to max velocity is a great example of this. Like Dan Pfaff said, if you have high intent and accountability, you can ask athletes to sprint out a few reps in practice to get those max velocity exposures. These longer top speed runs should be done during the first part of practice so that the athletes are fresher.

If you are lucky enough to be a sport coach, you can plan drills that will incorporate specific training targets within practice. Soccer coach Raymond Verheijen does a wonderful job laying out his principles of “football fitness.” Raymond uses the game itself to help athletes gain specific fitness. Raymond begins playing 11v11 for a set timeframe to start developing work capacity. He will use, say, a 3v3 to intensify practice and work on higher, more frequent outputs.

A perk of giving your athletes these daily vitamins is that they are easy to understand and are brief enough to hold the athletes accountable. One to two movements a day can build consistency and habits that can roll over into other aspects in life. It can also improve focus during sessions. If I only have one lift of seven sets today, I need to really focus in order to get the most out of my workout.

One to two movements a day can build consistency and habits that can roll over into other aspects in life. It can also improve focus during sessions. Share on X

If you lose your athletes during the summer or breaks, giving them one movement a day can open the door for them to film their sessions and send it to you for feedback. Again, they have to meet you halfway and make an effort. I am lucky enough to work with some students who are gym rats. I give them the one or two movements I think will help them the most and then they can go do whatever else they want. You want to do the “German Volume Arm Blaster 5000”? Go right ahead but do your sprints and squats first.

Less but Better

I try to read and consume as much information on training and the human body as possible. That has led to me trying to jam way too much into my programs. My aim was to make my athletes masters of everything. The reality was that we became masters of none.

There is a phrase in the book Essentialism that I have taped on my office wall. It reads: Less but better. Instead of trying to stuff 10 pounds of crap into a 5-pound bag, I had to identify the glaring gaps and try to fill them as best I could. For some, it is running based; for others, it could be a weight room intervention. In my limited experience, the two major limiting factors for athletes have been:

1. How they play their sport.
2. Their mental/psychological fitness.

All training goes to the wayside if they aren’t competent performers and if they don’t have the toolbox to navigate mental/emotional landmines.

If you’re looking for a switch up or you feel like you are getting lost in the granular details, try this approach. If the daily vitamins don’t work, then move on down the road. Like Bruce Lee said, “absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is essentially your own.”

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

Acceleration work has undeniable value to both field sport and track coaches. If sports can be chaotic and unpredictable, then movement variability should move beyond just drills and movements. Always running the same acceleration variations would seem to put a limit on solutions and scenarios to pull from in a game setting—sometimes, in the chaos of a game, athletes don’t have time to draw or rearrange their bodies into the perfect position. They just have to GO.

Sport coaches looking to transfer their speed training to the field will reap the benefits of toying with new starts. If an athlete is going to learn to accelerate effectively, then coaches must employ a vast array of starting variations that contribute to the athlete’s long-term development. Some are going to make coaches feel good because they have an air of specificity about them, while others are just plain fun.

If an athlete is going to learn to accelerate effectively, then coaches must employ a vast array of starting variations that contribute to the athlete’s long-term development, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

I must lend credit to coaches like Carl Valle and Latif Thomas and the ALTIS program for opening my eyes to many of these variations.

Various Position Starts (Disadvantageous Positions)

I have always said coaches don’t have to feel like they need to be the entertainment committee—games and activities can be fun, but athletes still want purpose, and a coach’s value is in the teaching.

Sometimes, early in the season during lower-intensity training weeks or before main sessions, we utilize disadvantageous start positions, such as the ones listed below. I classify these as such because the starting positions make it challenging to overcome inertia. These variations are a hit with all training groups, but the younger crowd and field sport athletes really seem to like them—they add just enough spice without being ridiculous or pandering.

I will admit to the field sport athletes that some of the skills and acceleration techniques that we address through track and field rarely occur in a perfect setting on the turf or court; however, we are always trying to optimize lines of attack within some acceptable bandwith. These variations shift the focus away from some perfect technical model to one that emphasizes power, separation, and balance. A coach can still use whatever cues they typically use with their athletes with these positions. The best an athlete can usually do is move with intent and achieve some fraction of proficiency.

1. Up and Go from Stomach: The athlete lies on their stomach, and their eyes should look down at the turf. The foot should be dorsiflexed so that the big toe joint has an easier time helping to separate from the ground. This is a very difficult position to accelerate from, but athletes should try to optimize getting their hips and chest out together.

2. Up and Go from Back: This is similar to the stomach variation, but it adds a layer of difficulty, as the athlete has to rotate their body while beginning to drive forward.

3. Push-Up Position: This one begins in the “up” position of a push-up and requires the athlete to fight the fall forward once their hands are removed.

4. Quadruped Roll: The athlete should start in a table-top position, with their hands under their shoulders and knees under their hips. The coach can signal the athlete to just raise their knees up and then roll in the direction of choice. The bottom of the toes should again stay down into the turf.

5. Cross-Legged Reading a Book: The legs are all pretzeled up in this variation, which adds even more difficulty to the already deadweight static position.

6. Front Roll: Athletes should first be exposed to some basic rolling. I usually have them pretend they just got pushed from behind and need to chase the action in front of them.

Coaches can explore and experiment with these as they captivate the athletes and allow for some competition. I always do these on turf since athletes occasionally fall as they are learning.

These starts are all completely static positions, from a seated or lying arrangement. For me, the common language I use with my athletes is to be powerful and not quick (push or punch, don’t spin), get the hips and chest out together (balance with projection), create pressure with the feet, keep a low shin angle the first few steps, and think about gaining ground. These variations are also indicators of who possesses a decent level of strength.

A common early session I do with athletes is run a set of five different variations for 10 yards each (60-90 seconds of rest). Run each variation one time or run a couple variations more than once.

After this set and an intermediate rest period (3-4 minutes), I have them run five variations from those listed later that are either along the lines of “the real thing” or at least more advantageous. This setup almost overloads the sprint on the first five variations before allowing them to apply it in a more traditional manner on the second set.

Video 1. Various position, disadvantageous starts are fun and challenge the athlete to overcome difficult positions. Coaches can turn them into competitions as well, so I encourage you to not hold back with creative ideas.

Various Position Starts (Advantageous Positions)

These variations are a step down on the crazy scale, but still are very fun. I classify these as advantageous positions since there is something about the movements that make the start easier to get out of. This could be forward momentum or some loading via the stretch-shortening cycle.

7. RDL Start: The RDL start allows for a big range of motion and explosion from the hip, and the athlete nearly throws themselves into a violent acceleration.

8. Parallel Start: The parallel start allows for a natural reposition step behind the body. When the foot resets, the Achilles and calf allow that stored energy to drive aggressively forward.

9. Jump Back: The jump back start builds on the same concept as the parallel start but allows for an even more dynamic loading of the lower leg since the athlete pops back into their two-point setup. Be sure that they actively POP back rather than slide back.

10. Kick-Up: The kick-up start is done out of a four-point position. The kick-up is advantageous, since when the feet contact the ground, the chest has already begun unfolding and driving forward. The hips just have to match.

11. Kneeling Start and

12. Lateral Kneeling: On both kneeling variations, I usually cue athletes to create pressure with their big toe joint and bend the shin to match the torso. If the shin is too vertical, they pop up—although some athletes prefer to roll their body and shin down from an upright position even in these variations.

13. Hip Flip: The hip flip is a great way to teach acceleration out of an athletic position. I instruct the athlete to think about separating their upper and lower body at the beltline and pulling themselves into a nice acceleration position.

I always have athletes do these on turf, and I use these variations much like I use the first group. With younger athletes, sometimes these serve as a main course; with older athletes, these could just be the last piece of the warm-up before the spiked session.

Video 2. These are a little less crazy than the disadvantageous starts but require the athlete to have a decent understanding of how to accelerate. They are closer to the real thing, but the prior movements allow for an easier time in hitting the ground running.

Drop-In/Movement Starts

On the field or court, athletes commonly accelerate out of athletic movements. A basketball player on defense may be skipping backward during transition when, suddenly, the opportunity for a loose ball presents itself, and they must drive forward.

A running back might side shuffle into a blocking position before wheeling out and catching a pass in the flat. These starts allow them to perform these movements as fast as possible with a lot of intent, which doesn’t happen in a game setting.

These starts allow them to accelerate out of athletic movements as fast as possible with a lot of intent, which doesn’t happen in a game setting, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

I always want my athletes to be as prepared as possible for anticipating sprint opportunities in game, but also be able to optimize their acceleration ability.

An added benefit of the movement in these variations is that, by not utilizing a static start, the athlete can reduce strain and extend these reps to 20 yards or so. These also start the process of blending drills to sprints, but I keep the “entry zone” really short, usually to 5 yards. These are not true blends or bleeds since the posture changes as the athlete accelerates.

14. Side Shuffle-In: The athlete doesn’t need more than a few steps of the side shuffle. At the coach’s cue, the athlete can rotate their body while repositioning their front foot under their hip, drop-step style.

15. Straight Leg Shuffle-In: The shuffle is about frequency and not power, so I usually ask the athletes to keep a high rate of switching at the hips. At the coach’s cue, athletes should accelerate out without much delay.

16. Gallop-In: The gallop-in is similar to the straight leg shuffle, but the added vertical displacement of the gallop allows the athlete to draw into a bit of a deeper position before projecting forward. They should aim to hit the ground running.

17. Walk-In: The walk-in reduces the need to overcome inertia. Athletes should walk and then let their shin and torso drop as they begin their acceleration.

18. Skip-In: The skip-in feels similar to the walk-in, with a tad more velocity upon entry. The transition should again be seamless, as the athletes roll themselves forward into a more advantageous position to push from.

19. Backward Skip: Athletes should commit to the backward separation by pushing through the big toe joint. At the coaches cue, the athletes will hit the brakes. This draws them into a nice, deep setup. I usually cue them to keep their eyes on the turf as they begin to project forward.

20. Drop-In: The drop-in features a walk followed by a subtle hop that raises the center of mass just enough to set up a two-point start that uses the stretch reflexes and momentum from the prior movements. I enjoy using drop-ins to accumulate acceleration volume early in the season. They are especially effective when done at the bottom of a hill.

21. Drop-Down: I use two variations. One utilizes a step off the bench or bleacher. The athlete should lean as they fall, so their foot slots a little behind their body. The second one involves them dropping down into a split two-point stance. The aim is to hit the ground running in both variations.

Video 3. These variations will still draw from previous acceleration teaching, and athletes should be encouraged to execute each variation with power and purpose.

I often include a clap cue for an athlete to respond to on the gallop, skip, and shuffle variations, but I am fine with a preset 5-yard entry distance as well.

Variety in your accelerations will give your athletes more solutions and more confidence to motor around at high velocities as they enter the fray, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

The one variation that I spend the most time teaching (beyond just plain skipping and galloping skills) is the drop-in. I prefer my athletes start with a walk, then raise their center of mass with a subtle hop, and from there drop to their usual two-point stance. This added drop makes this an extremely safe longer acceleration option, and this one works especially well on hills.

Medball Starts

Throwing a medball is generally without much risk, but it is still a skill. As a result, I am fairly picky with how circusy I get here. With all medball throws, the athlete is throwing with the hips and legs, while the arms generally stay relaxed, securing the ball or at best following through.

These four are pretty much the only ones I utilize:

22. Parallel Squat Throw Accel: The squat throw is really more of a squat/hinge hybrid.

23. Split-Stance Throw Accel: On both this and the squat throw, I have the athletes start with the ball straight out, and they draw it in for dramatic loading effect. I usually like to see the elbows in rather than flared, and this helps put the shoulders in a more stable position. Both of these variations allow the athletes to roll their shins and torso forward until they explode out like they were in a cannon. They are essentially throwing themselves into a sprint.

24. Underhand Forward Scoop Throw Accel: With this, I like the ball to be set up between the feet, more toward the toe. If the ball is placed too far in the back of the toes (under the body) the athlete has to almost reach through their legs, which causes them to drop their chest, lose the core, and put the lumbar in a precarious position. They should meet the ball on the way down.

25. Underhand Forward Throw Accel.

These throws often don’t yield great-looking positions—especially with the first few encounters—but the power created through the hips is enough for me to warrant their occasional inclusion. I will reserve these for athletes who know how to hinge, squat, and throw a medball with some proficiency.

Video 4. Medball starts are a great way to just encourage more OOMPH. Throw with intent and connect the chaos to the acceleration.

Resisted/Hill

Hills and resisted starts should be absolute staples of any program. Obviously, hill and sled accelerations are well known and can be tied into many of the prior variations, but the ones below are some variations that coaches can begin to think about including in their programming.

26. Heavy Sled: Heavy sleds are great for short accelerations runs—I usually go 10 yards here. I wish I could say I sit and calculate specific loads, but I don’t. I use the Gill Low Drag Speed sleds, which feature a single, small knob for plate loading. The sled weighs 7 pounds and adding a 25- or 35-pound plate usually does the trick with my male athletes without destroying their weight room session. This allows for a decently high speed without double support steps, and the ankle gets much more information about working with the earth/turf to separate. I often pair these with an unloaded rep later in the season.

27. Light Sled: Light sleds are great for extended acceleration reps of 20 yards or more, and with some athletes I even do extended runs to 50 yards. Light sleds (as little as 5%) allow for just enough resistance to help arm action, relaxation, and posture.

28. Drop-In Sled: I use drop-in sled reps if an athlete has great early acceleration that then levels off late during acceleration. The entry angles will not be as deep, and the rep can end as soon as they are upright so that it stops short of a maximum velocity style item.

29. Continuous Sled and

30. Continuous Hill: On both continuous variations (sled and hill), the athlete gets a chance to work initial acceleration in small doses close to one another. This kind of feels like using EMOM-style reps to groove a movement, like a clean or front squat. I have run three sets of 3 x 3-5 pushes this summer for both. The second and third pushes within the set almost always look better as the athlete self-organizes.

There is also opportunity here for coaches to run a cluster of multiple variations within each set.

• Five-step two-point rollover start with sled/hill
• Decelerate
• Five-step two-point start with sled/hill
• Decelerate
• Five-step three-point start with sled/hill

Video 5. Hills and sleds are excellent acceleration tools in the first place, so coaches can’t go wrong playing around with workouts and variations within this framework.

The Real Thing

I put these last in the article, but the reality is that these are the start variations that allow you to teach and refer to when exploring the other possibilities. If you are a track coach, then your block progressions probably start here as well.

31. Two-Point: The two-point position is important for field athletes like wide receivers, and I often use it at track meets with my middle school/freshman athletes who aren’t ready for blocks. This actually shifts their hips closer to the finish line as well.

I like to see a nose-to-knee type crouch setup. Many new athletes will use a hinge-like setup. Athletes should bend the shin and bend the torso to match. There should be about 12 inches or a little more space between the feet. If the feet are too close, then the athlete will take a reposition step anyway. If there is too much space, then the first step is long and loopy, often with a vertical shin cast out from the body.

The two-point start is one you want to work a lot since it is used often on flies and during jumps approaches. The shallow depth allows for an easier time overcoming the static position compared to a three-point or block start.

32. Two-Point Rollover: The athlete starts upright and rolls down into their usual two-point setup. Many jumpers use this in their approach to pattern a deliberate and consistent early step rhythm. The rollover allows the athlete to have a little momentum and a more dynamic push.

33. Three-Point Start: When coaching the three-point start, I have sprinters drop down from a two-point start. They should position their hand under the shoulders and bend the shins to an angle where they feel balanced. When they move their opposite hand back, I usually like to see a wiggle of the fingers in the free arm to get them ready to have a quick hand as the ground hand is removed.

34. Standing Block Start: The standing/rollover block start is a great first encounter with a set of blocks and how to load the whole foot with the heels down before springing forward. In video 6, I use a partner variation, but the athlete can also simply just back into the blocks while standing and perform a rollover start.

35. Opposite Leg Start: The last way to add variability to your starts is to occasionally have the athletes switch their feet so that their weak leg gets a chance to be the star. Getting better at starting with both legs can benefit the entire acceleration run. Girls often use a nine-step approach to hurdle one when they are first learning the event, which requires them to switch legs. Men who move away from the eight-step will also utilize the opposite leg to hit the odd number step pattern of seven. I run five-step start variations with advanced hurdlers to really challenge them to continue their drive through and off the hurdle and clear the next hurdle off a shortened approach.

These variations add just enough variety to keep athletes on their toes and use one position to solidify another.

Video 6. Especially for track athletes, these are your bread-and-butter starting positions. Specificity still has a range that should be explored, and a good two-point start can improve a block start.

Exploration Yields Learning

As mentioned previously, coaches are only limited by their imagination. I have many starting variations I use that didn’t make the cut in this article, and I look forward to hearing the variations that other programs use. Variety in your accelerations will give your athletes more solutions and more confidence to motor around at high velocities as they enter the fray.

The various position starts are fun and create buy-in; they also give coaches a glimpse into the general power, strength, and coordination that an athlete possesses, says @grahamsprints. Share on X

Hunting for sport specificity when sports are chaotic and unplanned is a fool’s errand. Athletes and coaches should work together to optimize as many movements as possible. The various position starts are fun and create buy-in; they also give coaches a glimpse into the general power, strength, and coordination that an athlete possesses.

• Medball starts are a great way to place the emphasis on power and projection.
• Movement starts are another great way to blend sport and speed, while also slightly reducing strain compared to static starting positions.
• Hill and sled starts should be a program staple, but there can be more creativity and variety than meets the eye.

Not all of these accelerations are rooted in perfect technical execution, but all contribute to the overall development of the athlete. Of course, you should push athletes to the edge of their ability and address technical issues as well. There is a time and place for each of these variations, and some of them will take some thought to work through.

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

With a few years of experience under my belt now, I’m a little better equipped to think about the question I’ve already spent countless hours trying to answer: What does training load monitoring and injury prevention mean in the context of professional team sports?

I still don’t have a definitive answer, and I realized that the more I knew, the less certain I was. However, there are some interesting avenues for using some of the tools and techniques that are popular today—and there are plenty of reasons to question others.

Why do we need such a flawed system for monitoring training load?

Early in my career, I caught the diagnostic virus. Busy, hurrying through the corridors of Allianz Stadium, a black briefcase filled with GPS in one hand and a computer in the other, I could already see myself making the front pages of popular scientific journals: “Pierre Austruy, the Sherlock Holmes of Physical Preparation.” In my head, as a young graduate not yet dented by the reality on the ground, I imagined an ideal and perfect monitoring program. It was all about clues to find, details to highlight, probabilities to calculate, and—voila!—the game would be played and injuries and poor performance would be avoided.

Tired of accumulating data that, in the end, is often not that insightful, I dream of a monitoring routine that is both innovative and refined. Share on X

My ambition echoed the common practice in most sports teams (and practices still widespread), consisting of prescribing players a wide range of weekly tests in order “to not miss anything.” Today, I feel like I have been cured. Tired of accumulating data that, in the end, is often not that insightful, I dream of a monitoring routine that is both innovative and refined.

Functional Movements Test vs. Individualized “Risk Zone” Monitoring

This type of test is a bit like an IQ test: having a great score makes you superior in theory, but rarely extraordinary in practice. (And, by the way, are there any movements that are not, in one way or another, functional?) Very high IQs often make their commute to work standing in a crowded bus, sweating in their tight three-piece suits. They are very good employees but remain anonymous. The geniuses we admire, on the other hand, may not have the most flattering score, but their remarkable creativity or special intelligence reflects their extraordinary mental abilities.

When we consider very high-level athletes, we are dealing with “monsters”: individuals with dimensions and physical and mental potential outside the norm. And it is possible that certain imbalances between one limb and another, certain limitations in range of motion, or even certain unconventional movement strategies are what ultimately make the player remarkable. Why aim for balance and normality as the criterion for satisfactory monitoring, when the desired performance requires the exceptional and the extreme?

I don’t, however, think musculoskeletal system testing should be eliminated from a monitoring program altogether. Having tangible confirmation that, on a biomechanical level, an athlete is in a compromising situation—and therefore, being able to intervene with the individual (specific exercises, massages, etc.) or with training (load, volume, exercise selection, etc.)—is an essential part of injury prevention. I would, though, advocate a minimalist approach, far from the classic spider-web strategy where quantity trumps quality, by adopting as a mantra the sentence, “Better is less, but better!” Couldn’t weekly or daily prophylaxis only focus on previously injured areas?

I have, for example, 100 data points on ankle flexibility for players who have never missed a single practice session due to ankle problems. Does this mean that I am very good at my job and that the monitoring program in place prevents ankle injuries? Or does it mean that, for these players, ankle flexibility is not a good indicator of their readiness?

What is the first predictor of an injury? A previous injury and usually in the same place. As soon as we suffer structural damage, we are forever compromised. Sure, things get better, and we can “fix” a problem for a while (years in some cases), but we never go back to the state we were in before the injury. Perhaps a previous injury should dictate which monitoring tests are truly representative of individual-level readiness and health?

Additionally, each player faces different biomechanical challenges, whether due to anatomical constraints, compromised tissues, or poor movement habits. Just as the annual blood test your doctor prescribes doesn’t include testing for tropical diseases if you haven’t traveled abroad, why not just limit monitoring tests to specific potential problems instead of carrying out a more general screening?

Checking a bit of everything all the time “just in case” so as to “not miss” a threat of injury, in my opinion, only serves to make us feel as we are very professional and conscientious. We proudly distribute our endless spreadsheets and multiple reports, but their actual usefulness is limited. As the season progresses, players lose interest in the procedure, we have more and more data and less and less time to analyze it properly before making decisions, and injuries still aren’t eradicated.

Perhaps focusing monitoring routines on the individual profile based on injury history and biomechanics would give us better play participation and more profitable data. Share on X

Perhaps focusing monitoring routines on the individual profile based on injury history and biomechanics would give us better player participation and more profitable data. A player with a history of hamstring injuries, but who has never experienced upper body issues, may skip a shoulder mobility test to focus on a more specific exercise such as a Nordic hamstring curl before continuing on with their day. Most likely, if they were to sustain an injury in training, previously compromised tissue would be among the determining factors.

The Need for More Internal Data

Since a well-designed monitoring program includes much more than simple movement tests, let’s continue our rethinking of current practices with the same desire for renewal. Physiology may well be the mother of sports sciences, but it is poorly represented when it comes to monitoring (which is regrettable). Many practitioners are content to estimate the physiological state of an athlete through markers that are external to them, such as GPS data or RPE and wellness questionnaires (which, for a long time, was my case as well). And when taking the time to study the internal load, these practitioners are satisfied with the minimum.

Heart rate is a great indicator, revealing valuable information through a multitude of clues. Young “sport scientists” new to the world of professional sport know this well. And that’s why they eagerly pounced on studying cardiac data early in their careers. Very often, however, faced with the reluctance of players (a heart rate monitor is uncomfortable, especially in contact sports) and the poor reliability of the data (poorly placed heart rate monitor, loss of signal, etc.), the interest in the cardiac response to exertion tapers off and remains under-interpreted.

Resting heart rate then seems the easy solution, but because it’s extremely subject to fluctuations, it does not provide much critical information. Nowadays, more and more teams use a standard running test (type “box run”), always carried out on the same day in a week of preparation (in general, 48 hours post-match), during which the players are equipped with cardiac monitors. Different data, such as average or peak heart rate, is collected and compared to previous datasets.

An increase in average heart rate during this test compared to the previous week, for example, then indicates less recovery. While this procedure is a step forward, it is subject to variability, which makes the conclusions difficult to interpret.

1. If the test is performed on-field, the properties of the surface at the time of the survey partly explain the fluctuations in the results, with heart rate being related to energy demand—the latter itself being related to mechanical demand. The humidity level, the height of the grass, and other environmental concerns have a direct impact on heart rate.
2. To obtain quality data, it is necessary that the climatic conditions are standardized. The temperature outside, the dryness or humidity of the air, and even the wind partly determine the heart’s response.
3. The individual training load that precedes the test should be similar from week to week. As the goal of the procedure is to produce a physiological index capable of attesting to the player’s state of fitness, it is important to consider the context. For example, if before the previous test a player participated in 30 minutes of the match, and this time they are tested after a match in which they played 60 minutes, should we expect the same results?

Producing a better strategy to recover valid physiological data requires eliminating these fluctuations as much as possible. A stationary bike, Watt bike, or rower has the advantage of having stable physical characteristics, and an indoor test eliminates weather considerations. Instead of a collective test at a standard time, it may be better to perform an individual test when the training loads over the previous seven days are comparable: a monthly test is sufficient. It is also necessary to ensure that no psychological factor too strongly impacts the cardiac response. Conducting this test immediately after a meeting with the coaches, or a review of a match, is not a good idea.

On the other end, checking wellness questionnaires before deciding to go on with the testing procedure is a necessity. If we were to see in them unexpected levels of stress or soreness reported by a player, we would be better off reprogramming the test to a later date for that individual.

Finally, while observing average heart rate during exercise is relevant, looking at recovery heart rate is probably more informative. Recovering heart rate after exercise involves a coordinated interaction of parasympathetic reactivation and sympathetic withdrawal. Since the autonomic nervous system is linked to many other physiological systems, its ability to maintain homeostasis can provide information on the level of muscle inflammation, the amount of plasma creatine kinase due to multiple collisions, and the state of the central nervous system (parasympathetic or sympathetic inhibitions).

The two-minute recovery heart rate test is simple and effective. The athlete provides a maximum effort of two minutes on an ergometer (static bike, rower, etc.), at the end of which the heart rate is recorded (HR1). Two minutes after exercise, the heart rate is recorded again (HR2). Subtracting the HR2 from the HR1 determines a basis for improvement. For example, if HR1 is 150 beats per minute and HR2 is 95, then the recovery heart rate is 55.

Note that for athletes in high-intensity, intermittent sports, the ability to reduce heart rate between strenuous efforts is one of the most critical qualities required to perform, make a good decision under fatigue and pressure, and not get injured. This index therefore allows both monitoring the state of form and predicting the level of performance of the athlete.

It is not mandatory to turn to an active procedure that requires the player to make an effort to collect a picture of their physiological state. Some biological markers do very well and are detectable with a simple blood or saliva test. Admittedly, going down this road requires collaboration with an analysis laboratory and comes with significant costs, but many clubs fund without flinching the frequent trips their players take to and from the clinic for DEXA scans and other anthropometric tests as costly as they are futile. I can observe with the naked eye a worrying fat gain (unless I am its victim, in which case I prefer to doubt such visual evidence…). on the other hand, I am quite unable to estimate a level of blood heat shock proteins (HSPs).

HSPs participate in a cell protection system induced by the presence of reactive oxygen species (ROs), cytokines, or hyperthermia. HSPs increase stress tolerance and contribute to cell repair processes. In addition, HSPs are involved in the remodeling associated with exercise training, where they facilitate mitochondrial biogenesis, regulate apoptotic pathways, and induce improvements in insulin sensitivity. Muscle damage and stress resulting from exercise are considered two of the many stimuli that induce the synthesis of HSPs. Sustained high synthesis of these proteins may indicate a state of inadequate regeneration, even after several weeks of recovery from exhaustive exercise.

HSPs are a critical physiological marker for monitoring the athlete’s state of recovery and adaptation to training. As the understanding of the role of these proteins grows, it wouldn’t be surprising to see more and more teams take an interest in them. Along with HSPs, other reliable indicators of muscle damage can be:

• A measurement of the level of circulating creatine kinase (CK).
• An evaluation of the levels of interleukins (IL) and TNF alpha as representatives of inflammatory markers.
• A measurement of immunoglobulin A (igA), providing information on the state of the immune system.

A monthly or even quarterly profiling of the levels of HSPs, CK, IL-1, TNFa, and igA would make it possible to assess the readiness of a player in a much more relevant way than any rough estimate drawn from subjective questionnaires or derived from specious algorithms.

Glucose Continuous Monitoring

While nutrition is indeed considered one of the cornerstones of recovery and adaptation to training, it does not appear to be a priority in monitoring practices. When claiming to assess an athlete’s level of recovery, not studying what is considered a major factor in recovery is quite paradoxical. If the daily weigh-in gives relevant information to the farmer about his turkeys as Christmas or Thanksgiving approaches, such a monitoring tool is much less relevant for professional athletes.

Body weight fluctuates considerably and constantly, for obvious reasons (which I will be careful not to expose here in case you are finishing your Niçoise salad). Substantial and sudden weight loss is likely to indicate a state of overtraining or a health problem, and players generally have an optimal body weight in competition that is best kept under control. But when it comes to problematic weight loss, it usually occurs with other detectable symptoms—and when it comes to a healthy weight, players themselves pay special attention.

New glucose monitoring technologies open up new perspectives on athlete nutrition management never before considered. Share on X

New glucose monitoring technologies open up new perspectives on athlete nutrition management never before considered. The use of the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) test makes it possible, for example, to study the evolution of the blood glucose level 24 hours a day, without resorting to an invasive method such as blood sampling. This is because the CGM machine is inserted into the back of the arm and measures glucose levels every 1-5 minutes, discreetly measuring the contents of the subcutaneous tissue.

Initially developed to support the treatment of diabetes, this technology is now used by a growing number of athletes, nutritionists, and sports scientists to assess individual responses to different nutritional strategies. As the blood glucose level is also affected by stress, this type of test makes it possible to evaluate the effects of a variety of constraints (emotional stress, jet lag, overtraining, lack of sleep, inflammation, etc.) on the metabolism and the physiological state of the athlete.

Observation of the behavior of a physiological variable for 24 hours in the real life of the athlete—and not only in a controlled environment—is a considerable asset in understanding the possible reasons for poor performance and injuries. A fasting blood glucose level of 6.1 mmol/L is considered to be normal, and within two hours of ingestion of 75 grams of glucose as part of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), the glucose blood level should not exceed 7.8 mol/L. Although sports are often cited as excellent for glycemic control, several studies^1,2,3 report more mixed conclusions. Four in 10 athletes have blood glucose levels above 6 mmol/L 70% of the time under control, according to a recent study⁴, and some researchers have advanced the theory that genetic makeup associated with exceptional performance in power or endurance in elite athletes could also reflect their metabolic characteristics.

Elite power athletes appear to be more resistant to insulin than elite endurance athletes. The training loads act as a stress factor influencing insulin sensitivity—in particular, the repetition of intense efforts that generate a significant release of catecholamines and result in post-exercise hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, as well as nutritional strategies based on the high consumption of carbohydrates. The use of a glucose test is important to explore the different nutritional strategies to optimize the performance of the athlete and to prevent a decrease in insulin sensitivity, which would have significant consequences on their recovery, health, and energy.

But the applications in high-performance sport related to these new technologies do not stop there:

• What strategy should coaches and athletes adopt when traveling to limit fatigue and stress?
• Does the training schedule negatively affect players “sleep quality”?
• Do we train too hard the day before the game?

All these questions can be examined through continuous glucose monitoring. Stress, through the production of glucocorticoids as well as inflammatory markers, acts on the levels of glucose and insulin, which makes the observation of glucose a remarkable physiological test for the sport scientist.

Designing Better Subjective Questionnaires

Finally, there can be no conversation about monitoring without discussing the use of subjective questionnaires. Ah!!! Running after athletes who did not complete their questionnaires on time is the flagship activity of today’s sport scientists. The idea that, coupled with objective measurements, subjective cues make it possible to pinpoint revealing discrepancies (for example, the difference between an athlete’s physical output and their feeling of fatigue) is attractive, and not devoid of practical interest.

However, are the questionnaires used ideally composed?

Let’s stop asking questions we can’t answer ourselves! For the sake of data accumulation, I felt like I was guilty of nonsense. Wellness questionnaires, RPE, play rating scales, emotional profiling… I asked a lot of questions. I thought these numbers would inform decisions about training load, player tracking, and individual management. But what kind of valuable information can you get from a crappy question (forgive my vocabulary!)? As Yogi Berra said, “If you ask me something that I don’t know, I won’t answer.”

Seriously, a lot of us have a question on our wellness questionnaire that sounds like this: “How would you rate your energy level today?” Have you tried to answer this question yourself? Personally, I don’t know if my energy this morning was a 6 or a 7 out of 10. Maybe it was even a 5. And are you talking about my energy before the first coffee or after the fourth? Before making the trip home to the gym while listening to an exciting podcast or after collecting a tax notice in my mailbox? How do we define energy itself in relation to this question? Is there a clearly defined equivalence between each number on the scale and a given series of events? What distinguishes a 7 from a 6?

Another pearl: “Rate the quality of your sleep on a scale of 1 to 10.” What sort of question is that?! We know that it is very difficult to estimate your own sleep quality. It is not something we can clearly state. Collecting RPEs after each session does not provide a complete, individual, and subtle understanding of each player’s response to training.

To me, it has become obvious that most players pick a number at the start of the season and just stick to it as their default value. And when they come up with a different number, the surprise effect isn’t there—obviously, the session was designed to be easier than usual or much more difficult. The default value strategy makes sense. Can you distinguish a “moderate” session from a “somewhat difficult” session? I’m not sure I’ve ever had a “somewhat difficult” session myself…in the Borg scale, 7 and 8 have the same definition. What, then, justifies choosing one over the other?

Players already face enough daily demands that we should not prompt them to think about this type of senseless choice. I debated which statistical methods to use and spent time on “actionable strategies,” gently and indulgently prepared Excel tables and made pretty, colorful reports filled with data that had no real value. Asking ill-conceived questions can quickly make you mistake a noise for a song.

If the primary function of a wellness questionnaire is to generate a discussion with the athlete, what prevents us from getting straight to the point with our questions? Share on X

If the primary function of this type of questionnaire is to generate a discussion with the athlete—and this exchange should shed light on the measures to be taken—what is preventing us from getting straight to the point? A coach can verbally ask his players black and white questions, the kind that demand a clear answer: Is there any reason for me to worry about your readiness to train today? These are the types of questions that identify players who are in a physical or psychological state that does not meet expectations and that is not directly the result of training loads or a clearly identifiable reason.

As for the RPE, it is difficult to question it, as it is central today in the management of training loads. This approach, however, can still be improved. The purpose of the RPE is to assess an athlete’s fatigue state by comparing the session performed to the athlete’s feelings. Then, by multiplying the number chosen by the duration of the session, an estimate of the overall workload (at least from a subjective point of view) is proposed. But is the question “Rate your perceived feeling of exertion on a scale of 1 to 10” the only or the best way to evaluate fatigue? I don’t think so.

Besides the limitations inherent in the Borg scale discussed above, this question does not really give athletes the opportunity to communicate on the reality of the effort they put in. Maybe, objectively, I spent 10 minutes above 80% of my maximum heart rate in a 45-minute session containing three 30-second blocks of runs with 30-second recovery at 100% of my maximum aerobic speed (VMA). Let’s call this workout W1.

Consider workout W2, where I do the same work, at the same intensity, and hit the same objective markers. The only difference is that the session is performed on a rower. In this case, very few athletes will score these two sessions identically, where except for the exercise mode, all other things are equal. Those who like running will find W1 easier; others will prefer session W2. From this point of view, the RPE therefore leaves a difference in taste to dictate, at least partially, the estimate of a training load.

In addition, the environment, climate, time of session, or cumulative effect of previous sessions weigh on the choice of RPE. For two similar sessions, the athlete may give two different scores—not because they feel more or less intense physical or psychological fatigue, but simply because their interpretation of elements beyond their control varies. In addition, the view that the physical trainer has of the physical demands of a session does not necessarily match the feelings of the player who goes through it. Sometimes, this discrepancy reflects something in the realm of fitness, but quite often it highlights a difference in appreciation. The RPE also contrasts what the strength and conditioning coach expects from a session with what the player feels. Two different individuals, two different understandings—a clue very open to interpretation indeed.

A more complementary RPE strategy would be to compare the expectation that the player places on themselves before the session with their feelings at the end of it. Share on X

A more complementary strategy would be to compare the expectation that the player places on themselves before the session with their feelings at the end of it. Questions could include:

• “How satisfied were you with your performance during the session?”
• “Rate your performance during the session on a simple rating scale from 1 to 10.” (Or even better, from 1 to 5 to avoid the always convenient choice of average.)

Here, the players face themselves. By entering the field and knowing the environmental factors, the type of session, and the expectations of the strength and conditioning and technical staffs, they form an idea of ​​what they are capable of delivering in terms of performance. While making their way out of the training field or court, they are in a position to take a step back from their production, estimate the differential between before and after and between expected and actual, and verbalize their scores accordingly.

Why put the feeling of the fatigue aspect into perspective in order to refocus on the appreciation of the performance aspect? Well, personally, if I have a very tired team that wins every weekend, that’s fine with me. I dare say that even if you are a sensitive soul and have a remarkable capacity for empathy, you would be comfortable in this scenario as well. On the other hand, if my team is a cohort of guys in great shape that do not win a match, I would be very worried.

Complementary to the observation of the relationship between intensity of a workout and subjective fatigue, studying the relationship between intensity of a workout and athletic performance would provide useful and relevant information for directing a physical preparation program. Understanding the effect of training load not only on a subjective fatigue level but on a player’s perception of their own performance opens up new perspectives, and when asking the athlete about their performance, two important indications for a monitoring program appear.

First, a simple number reflecting the performance level of each athlete for each session is created. This score can be analyzed in relation to other training load indices. Unlike the RPE, it does not refer to the concept of “load” itself and breaks away from the purely physical preparation aspect, which makes the comparison with other markers, such as those obtained with GPS, more balanced.

Second, this approach allows, in a mediated way, the detection of certain traits associated with abnormal psychological or physical fatigue, thus complementing the RPE data. Ask a genuinely tired player if they found a session tiring, and the chances are high they’ll say “no.” True competitors, often proud and sensitive, sometimes prefer to curl up when they are not feeling their best. But if this fatigue is indeed present, it probably leads to a decrease in performance, and the athlete knows this. To admit, on top of that, that they are suffering from the difficulty of training is akin to an admission of weakness and sounds like a message directly addressed to the coach: “Don’t select me for Saturday’s game!”

Only the star players and those indisputable spot-holders can afford to be tired. The rest—those who are fighting for their place in the selection—will likely line up with the ratings given by their competition instead. On the other hand, this same competitive spirit makes the players very critical of their performances. Everyone hates being the weak link, but they know that overestimating their performance is frowned upon in the coaching office. Caught between disappointment at a poor score and fear of an overrated score, the athlete is forced to be honest about their performance.

So when by analyzing the data collected we see that for the same typical session a player rates their performance differently, we can make assumptions. If the score is lower, as the player certainly was not intentionally less precise in their tasks, this loss is probably the result of physical or mental discomfort. If there is no clearly identifiable injury or psychological stress, then we are probably finally in the presence of this harmful fatigue that we dread.

To end with this review of a classic monitoring program, let us insist on the fact that the absence of objective measurement of the cognitive state of the athlete is justifiable only because of the absence of technology. This does not prevent us from dreaming a little, and with one foot in the future, from considering a few options.

The Future of Monitoring?

When looking at the next generation of monitoring, I begin with blink rate as a measure of cognitive fatigue. Spontaneous eye blinking occurs much more often than is necessary to maintain the tear film over the eyes. Various factors, such as cognitive demand, level of concentration in performing a task, and fatigue, influence the spontaneous blink rate. When it comes to competition day, decision-making, reaction time, and vision are as important (possibly much more important) than muscle glycogen content or strength level.

When we look at the future of athlete monitoring, blink rate as a measure of cognitive fatigue has real possibilities. Share on X

We are good at monitoring physical readiness and making sure we don’t compromise match day performance by creating too much fatigue beforehand in training. Physical fatigue is relatively easy to detect with field tests or in the weight room. In contrast, we tend to forget about cognitive load monitoring. Did we do too much video analysis this week? Is this the best time to add individual technique sessions? What about the weight of meetings?

So far, we’ve relied heavily on subjective measures such as wellness scores to try to identify this cognitive fatigue. Measuring eye blink rate can be done like any other monitoring procedure, through a simple protocol where the athlete performs a cognitive task and eye tracking technology is used. As research on this topic develops, we can imagine that an easy-to-implement system will eventually become available in the market.

If language is preferred over the study of the gaze, a system of discourse analysis could be revealing. A recent study questioned the possibility of detecting fatigue and drowsiness in airline pilots by observing their communication with the control tower.⁵ Considering that fatigue and drowsiness are the main factors in human-caused air crashes, the researchers undertook a retrospective analysis of pilot communication just before an accident.

The pilots’ speech was analyzed 35 hours before the fatal flight in normal conditions (control condition) and compared to a recording approximately one hour before the fatal flight and during the accident (drowsiness condition). The analysis focused on the temporal organization of speech: hesitation, silent pauses, prolongation of the last syllables, and speed of articulation. The results show that the speech on the day of the accident was characterized by slower speech and significantly slower articulation speed than on the previous days.

Other research, particularly in the military field⁶, has also successfully explored the relationship between speech characteristics and fatigue, demonstrating that inter-individual variability in speech, choice of vocabulary, and rhythm of syllables is an effective means of measuring cognitive fatigue. What comes up over and over in interviews with strength and conditioning coaches is that nothing beats direct contact with the player and the exchange of a few words to determine their state of form.

Perhaps. But then, if this is so productive that the exchange can also be objectified, isn’t that ideal? Create three standard questions, ask each athlete on a standardized day of the training week, record the answers, then pass these samples to a revealing system for analyzing speech and syllable flow rate…. Here, in part, perhaps lies the future of monitoring in terms of cognitive fatigue.

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. Lime-Ma F, Cotter J, and Schick E. “The Effect of Acute Hyperglycemia on Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance.” International Journal of Exercise Science. 2017;10:390-396.

2. Steffes GD, Megura AE, Adams J, et al. “Prevalence of metabolic syndrome risk factors in high school and NCAA division I football players.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2013;27(7):1749-1757.

3. Buell JL, Calland D, Hanks F, et al. “Presence of metabolic syndrome in football linemen.” Journal of Athletic Training. 2008;43(6):608-816.

4. Thomas F, Pretty CG, Desaive T, and Chase JG. “Blood Glucose Levels of Subelite Athletes During 6 Days of Free Living.” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2016;10(6): 1335–1343.

5. Vasconcelos C, Vieira M, Kecklund G, and Yehia HC. “Speech Analysis for Fatigue and Sleepiness Detection of a Pilot.” Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. 2019;90:415-418. 10.3357/AMHP.5134.2019.

6. Greeley HP, Friets E, Wilson JP, Raghavan S, Picone J, and Berg J. “Detecting Fatigue From Voice Using Speech Recognition.” International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology. 2006.

All training falls onto a spectrum. Categorizing exercise along a spectrum allows us to better program for specific adaptations and helps us organize our programs and ideas more efficiently—the individual and their needs determine where training will fall on the spectrum. We understand that the sled is a multifaceted tool for resistance training that can develop several attributes and serve as a solution to many problems, and sled training should have its own training spectrum to help lay out exercises in a structured manner.

Coaches should view the sled training spectrum as ranging between two categories of movements: those developing strength and those developing power. Share on X

Many coaches still use the sled in a one-dimensional manner, prescribing the same training plan and load for all their athletes. This isn’t an effective way to structure training, as athletes have different needs and benefit from a more individualized training approach. Instead, coaches should view the sled training spectrum as ranging between two categories of movements:

1. Those focused more on developing strength and strength qualities such as strength endurance.
2. Those focused on developing power and power qualities such as power endurance.

Some other factors, such as biological age, training age, time of the year in regard to season, and individual weaknesses, will also be relevant.

Categorizing these exercises isn’t news to coaches—it’s common knowledge that the heavier a load is, the less speed the athlete will be able to achieve (and vice versa). Putting exercises onto the spectrum, though, is the next step past common knowledge, and this starts creating a system for accurate, actionable steps.

This article will begin laying out that spectrum of exercises for sled training, showing examples of how this can be utilized throughout training year-round and within a larger team setting.

Sled Training as Special Strength

First, I think it is important to note that I will be categorizing sled training here as special strength exercises: exercises that just so happen to be utilized throughout speed and movement sessions. Any time there are restrictions, such as load limiting maximum velocity from being reached, then that exercise is not a great option to directly train for maximum velocity. Although the power-based movements are closer to this objective, nothing will be as effective as flying sprints, or high-quality sprints without restrictions, to build that top-end speed.

In my experience, though, sleds have been effective for indirectly helping build that top-end speed by developing acceleration speed and enforcing better sprinting posture. They have also worked exceptionally well with youth athletes and field-based sport athletes.

The Strength Side of the Spectrum

Beginning to lay out the spectrum, we will start with the far side of strength. These movements have a greater reliance on force and are more general in nature. Exercises categorized by strength have longer ground contact times, are higher in load, and are performed at slower speeds.

Youth and less-experienced athletes tend to require more strength-based exercises—especially since many of these athletes aren’t yet fully mature and aren’t fully prepared for the adaptations that come with highly specific power-based movements. For them, using the sled is more of an unloaded, strength training exercise.

Some examples of these exercises include (but are not limited to):

Push Sled

The push sled starts the spectrum and can be broken down into a few separate series. Sleds can be categorized by:

• The body position they’re performed at (low, neutral, high).
• The position of the arms (either bent or straight).
• The speed at which they’re performed (marching, jog/bound, or sprinting).

Each position and speed has its own place on the spectrum and targets close, yet separate, performance abilities.

The lower the body position, the more strength-based it will be due to the increase in shin angle and longer ground contact times required to push due to the position. The arm position will also influence the exercise. Bent arm position movements lead to longer ground contact times and being more strength based. This is typically due to the increase in weight since the entire body can be used to drive into the sled. Straight arm position is typically associated with quicker ground contact times and puts more stress across the trunk and spine to stabilize, as the load is farther away from the body.

You can use a variety of sleds—it isn’t necessarily about the sled you have, but rather how the athletes position themselves with the sled. Share on X

The videos demonstrate a variety of sleds being used to show that it isn’t necessarily about the sled you have, but rather how the athletes position themselves with the sled.

1. Push Sled Low – Straight Arm Position

2. Push Sled Neutral – Bent Arm Position

3. Push Sled Neutral – Straight Arm Position

4. Push Sled High – Bent Arm Position

5. Push Sled High – Straight Arm Position

Most of these movements will fall in the middle ground of 10-20 yards, but it all depends on how the athlete performs them and the goal in mind.

Pull Sled

Pulling the sled is usually associated with more of the power-based exercises, but the acceleration drags and basic forward walks are used to develop strength and the ability to produce high amounts of force into the ground.

Each variation will require a strong, neutral body position to optimally pull the sled down the field, can be loaded extremely heavy, and will be painfully slow in comparison to actual sprinting.

Forward

1. Acceleration Drag

2. Forward Walk – Waist

Dragging the sled backward is great for durability of the knees and can be used to strengthen the knee extensors, as you have to drag it by stepping toe-to-heel and deliberately extending at the knee. Like the push sled, there are various positions and speeds that you can use with dragging the sled backward.

Dragging the sled backward is great for durability of the knees and can be used to strengthen the knee extensors. Share on X

Each position will affect the efficiency of the movement, but also the other muscle groups that are involved. The pull and underhook variations will require more upper body strength and stability than dragging it with a belt around the waist. And while all the variations can be done at various speeds, having the belt around the waist will allow the arms to be involved in the exercise and make it more accessible to increase the speed of the movement.

Backward

1. Back Drag – Pull

2. Back Drag – Waist (Slow)

3. Back Drag – Waist (Fast)

4. Back Drag – Underhook

These exercises can be performed for longer distances if trying to build up strength endurance or loaded heavy to pull for short yardage to increase strength. Use them at your discretion but keep your goal in mind.

The Power Side of the Spectrum

Power-based movements are defined by:

• Being velocity driven.
• Having shorter ground contact times.
• Being performed with less load.
• Being performed at higher speeds.

These movements are more specific, and elite athletes have the most to gain from them. Some examples of these exercises include:

Pull Sled

If you have athletes pulling the sled to develop power, they have to do it with lighter weight and in a more rapid, aggressive manner. Each movement is focusing on quick hip flexion and short contact times of the foot reflexing back off the ground.

Many of the speed exercises your athletes perform, such as skips and bounds, can also be performed towing a sled; they just have to be done in an appropriate manner focusing on quality of movement.

1. Marching

2. Skips

3. Bounds

4. Sprint—moderate to light weight

Perform for sets of 10-20 yards with light to moderate load.

Piston Sprint

The piston sprint is a pull sled variation that emphasizes aggressive ground contact frequency. For each variation, you want to maintain strong body posture. Pulling will naturally be more upright compared to the push and focus on repetitions into the ground with a full range of motion.

Perform for sets of 5-15 yards with light to moderate load.

1. Push

2. Pull

Chains

I know putting chains on this list is technically cheating, but chains are a great alternative to sleds for sprints where you want to gain more of an upright body position with less drag. Since chains are lighter and have a length to them, the resistance is more spread out as opposed to a single dense weight you have to pull.

Perform for 10-30 yards with one to three chains.

1. Sprints

2. Bounds

The spectrum is not limited to the exercises shown above, and you can easily add several other movements. Even the exercises shown on this spectrum could be used for the opposite adaptation if performed properly—it is how the exercise is performed that drives adaptation, not exercise selection. However, I selected and placed some exercises on the spectrum because they better fit the need to develop those specific adaptations due to the body position, arm position, or load used.

How to Apply the Spectrum in Your Training

When implementing the spectrum in your programming, it is best to go on a case-by-case basis. Some athletes already have an acceptable level of strength and can begin with more power-based exercises. These exercises are not inherently better or more difficult than another—they are just focused on different adaptations. That also doesn’t mean that those individuals should neglect the opposite side of the spectrum; instead, they should spend most of their efforts on the exercises where their weaknesses are and try to do the minimum to maintain their strengths.

Instead of neglecting the other side of the spectrum; athletes should spend most of their efforts on the exercises where their weaknesses are and do the minimum to maintain their strengths. Share on X

You will rarely find an athlete who is completely on one side or the other. It is usually a mixture of various strengths and weaknesses.

Programming Examples

General eight-week program for a field-based sport athlete.

Ratios: (Strength: Power)

The ratios refer to the percentage of volume of exercises being performed on that side of the spectrum, not weight-based percentages. So, an athlete who is eight weeks away from season will spend 90% of their time working to develop strength-based qualities by performing movements such as heavy sled pushes from various positions and acceleration sled drags. Meanwhile, they will only spend 10% of their time working to develop power-based qualities with exercises such as lighter sled skips and bounds.

Never leave any quality out, although as they get closer and closer to the season, that spectrum will see a shift in the volume of work being performed in each category (becoming more specific in nature as the season approaches). Many strength training programs follow similar principles and will consolidate nicely.

Week 1 – 90%: 10%

Week 2 – 90%: 10%

Week 3 – 75%: 25%

Week 4 – 50%: 50%

Week 5 – 50%: 50%

Week 6 – 25%: 75%

Week 7 – 10%: 90%

Week 8 – 10%: 90%

This is a basic example and won’t fit all athletes, but it gives you a general idea of how you can lay out training. More elite athletes would spend less time with the strength side of the spectrum and younger, less experienced athletes would spend more time there.

Also, if you find an athlete who is already strength-sufficient but lacking in the power and speed department, then that athlete can start farther down the spectrum, closer to the power qualities.

Programming Applications for the Private Sector vs. Collegiate

Implementing this spectrum in the private sector has worked extremely well, as I am not limited by time of the session or what I can do with my athletes. Even in my largest group of 12 athletes, I can still take my time to equip each with what will fit them best at that moment. However, the private sector does lack the frequency of training, as many athletes are not on a consistent schedule. This is why I never recommend leaving any training quality out—while not as efficient as putting all of our eggs in one basket, I need to spread my eggs out and make sure athletes are prepared at all times. Many athletes play sports year-round and unfortunately won’t get a two- to three-month off-season to develop physically.

In the larger collegiate setting, on the other hand, each team can begin with more strength-based exercises to develop the strength needed to enhance the power exercises later down the road. In that environment, I know I’m going to have my athletes for at least a few weeks of consistent training before games, school, and personal lives get in the way.

Even with that said, creating a semi-individualized training approach could serve your athletes better. Start by profiling your team and putting athletes into two groups: one strength-focused and one power-focused. Place each group on the spectrum where you want them. I would recommend just having two groups—trust me, you do not want to spread yourself too thin. When selecting exercises, either use different movements from the spectrum or the same exercises but forced to fit within the demands of the adaptation, so the groups are performing the same exercise at different speeds, weight ranges, and ground contact time periods.

When selecting exercises, either use different movements from the spectrum or the same exercises but forced to fit within the demands of the adaptation. Share on X

In each cycle of training, an athlete could change groups. This will be based on your testing and profiling of your athletes (as discussed further in the next section). That way, you are constantly attacking the athlete’s weaknesses and never fully neglecting an adaptation.

I understand that this is not an exact science, but it will serve your athletes far better than having them follow the same program and load prescription regardless of needs or experience.

Profiling on a Continuum

I’m sure you’re wondering how to actually profile your athletes by strength or power needs. Common knowledge and the coach’s eye go a long way, but I’ve found success using Cal Dietz’s free calculator. This tool examines an athlete’s 10- and 20-yard splits to profile them within a specific training range.

Once given that range, it is easier to place them along the spectrum based off their need to develop one of the training qualities. The goal for using this spectrum and sled training in the first place is to enhance their speed, so having a 10- and 20-yard time is a good start. Defining their needs first puts you in a better position to have a why in prescribing exercise selection, load, and goals.

Training is complicated enough. There are so many branches of physical preparation that intertwine with each other, with other training models, and even with other professions. The layout of the spectrum will help save you time and more accurately prepare for your individual athlete’s needs, both of which can help make training a little less complex.

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

Every year, as my soccer or softball teams roll through tournament play, we stumble through one of those dazed, listless, and dead-legged performances that inspire “the talk.” As I gather the girls together for our discussion on the connection between nutrition and performance, one of the players who’s been with me through multiple seasons will anticipate what’s coming and chime in are you going to tell the hamburger story again?

And yes, I am—because it’s a useful story.

Years ago, the starting left back on my club soccer team was one of our fastest players—a previous coach had nicknamed her “the dream killer” for her ability to materialize out of nowhere and chase down opposing strikers, disrupting what otherwise appeared to be a sure breakaway goal. A tall, mature 13-year-old, she also played tennis and loved to do treadmill and bodyweight workouts on her own.

During a weekend road tournament, we wrapped up our opening game at 11 a.m. and had our next match scheduled just a couple hours later. Not much time to leave the venue and track down lunch in an unfamiliar neighborhood…and the field complex conveniently had rows of concession tents and food trucks set up. Like many athletes, shortly after competing, her appetite spiked: a food truck char-grilling meat, smells amazing. DONE! She was all over a burger and fries.

When our 1:00 p.m. game kicked off, as play on the turf picked up speed…my fast and fit left back looked like she was fording a waist-deep river of pudding. Laboring, just to move veeeeerrrry sloooooow. The first ball that came her way careened off her shin like it was entirely the wrong size and shape. The next skimmed straight past.

My center backs and holding mid began looking frantically at me on the sidelines, as they were having to pick up extra marks in transition who kept blowing right past her. After five minutes, I had to sub her off the field—she was sweating the wrong kind of sweat and her expression was equal parts physical discomfort and genuine confusion.

And that was it for her game.

Why the Hamburger Story Is Important

Coaches constantly hear discussions about the *big rocks*—sleep, nutrition, hydration, recovery, heard it heard it heard it heard it. We hear it over and over.

But the hamburger story isn’t a story about impulsiveness or self-indulgence or a deliberately risky decision—coming off the field, the confusion on my left back’s face was authentic. She was truly baffled about why her body was suddenly incapable of doing the very routine things her brain was telling it to do.

Because, until that day, she had lived her entire life without ever being told about how the timing and substance of what you eat will directly impact how you perform (and this was a smart girl from a great school district and a family of successful medical professionals). Across the youth sports landscape, despite the costly tournament entries and club dues, the private skills trainings and complex travel schedules, the $350 bats and $250 cleats, there is still a widespread lack of education on how that 75-cent donut they grabbed for breakfast can undermine all of that prior effort and expense.

Across the youth sports landscape…the players often do not yet know how to eat in order to put themselves in the best position to succeed on game days, says @CoachsVision. Share on X

At the adult level, poor nutrition choices are rightfully identified as action problems as opposed to knowledge problems: If a grown-up chooses to eat a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos instead of a bag of carrot sticks, it’s not that they don’t know that it would be healthier to eat the veggies—they just choose not to act on that knowledge. Relative to nutrition and performance in youth sports, however, there remains a genuine knowledge problem: The players often do not yet know how to eat in order to put themselves in the best position to succeed on game day.

Even among that percentage of parents who do prioritize nutrition in their family’s food choices, most often their definition of *healthy* will be based on concepts from weight loss, commercial meal plans, or food sensitivities…all of which are very different than fueling for competition.

That knowledge problem is then multiplied by the realities of competitive youth sports—local and regional travel, pre-dawn breakfasts in the car, hotel grab-and-go’s, eating out of coolers, eating at snack shacks, finding takeout places that can quickly turn around orders, finding restaurants that can accommodate sweaty and exuberant large groups, games stacked on top of games, games scheduled at 8 a.m., noon, and 6 p.m.… Logistically, the variables for proper meal-planning quickly spiral out of control.

Given the realities on the ground, I like to tell the hamburger story because it paves the way to discuss a few concepts that kids can immediately grasp:

• What happens when your “rest and digest” system fully kicks in, and why you can’t simply choose to override that natural process when the next whistle blows.
• That nutrition for sports is not about being told what you can and can’t eat so much as knowing when to eat what you like to eat. Rather than black and whites of good vs. bad, kids find it interesting to learn that, in fact, the same thing that can be a good choice 12 hours before you play could be a bad choice two hours before you play.

From a coaching standpoint, there’s very little I can do about what the players regularly eat (nor should there be). But if I can impact their approach to when they eat some of the things that they eat, that can lead to more consistent performances on the field.

If I can impact the players’ approach to WHEN they eat some of the things that they eat, that can lead to more consistent performances on the field, says @CoachsVision. Share on X

Timing. Hydration. Repetition.

The hamburger story is, more than anything, a story about timing. That helps it resonate—why the exact same hamburger two nights before you play or two nights after is a totally different thing than that burger two hours before you play. With kids, it also doesn’t hurt to throw in a word or two about ice cream, which I happen to think is a great thing on a Sunday afternoon after wrapping up multiple games on a hot field.

If you tell your players there’s a very good time for burgers and ice cream, they will be more receptive when you tell them there’s also a very good time for pasta with grilled chicken or for scrambled eggs and fruit or for half a turkey wrap and a few cucumber wedges.

In fact, I do this over and over and over.

• We’ll be playing at 9 and 10:30 tomorrow morning. Tonight would be a good night to have pasta with meat sauce or chicken and a big serving of brown rice…

• Our first game is at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. Try to have a substantial breakfast when you wake up and then something light like a wrap and some fruit close to an hour before warm-ups…

• Our game is at 7:30 tomorrow night. Even though it’s way easier for your parents to feed you an early dinner right beforehand, try to save that full meal for after the game instead…

Within this continual process of repetition and tying timing to nutrition, the easiest of the *big rocks* to nail is hydration—no one much likes being told what to eat or when to go to bed, but there’s very little pushback to drinking plenty of water.

So, I make that part of our team culture. In all of my practice designs, I write in a water break every 15 minutes. I work with very athletic girls; we play fast, and we practice at high speed—and we take a lot of breaks. In Southern California, we compete in full sun and afternoon heat, and while repeating drink lots of water, stay hydrated, I make sure they players have every opportunity to drink lots of water and stay hydrated.

From the connection between playing hard and staying hydrated, it’s then a shorter step to the connection between playing hard and proper fueling. With the hamburger story, the important thing is not just telling it one time—the key is the repetition. Like most coaches, I have phrases and concepts I repeat again and again, focusing on communication, controlling the ball, moving with purpose, creating space—these key points become the hallmarks of my teams because I emphasize those qualities over and over.

The more you repeat simple messages, the more cognizant players will be of when and what they eat—to the point that it can become part of your team culture, says @CoachsVision. Share on X

Nutrition for performance is no different. The more you repeat simple messages, the more cognizant the players will be of when and what they eat—to the point that it can become part of your team culture.

All Those Hamburger Stories That Don’t Fit the Narrative

Amid the worst of the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, Victoria Hayward—a starting outfielder on Canada’s National Team and an all-around spark plug in Athletes Unlimited—generously took the time to come on a Zoom Q&A with my softball team. This was a rough stretch, as all the local fields were sealed off with caution tape and the girls weren’t supposed to see their friends. Victoria was a shining light who appeared on their computer screens to deliver an inspirational message. She answered all of their questions about the range of sports she played growing up, how she learned which positions she was the best at, whether she ever gets nervous in the on-deck circle, how she was training on her own for the Olympics, and, yes…her favorite pre-game meals.

Sure enough, Victoria had a hamburger story.

Hers, however, was a laugh-out-loud funny story from playing at the University of Washington and scarfing down a burger not too long before a game, despite knowing better. She then went on to play the game of her life. Of course, she warned the girls it was a fluke coincidence and not something they should go and do…but her hamburger story underscores one of the realities of sports: talented individuals can regularly succeed in spite of their habits.

When it comes to motivating your players to make better food choices, one massive challenge is that their parents will be able to see your hamburger story and raise you a whopping success story during which they threw every big rock straight out the window. Due to the cost and commitment of competitive youth sports, many of the players have parents who are quite driven in their own lives—and successful academic, financial, and career performance are frequently fueled by high-octane s**t.

Your second baseman’s mom will have her own story of how she passed the bar exam while living on Skittles and Red Bull. Your goalkeeper’s dad will have stories of how he survived his hospital residency on black coffee, peppered jerky, and the occasional IV. That one kid whose dad actually did play a few seasons of minor league ball will tell you how he bunked with seven roommates and all they ever ate were corn dogs and frozen hash browns.

And not only did they succeed, but succeeding while thoroughly ignoring all sound nutritional and lifestyle habits is a specific point of pride. Your second baseman’s mom loves to tell that story of how she crammed all night and was seeing tracers from the overload of taurine and citric acid, yet still managed to step up and ace the test. All those crucial final exams she passed where she started studying earlier in the week, while also eating and sleeping normally? Meh, boring! Those are stories she never bothers to tell.

We had another hamburger story on my U12 softball team this year. During a tournament stop 60 miles up the coast in Laguna Niguel, we had games at 3:20 and 5:10, and our power-hitting shortstop/catcher made a special lunch stop there at her all-time favorite burger place, Smashburger. This was important to her, as all the Smashburgers in San Diego had closed down and, like many, her family hadn’t traveled widely the previous 16 months.

The home run she launched in the 3:20 game will be, I am certain, the longest ball I ever see a 12-year-old hit. It soared over the fence in left, cleared a 10-foot retaining wall another 30 feet behind that home run fence, and then disappeared down a canyon. We wanted to retrieve the ball for her as a souvenir, but no one from the tournament had ever seen a ball go over that retaining wall, and therefore had no idea how to even access the canyon in the first place. In her first AB of the 5:10 game, she hit a three-run laser that rocketed over the center field fence and set us coasting to a win.

I’ll see your hamburger story, coach, and raise you a couple bombs.

On Picky Kids and Pragmatism

Along with the big rocks, another oft-repeated training phrase is that kids are not mini-adults—what works for college and pro athletes often doesn’t scale at the youth levels.

When nutrition information does finally get passed along to youth athletes, however, it still tends to be based on more cultivated adult palates. Eat the rainbow. Salmon and avocado and Omega-3s. Start your day with this açaí bowl or those morning oats or that spinach and feta scramble. Snack on cut veggies and hummus.

When nutrition information gets passed along to youth athletes, it still tends to be based on more cultivated adult palates…Instead of suggesting what they won’t eat, recommend what they will. Share on X

If your kid will eat those things, God bless ’em. Many, however, will be super-picky, particularly the younger they are. Some of that is just stubbornness and wanting to control one of the few things in life they can control (what goes in their mouths)—but that pickiness also has roots in biology and natural selection, taste and texture sensitivities, digestive ease, dealing with braces and retainers, and countless other factors that dictate what they’ll put on their forks.

My older brother didn’t eat a bell pepper or an onion until his 40s—as an adolescent, all his stomach could process and tolerate were the bland whites: grilled cheese and quesadillas, plain pasta and white rice, lots of apples and bananas. He was also a varsity wrestler in an era where every dude in a singlet was on a Vision Quest to cut weight and wrestle Shute, so he was already spending his high school years in a state of alarming caloric debt. For my parents, feeding him the nutritional mediocrities he would actually eat wasn’t an act of pampering—we would sit at the table eating grilled steak, green beans, and potatoes and roast the kid for wanting just a bowl of mac and cheese. But, giving him what he would eat was a better fueling option than giving him what he would not.

While less extreme, much the same will hold true with a large number of youth athletes. Instead of suggesting what they won’t eat, recommend what they will. If you have a cut-vegetable-and-hummus-eating team, fantastic, that’s a great between-game snack. If three-quarters of your team would just as soon swallow a handful of infield dirt, however, bananas, grapes, and goldfish crackers may be a better choice and will at least keep them out of the Oreos. Salmon pasta checks a lot of boxes both the night before competing and following a long day of exertion…unless your players are going to poke at the fish like it’s still swimming and then barely touch the now-contaminated noodles. In which case, fine, a full serving of plain pasta with some grated cheese is the better choice.

Take your pragmatic victories. You don’t have to shoot for quinoa (yet)—if you can get them to start having white rice on their plate the night before a game instead of curly fries, that’s a win.

During our nutrition talk, I tell my players the original hamburger story because it’s by far the most extreme and vivid example of meal choice impacting athletic performance that I’ve personally witnessed. More often, though, we’re talking about subtle gradations of performance—and how eating Pixie Stix or Flamin’ Hot Cheetos or Krispy Kremes or KFC can lead to those so-so and sluggish showings that would have been sharper if they had simply eaten differently.

One Last Hamburger Story (At Least Until the Next One)

During this same 12U softball season, in part by taking hydration, nutrition, and sleep seriously, my team battled through five games in 110-degree heat on a Sunday in Lancaster, CA, to come in second place in USA Softball’s Southern California B-State championships, advancing on to Western B-Nationals (and the crazy need to play five games in a single day will be the basis of a future article).

At the Nationals tournament in Roseville, CA, we were finally knocked out with a 2-1, seven-inning loss to a well-disciplined and fundamentally sound team from the San Fernando Valley. Afterward, our starting pitcher stopped at In-N-Out for a post-game burger, breezed on through the front doors and…what appeared to be the entire opposing team was already there, eating at the tables inside.

Cue the Grampa Simpson burlesque house gif. She 180’d directly back out, having zero desire to sit and eat amongst the team that had just squashed our extended tournament run. On her way back to their car, she looked at her mom and said, “I can’t believe they’re all eating hamburgers. They have a game in two hours. They’re going to lose.”

And, they did.

Following our crisp, error-free 2-1 game, that San Fernando Valley team then lost 9-6 to a team we had already beaten numerous times. So, the next time they begin rolling through tournament play, it’s likely that their coach will now have a hamburger story of her own to tell.

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

Broadly speaking, when we enter a collegiate weight room in the U.S. while a team is training, it is abundantly clear who the strength coach is. For the most part, this is how it should be—we should ensure our athletes adhere to the program we have written, that they perform these movements safely, and that they give great effort in the training session. The longer I spend in this profession, however, the more I’ve come to believe that the weight room should also be a place of culture development and safeguarding by the players themselves more than any coach.

I’ve come to believe that the weight room should also be a place of culture development and safeguarding by the players themselves more than any coach, says @SCoach_Aldo. Share on X

I am a 32-year-old Englishman who has played football (the real football) all my life: I have no college eligibility, every time I shoot a basketball it looks different, I never practice with the team, and I certainly never get any game time. The weight room should never be ME focused, it should be team focused. Accordingly, I want to give my guys the wheel, give them ownership of that space and their development, and be like a driving instructor sitting in the passenger seat ensuring they stay on the right track and are safe while doing so.

This is where autonomy in the weight room comes in for me—giving the athletes a say in their own development. My coaching style is democratic, not dictatorial: to get to where we want to go as a program—winning championships—the players MUST lead the way.

Simple Ways to Develop Autonomy

I have promoted autonomy with the team at various points in my career as an S&C coach in men’s basketball at Furman, incorporating it into my program through:

• Gameday lifts with the development group (low-minute guys) – “Do what will make you feel great for the game tonight.”
• Gameday lifts with the walk-ons – “Let me see you guys put together a body comp workout.”
• No set warm-up protocol in the time before a lift starts. Guys report 10 minutes before we start the session—autonomy here with stretching, foam rolling, bike, etc.
• Week of the conference tournament—whiteboard lifting options:
• “Choose your A1 and A2 exercises” – low reps (prescribed by me, specific to the exercise chosen).
• A1 – heels-elevated back/front squat, KB goblet squat, or trap bar deadlift.
• A2 – GHR, leg curl, or RDL.

This last example was an idea I got from Travis Knight at Gonzaga—arguably the best holistic development program in the country. He has really encouraged me to explore autonomy with my guys, and I am very grateful to him for that.

At the end of last season, I wanted to get a better idea of what the players valued about the weight room, how I could improve in my coaching provision for the team, and what their goals were for the upcoming off-season. So, at the end of April and start of May, I had player meetings with them all and asked them seven questions. For this article, I will just highlight the question that is relevant to this topic: What do you like doing in the weight room that you feel transfers best to on-court performance?

Here are a few of the answers:

• Prowler races: “Gives me confidence, feeling the pump in my legs and getting into my wind.”
• Cable woodchopper: “Love doing rotation work in here.”
• Power clean and hang clean.
• Chain Squats: “Feel bouncy afterward.”
• Prowler: “Competitive aspect.”
• Single leg work + SL power: “Quick burst off the ground.”
• Add a resistance band to all roller work to make it harder.
• Back squat: “Feel most springy.”
• Raptor conditioning: “Train conditioning more in the summer.”
• Medicine ball complex: “Conditioning and pump.”

My initial response was to think how cool it was that each athlete valued different things in the weight room. I certainly don’t want to become robotic with my programming, and I believe variety is important to optimally progress an athlete throughout an extended training period. Seeing the responses also made me reflect on how little I do of certain exercises, how some of these have been new concepts we’ve tried out, and how much value prowlers can have for development (and not just seen as a consequence for being late!).

Now that I’ve given you some background information, I want to share four specific ways I feel autonomy in the weight room can be a game-changer for your program:

1. Buy into training.
2. Weight room culture.
3. The weight room as a learning environment.
4. New training buckets.

1. Buy into Training

I just finished my third off-season with the Furman men’s basketball team, and we recently completed an intense, eight-week block of training during which I trained my guys in the weight room anywhere from 4-6 times each week. We had four mandatory lifting days: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, plus I was available for optional lifts on Wednesday and Saturday. In previous years, I would send the team a group text informing them when I would be around if they wanted to get some optional extra work in.

This summer I let the players come to me if they wanted to get some extra work in. I was curious to see who really WANTED to get extra work in rather than feeling they HAD to come. Share on X

This summer I did it differently—I didn’t send out the group text; instead, I took a step back and let the players come to me if they wanted to get some extra work in. I was curious to see who really wanted to get extra work in rather than feeling they had to come.

Below is a breakdown of the participation numbers for the optional lifts this summer. As you can see from the table, the numbers grew to the point at the end of the summer where I had 90% of the team lifting 5-6 times a week.

For the first few sessions, I told the guys to come in with an idea of what they wanted to focus on. The first few weeks, they had a conditioning improvement goal, which I programmed accordingly for them. After that, however, I had the whiteboard out there and asked them each to come up and write what they wanted to do that day.

It got to the point with these optional lifts where some guys saw the whiteboard and said, “Oh we got autonomy today. Sweet!”

The energy and intensity in the sessions were excellent, the guys were self-sufficient and attacked their sessions with focus, and I even jumped in on the Saturday sessions by doing an exercise from each of their individual sessions. The weight room became a place of development where they wanted to go and train, not a place they had to.

I feel there is a misconception with giving athletes autonomy and the thinking that they would just abuse that freedom and sit on a foam roller for 45 minutes. From my experience, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Take for example my “bigs” this summer: I had them on a high-volume 6-12-25 program for the last two weeks of the semester. Not one time during this method did they come in and “recover” for 30 minutes. Instead, they choose to train how they wanted to train: some did power cleans and box jumps, some did barbell squat jumps, some did DB bench and military press.

I can’t encourage you enough to give athletes a say in their own development. Let them write their own workout and see what they value, says @SCoach_Aldo. Share on X

I can’t encourage you enough to give athletes a say in their development. Let them write their own workout and see what they value. I guarantee, some will surprise you with the exercises they choose and what they see as being important to their own development.

Video 1. Athletes taking ownership of their development with exercises they’ve selected to perform in the weight room during off-season training.

2. Culture

Earlier, when I mentioned that this has been my third season with the team, I did so to highlight that I have trained these guys for a while and know what our team leadership looks like. We want the old to teach the new, and we want recruits coming here and feeling something different about our team. As much as I love coaching, if I can program a lift and let my older guys run it with the high standards and the deliberate improvement now mentality that I expect, then I am all for that. We seek to be a player-led program, and I take this development model seriously; as an extension of the coaching staff, I am a culture carrier and enforcer for my head coach.

These extra lifts are a great time for me to put this model of leadership to the test and let them run with it. From the outside looking in, one of these autonomy sessions would seem as if there is no coach in the room, with the players running it themselves and encouraging each other. Hear me out here. I am there in the room coaching up what I need to and ensuring safety at all times, but I am consciously taking steps back to let the guys own the room and take the wheel.

If we all want athletes who take ownership of their craft and are responsible for their development, we need to provide an environment where they can actually be exposed to building these qualities, where they can experience trial and error, and where they feel like they are the ones in charge. I want to use the weight room to expose them to this stimulus, to problem-solve, and to take charge of their strength and conditioning for a moment and show a deep care in their personal growth. Trust me, when you see the whole team in there getting after it through player-led leadership and not through your own means as a coach, that’s an incredible feeling.

Trust me, when you see the whole team in the weight room, getting after it through player-led leadership and not through your own means as a coach, that’s an incredible feeling, says @SCoach_Aldo. Share on X

Younger guys partnered up with older guys, different position groups did core work together, I let them choose the music they wanted. The older guys decided how long they would all train for (which was generally 25-40 minutes of work), and they called everyone in at their discretion. We had partnered raptor work, prowler races, guys wearing weight vests. I did all I could to encourage ownership of their development by creating an environment where they would enjoy being in the weight room.

As for the actual training sessions they wrote up and performed, our culture appeared strongly with this too, which was obviously pleasing to see. The guys didn’t come up and just write a ton of bi’s and tri’s (Muscle Beach)—they thought about what they wanted to do but also what they needed to do. My post players generally focused on more hypertrophy work while my guards did additional lower leg stiffness exercises and barbell/MB complex work. My freshman either joined in with older guys or asked can we keep doing what we’ve been doing? I presented them with some options, but it was always their choice what exercise they performed. They wrote it down on the whiteboard, and off they went to set up and get after it.

3. The Weight Room as a Learning Environment

When a student-athlete leaves college, my main aim is for them to at least be able to cook for themselves and know what a healthy diet looks like. Yes, I know I’m not a registered dietician, but please come work at the mid-major level as a strength coach and tell me you’re not leaned on for nutrition advice every day. On this same train of thought, I don’t expect them to be able to write out a six-week diet the same way I don’t expect them to be able to create a six-week training program. However, from a training perspective, I would love for them to have a baseline understanding ingrained in them of the importance of full range of motion and tempo when training.

The use of the whiteboard and the guys writing down their own programs has been a great learning experience for them. The wide array of questions when they physically have to write down and run their own session gives me a good picture of how well (or how poorly) I have taught them so far in their career. Questions such as:

• Can I do box jumps after my power cleans?
• How many reps do you think I should do on each?
• What goes well with lat pulldown?
• Should I do 20/40 on the bike?
• How can I make this exercise harder?

All of these questions were normally answered by a question from me, back to them, beginning with what do you think…?

It was interesting to hear their thoughts and push them cognitively to reflect on what we’ve done in the past. Some of our guys have gone on to play professional basketball in Europe: some of these teams had optional lifts with a local trainer, and some of them didn’t offer even that supervision. In order to best prepare our athletes to play at some pro level—or at the very least, to continue healthy habits of training and exercising after their college careers are done—the education piece of what we do as strength and conditioning professionals cannot be undervalued.

I want my athletes to see the weight room as a place of learning and development, a place where they can improve, get better at their sport, and be challenged physically and mentally every time they train. If they see it as a place of pain and a space where I try and break them off every session, then I have done something seriously wrong!

4. New Training Buckets

Another crucial element of giving athletes autonomy in the weight room is it reflects their desire to train in ways that perhaps I haven’t programmed for. In looking back at the list of exercises my guys felt best improved their on-court performance, one of my starters loves to do power cleans and other Olympic lifting derivatives. I’m not a fan of power cleans for power development with my athletes, and it’s never been a training method I like doing personally or with my teams. I wasn’t going to now give this player Olympic lifting derivatives four days a week in his A series; I did, however, make a note of this, and whenever the player came in for optional lifts and wanted to do power cleans and box jumps, I fully endorsed it and coached him up.

I was really encouraged by doing this, as the autonomy in these sessions gave the athletes variation in their programming from what they usually do. Some exercises were, of course, repeated in the program I had them on, but some weren’t, and it was cool to see them filling other training buckets with their choices.

Another example of this was the use of barbell and medicine ball complexes, combined with bike/ski machine/jump rope/rower/prowler to improve their conditioning. In my eyes, the summer strength and conditioning program is about growth and development; it’s about changing their bodies, and it definitely prioritizes strength. The pre-season period for me is about speed development and getting them conditioned to start full team practices, prioritizing the conditioning element more. So, to have guys want to do some weight room conditioning work was great, as again it filled a bucket that is required for high performance but isn’t emphasized as much in the June-July training period within my programming.

My final example is from my last Saturday lift with the team, when three of the guards decided they wanted to do a 1RM bench press to see what they could get up to. The team camaraderie at the end of that optional session was as good as any coach-led weight session we had all summer. The whole team was hyped and even jumped in for a rep or two themselves. Optional sessions don’t equal lazy sessions, optional sessions showcase where your strength and conditioning program is at, what the culture of it is, and whether your athletes want to push themselves because they want to improve or because a coach is making them push.

From Motivation to Action

Every strength and conditioning coach wants a healthy, high-performing team that wins championships, but the ways we all reach those end goals are different. Our training philosophies mixed with our personality and coaching style are so individual and unique—I thrive on the creativity of this job and having a blank canvas to choose what road I want to go down with all aspects of the role. The key is to listen to your athletes, to really listen, then guide them and take a step back to oversee what they are doing. Let them take the wheel in their development, let them use intrinsic—not extrinsic—motivation to guide their growth. Allow them to take ownership of optional training, then sit back and observe some high-level training sessions that you facilitated.

Guide your athletes to see the weight room as a place of development—a place that keeps them healthy and performing their best, says @SCoach_Aldo. Share on X

Guide your athletes to see the weight room as a place of development—a place that keeps them healthy and performing their best. They are at this level for a reason: they are physically gifted and they know their bodies better than we do, so find some sessions in your schedule to let them train how they want to train.

If I was presenting at a strength and conditioning seminar and asked the audience who likes always being told what to do?, would anyone raise their hand? Our athletes have the same perspective. My hope is that after reading this article, you experiment with at least one thing in your program centered on giving athletes autonomy in the weight room. Remember who is actually playing the sport—it isn’t us, it’s our athletes. We can all learn a lot from them if we give them an opportunity to show us.

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