Blog

How to Train Intermediate to Advanced Athletes

In the previous installments of this series on how we move our athletes through our athletic “blocking” system, I went in-depth on the process of both introducing new lifters to our Block 1 program and taking the next step to Block 2 (novice). I assume that if you are reading this article, you have already read the previous ones and are at least familiar with the “ins and outs” of the program we use and the reasons we use it.

Blocks 0–2 are the most difficult, but most imperative, ranges of development within our sports performance program. In fact, it would be perfectly feasible to stop at Block 2 of our program and run through it for the rest of the student-athlete’s time in your program. Our big “three” core movements for our Block 2’s are the hex bar deadlift, flat bench press, and front squat. Using our Tier 2 strength programming with these movements will continue to yield strength gains.

Our power-based programming would not include the full Olympic movements, but it would include variations such as pulls and loaded jumps. There are many successful programs that utilize variations only on those movements. Your athletes would continue to see positive adaptations from the programming as long as they stayed in the novice program. In fact, I’ve given advice that coincides with this statement many times when asked about programming. For a sport coach who must also program for their athletes and has a shortage of experience and/or time, this would be a perfect way to “keep it simple.”

A coach who has their athletes year-round and wants to take them to higher levels of development should use the Block 3 and 4 programs, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

For the coach who has their athletes year-round, particularly in a class setting, and is interested in taking them to higher levels of advancement and development, using Block 3 and Block 4 programs will allow those athletes to access a more “advanced placement” type of program. Just like a classroom teacher who has a class load that includes regular education and honors or AP level courses, the coach who chooses to go down this road will spend considerably more time and effort planning and implementing these levels.

Standards for Promotion to Block 3 ‘Advanced’ Level

We use the same chart for body weight to strength ratio promotion standards for promotion from Block 2 to Block 3 “Advanced” as outlined in my earlier piece for promoting from Block 1 “New Lifter” to Block 2 “Novice.” The differences in the charts are that the percentage of the combined goal must now reach 85% AND the back squat replaces the front squat as the movement that weighs in the total. As you can see, the body weight ratio goal increases with the movement change as well.

Block 2 Chart — Table 1. The Block 2 ratio chart we use to promote athletes from Block 1 “New Lifter” to Block 2 “Novice.”

Ratio Chart Back Squat — Table 2. Block 3’s ratio chart looks similar to Block 2’s at first glance, but the movement used changes from the front squat to the back squat and both the body weight ratio goal and the necessary combined goal percentage increase.

Take, for example, a large-framed athlete with a body weight of 200. His chart would look as follows:

Large Frame Chart — Table 3. The ratio chart for a large-framed athlete with a body weight of 200. Since he is well above the 85% threshold, we will promote him to Block 3 if he masters his movement.

This athlete is well above the 85% threshold. If his movement is also mastered, he will be promoted to Block 3. As a reminder, these numbers will be projected 1 rep max totals in lower blocks. In general (there have been individual exceptions), we do not 1RM test our athletes until the end of Block 2 (sophomore) in preparation for transition to Block 3. Until this point, we have projected their maxes off a “plus” set that we do at approximately 86% of their previously predicted 1RM for each of the three main movements. Once our athletes reach these standards, we graduate them to Block 3-Advanced and adjust programming to reflect the progression.

At this point, we also introduce our athletes to the use of our devices. Part of earning promotion to Novice is being awarded the privilege of going from a paper sheet with a workout on it to the use of CoachMePlus on a tablet. This is a step toward the gradual release of coach control to a student-athlete controlled learning model.

It is absolutely imperative that each athlete has mastered each level of our squat progressions BEFORE we even think about a 1RM back squat attempt. This is something that is a non-negotiable for me. While there aren’t many requests I would straight up refuse from a sport coach without a second thought, back squat 1RM testing is one I absolutely would. Rule No. 1 of our program is “do no harm.” The back squat 1RM of an underprepared student-athlete is a recipe for disaster that I have zero interest in being part of. I urge you to buy into the “slow cook” process and not let ego or lack of knowledge by a sport coach paint you into that corner.

While there aren’t many requests I would straight up refuse from a sport coach, back squat 1RM testing an underprepared athlete is one I absolutely would, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

One other area that our Block 3’s will see move up the progression chain is Olympic movements. Up to this point, they have used variations such as the clean pull, snatch pull, or some sort of loaded jump. The purpose of this is to, once again, “slow cook” the movement for the athlete’s benefit. For us, the point of these Tier 1 speed/power movements is power development. In order to utilize the maximum benefits in this area, the athlete must have a proficient mastery of technique to achieve full triple extension and proper foot placement, etc. Short pulls, lack of extension, “star fish feet,” and/or slow robotic movements must all be worked through before promotion.

The athlete does not have to be a great Olympic weightlifter, by any means. However, they must be able to express a level of proficiency. Our Block 3’s still use pulls and jumps week to week. They also begin to use hang power cleans, hang snatches, and a hang power cleans to front squat combo during this phase.

A Review of Programming

Here is a quick overview from the last installment. For greater detail, simply review the previous article.

Our program for all layers is a three-day-a-week split.

We use a modified tier system that features the traditional total: upper and lower daily splits that rotate once per week through a speed/dynamic Tier 1; total strength Tier 2; and volume acclimation Tier 3.

Tier 1: Olympic movements and variations, along with other lower intensity/higher velocity movements.

Tier 2: Features one of our three base strength movements or a variation (trap bar deadlift, squat, and bench press), an antagonist auxiliary movement, and a prehab/mobility movement.

Tier 3: Traditionally, this is a volume/hypertrophy tier. We do use this most of the time for that same programming. However, this is also a place where we work some additional Olympic/squat and/or pull variations, as dictated by our volume progression plan.

Our yearly plan is split into four-week cycles. We use a concurrent periodization plan and train equally for power, strength, and hypertrophy together.

We use volume as our priority way to overload. Intensity is a secondary factor and is not necessarily tied into volume, so both can be manipulated independently as needed.

A “heavy” or “light” day or week, when describing a microcycle or day within a microcycle, does not refer to the intensity range we will be lifting, but instead refers to the total volume count for reps 50% or over in one of our six “counting” movement families (squat, press, pull, clean, snatch, posterior chain).

I based our program on “The System” and what I learned about this program from coaches Johnny Parker and Tony Decker.

Bar speed is the king of transfer to sport from the weight room. We believe that using volume as our primary mode of forcing adaptation via overload is most effective in producing our desired outcome for our athletes.

Block 2 programming used volume periodization, except in our Tier 2 strength movements (see last article for details). Block 3 shifts to volume periodization for all movements going forward.

Block 3 athletes use a wave within the days of the week, based on a rotation of “heavy,” “moderate,” and “light” days. Also, the volume count breakdown now includes our hang snatch and snatch grip variations.

We divide our four-week mesocycle into weekly three-day microcycles. We set the total volume for each cycle based on a goal number (850–875 counting reps per month) that we want our elite athletes to reach by the last few cycles before their preseason. We then work backward, subtracting ~10% per cycle (with a regression cycle at the start of each new block) until we reach the number each block will start cycle 1-1 with. For Block 2 athletes, it is 520. They will climb ~10% each cycle until they reach approximately 725 total reps. Block 3 will regress back to a 630-rep monthly total and climb to the 850–875 mark before the preseason begins. Within the week, each day is also subdivided as follows:

4-Week Cycle — Table 4. This is an example of an average four-week volume cycle using a volume count of 630 as the base and heavy, big, moderate percentages to cycle.

H=Heavy; B=Big; M=Moderate; L=Light

Total volume count for Cycle 1 is 630.

During this period, we keep the intensity ranges moderate and climb each cycle by around 2% relative intensity. In Block 2, athletes spent most of their time in the 50–69% ranges, except for Tier 2 core movements. Our goal for Block 3 is for them to do most of their reps in the 70–85% range.

According to the Soviet research written about in “The System,” this is the “sweet spot” where bar speed and intensity come together at a velocity range that translates most effectively to sport. We increase the intensity slowly and cap our relative intensity for each individual movement at 2% per four-week cycle.

Using volume as periodization requires a very mathematical approach to programming. Within each day, week, and cycle, we give a percentage of volume to each of the six counting movements. We begin as follows:

Volume Periodization — Table 5. The use of volume as periodization requires a very mathematical approach to programming. We begin by assigning a percentage of volume to each of the six counting movements. You can adjust these percentages to reflect areas of need. *We use our Tier 3 auxiliary movements to reach our desired pull-to-push ratios.

You can adjust these ratios to reflect areas of need. For example, our bench press numbers lagged behind last year. Following our testing, I went into the next cycle’s spreadsheet and adjusted to add 3% more volume to our presses and simply took 1% off of three other areas to reflect the change.

Table 6 is the actual Cycle 1 sheet I use for programming Block 3. As you can see, I use formulas to ensure we hit the ranges we need. As I stated above, Block 2 athletes spent a lot of time in the “work capacity” range of 50–60% and built slowly through the “power” range of 61–69% (what we use) and a smaller amount of “strength” range 70+%, but rarely went over 85%. Block 3 athletes have progressed to the point where we don’t need as much training/work capacity range.

In this chart, the 50–59% range is only 44 total reps for the month, or 7%. Power is 27% and strength is 66%. Remember, we only count reps over 50%. We would consider any warm-up reps below that as training reps only.

Block 3 Formulas — Table 6. This is the Cycle 1 sheet I use to program Block 3. As you can see, I use formulas to ensure we hit the ranges we need.

As we move through the cycles of our yearly plan, we also adjust those numbers. First, by taking from work capacity and power to add greater volume in the strength zones. Then, as the preseason approaches, we begin to take from strength and add more volume to power.

The great thing about this type of programming is that it’s a mathematical process we can adjust to fit each philosophy and need, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

The great thing about programming this way is that it’s a mathematical process we can adjust to fit each philosophy and need. Squat numbers not on target? Adjust the volume. Athletes dragging? Adjust the volume. We can do the same with intensity ranges. If our cleans or snatches need work, it’s easy to regress relative intensity. You can easily make this program into whatever you, as the programmer, desire.

Here is an example of the Block 3 Advanced session from CoachMePlus:

TeamBuildr — Figure 1. An example of our Block 3 Advanced session from CoachMePlus. We don’t just advance to higher level movements, but also incorporate more triphasic movements into the programming.

In addition to the advancement to higher level movements, we also build more triphasic movements into our program. We usually have aspects of isometric and eccentric work built into our training, as seen above. Our yearly plan will reflect a cycle with an emphasis on isometric and another with an emphasis on eccentric. We also utilize a cycle of contrast training just before our testing in the spring for our Block 3 and 4 athletes.

Block 4

Of all our transitions, the one with the least amount of change in the day-to-day training session is moving from Block 3 to our Block 4 Elite level. This level is also the least populated of any we have. In general (a few exceptions aside), most athletes will be Block 2 as a sophomore and Block 3 as a junior. Block 4 is a little tougher to make the jump to because we consider it our “elite” standard. We have many seniors in our Block 3 who will finish their time with us at that standard.

First, we use the same body weight ratio chart as Block 3 (table 2 above), with 93% being the goal threshold. We also use the same volume progressions in both Block 3 and Block 4. Once an athlete has reached their ratio standard, they must show a higher level of proficiency in all movements than what we would expect from our Block 3’s. We really look for close to a mastery of movement, but more importantly, a standard of consistency in that movement.

For our Block 4 athletes, we really look for close to a mastery of movement, but more importantly, a standard of consistency in that movement, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

In general, our Block 4 athletes have great relative strength. Almost to the point where we say, “strong enough,” and we really don’t need that athlete to be any stronger to be great on the field. A great example is a linebacker/fullback we had last year who could full squat 585 pounds at 215 pounds of body weight, pushing almost 3x his body weight. Your coach’s eye can look at this player and say, “He is strong enough. It’s time to cut back the weight and add max velocity.”

One of the main aspects of our Block 4 programming is to actually begin to dial back the relative intensity. We look at the ratio goals of that athlete and reset his 1RM back to 100–105% of those goals. So, looking at our 215-pound linebacker with the 1RM back squat max of 585 pounds, we reset his max to 445. He then used this max as his working set, using our PUSH bands to measure meters per second and power output.

Our Block 4 athletes use velocity-based training for all their Tier 2 core movements. We shift those movements from volume as the primary consideration for progression to meters per second. We use the process I wrote about in this VBT article. Our goal for our Block 4 athletes is to increase bar speed and power output to their maximum levels. We convert our power output to reflect a body weight ratio that gives us an “output” leaderboard that gets the athletes competing. Table 7 below shows part of the spreadsheet we use to keep track of our Block 4 athlete power output records.

Output Leaderboard — Table 7. This is part of the spreadsheet we use to keep track of our Block 4 athlete power output records. We convert our power output to reflect a body weight ratio that gives us an “output” leaderboard that gets the athletes competing.

Table 8 shows the back squat workout records of the 215-pound linebacker I mentioned above. As you can see, he worked up to the max of 2 x 445 pounds (down from his actual 1RM of 585) on his fifth set and this let him know what adjustments to make on his sixth set. He hit three reps at above .5 m/s and dropped below his target range on his fourth rep, giving him an average set velocity of .46 m/s, just below the .5 goal for the session.

In my opinion, his fourth set was actually the set that was the most transferable to the sport. He hit 420 x 2 at .56 m/s, but he hit his peak power output as well. That’s the “trick” for our Block 4 athletes—adjusting the weight until we find that sweet spot in the range we are shooting for, combined with peak power output. Our experience has shown that this percentage is different for each individual. Using VBT is the only way to find it.

This is an example of Tier 2 programming for a Block 4 athlete. Tiers 1 and 3 would be basically identical.

TeamBuildr Block 4 — Figure 2. An example of Tier 2 programming for a Block 4 athlete.

At York Comprehensive High School, our program is built with the “slow cook” process as the base. While this can be frustrating for athletes and coaches who want to see results fast, it pays off when our athletes reach Block 3 and 4 at the same time that they also reach the varsity level. Our goal is NOT to create the strongest sophomores in the state. It’s to create the best-moving, most powerful and explosive athletes possible for our varsity teams. By mastering movement, moving fast, and moving strong—in that order—we hope to keep our athletes as healthy as possible and allow them to thrive as juniors and seniors.

Our goal is NOT to create the strongest sophomores in the state, but the best-moving, most powerful and explosive athletes possible for our varsity teams, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

I truly hope you enjoyed this series of articles and it was useful to you. It may seem like a complicated process, and, at times, it is for the coach. However, you will see that just as athletes use a movement progression to become proficient, each block builds on itself and makes a natural and simple transition for the athlete. I may have left some information out that you need. If so, please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or for any clarifications.

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

Deep Insight into Metabolic Strength and Repeated Speed

Blog| ByJohn Abbott

The ability to perform multiple repetitions of sprints or other high-intensity movements with limited rest intervals is paramount for field and court sport athletes. Successful repeated sprint performance is dependent on a balance of conflicting components of physical fitness, such as muscular strength/power and muscular-cardiovascular endurance.¹There is a requisite level of endurance capability to participate in field and court sports such as soccer, lacrosse, or hockey. However, to be successful in such sports, an athlete must be able to perform multiple bursts of high-intensity movements—primarily linear sprints, but also including change of direction, curvilinear sprints, and jump actions.

Common Measures of RSA

There are numerous repeated sprint ability (RSA) protocols, and they typically include:

5-15 repetitions;

5- to 15-second active duration;

10- to 30-second recovery; and

Maximal intensity effort with each trial.

Athletes typically are tested free running, on a treadmill, or on a cycle ergometer. In a practical session, the most common variables measured during running RSA include maximal velocity and/or distance covered. Instrumented cycle ergometers allow for the measurement of peak power output, mean power output, and rates of power development. Occasionally, physiological measures are also taken, such as heart rate and lactate, and respiratory responses are paired with biomechanical measures for intensity and possible changes in efficiency. If you look through the literature, you’ll find that every piece of testing equipment can be applied to RSA, though it can create an incoherent stack of data leading to paralysis by analysis.

RSA performance can be characterized by the amount of distance or work completed or by the amount of performance decline, such as fatigue index or percent decrement. Share on X

RSA performance can be characterized by the amount of distance or work completed or by the amount of performance decline, such as fatigue index or percent decrement. It is easy to start testing and throwing numbers into these equations, but you need caution and careful interpretation to deduce what these numbers mean. Would you rather an athlete who, after several sprints, is significantly slower than on their first sprint but remains higher than their cohort, or an athlete who maintains similar speeds throughout several sprints but is always slower than their cohort?

The above equations only give you half of the picture—fatigue; they lack the ability to provide insight on meaningful performance. Anaerobic power, highest/best, and power/velocity performed have been found to be the strongest predictor of repeat sprint ability when compared to VO₂ maximal velocity at the onset of blood lactate accumulation (a metabolic transitionary threshold associated with increased reliance on anaerobic metabolism), percent decrement, anaerobic capacity (mean velocity or power output), or peak lactate production². When you really dig into the literature, you will find that out of the several training studies available, none of them truly train maximal strength or evaluate applicable maximal strength test as a factor in RSA.

I directed my graduate research to maximal strength and RSA. I evaluated different physiological and biomechanical responses to 15 repeated sprints. The sprint-to-rest ratio was 10:30 seconds, and groups were based on allometrically scaled peak force from an isometric mid-thigh pull test—a test of maximal strength and rates of force development.

Relative Peak Cycling Power — Figure 1. Peak Power Scaled to Body Weight: Strong individuals, as discussed in the literature, have a greater initial sprint and fatigue index. Notice that strong individuals maintain a higher power output, regardless of body weight, through the entire duration of the test. A stronger athlete will be more powerful at the first whistle blow of the game and during the gruesome last minutes of the game. I’d rather have an athlete who fatigues at a greater rate but continues to outperform their teammates or competitors who fatigue at lesser rates.

The Ignored Measure for RSA – Strength

Most coaches and athletes I have met are hesitant to implement resistance training due to two main fears: 1) added body mass; and 2) increased rate of fatigue (fatigue index). There are multiple research studies that boast benefits from resistance training. However, most if not all of them target strength endurance (also associated with hypertrophic responses) and fail to consider the beneficial adaptations from maximal strength training. The benefits of maximal strength training for sprinting and endurance-based running are plentiful, though the gap in evidence for RSA fueled my research interest. Long story short, strong athletes compared to weak athletes of similar VO₂ peaks and training history produce/exhibit more advantageous results/responses.

Long story short, strong athletes compared to weak athletes of similar VO2 peaks and training history produce/exhibit more advantageous results/responses. Share on X

These responses include:

Absolute anaerobic power (cycling peak power)
- No statistical difference in fatigue index between strong and weak
Relative anaerobic power (cycling peak power)
- No statistical difference in fatigue index between strong and weak
Absolute anaerobic capacity (cycling mean power)
- No statistical difference in fatigue index between strong and weak
Relative anaerobic capacity (cycling mean power)
- No statistical difference in fatigue index between strong and weak
Muscle oxygen recovery and rate of recovery
Muscle oxygen usage and rate of usage

Rate Usage Rate Recovery — Figure 2. Muscle Oxygenation Usage and Recovery: Stronger people display more rapid muscle oxygenation usage and recovery rates. Muscle oxygenation usage is likely related to muscle activation and force production. Greater strength and RFD allow for the generation of greater magnitudes and rates of internal pressure during contractions, contributing to the decrease in muscle oxygenation. I believe stronger people who repeatedly expose themselves to this local anoxic environment adapt and develop more rapid rates of muscle oxygenation recovery.

muscle oxygenation seconds — Figure 3. Muscle Oxygenation During Repeated Sprints: Here are examples of a strong (left) and weak (right) individual performing 15 max effort cycle sprints with resistance set at 7.5% body weight. The increased usage and recovery of the strong individual allows for a consistent average level of oxygen throughout the test. The weak individual remains, on average, at a higher muscle oxygenation level, though they display a progressive decrease in oxygenation likely due to an imbalance in rates of usage versus recovery.

Train Slow Athletes to Repeat Slowness or Fast-Track Your Athletes for Success

Carl Valle discusses RSA and highlights effective testing and training methods for improving player performance rather than test performance. He hits the nail on the head when he states “… first you must be fast. How an athlete fatigues is only interesting if you plan to change something after you analyze the data.” I want to take the rest of the article to discuss some limitations of RSA, as well as how strength and resistance training can boost RSA. There is no doubt that strength and, more importantly, rates of force development (RFD) are limiting factors for maximal sprint performance.

The exact cause of fatigue during RSA remains elusive. The current belief is that fatigue develops due to a culmination of physiological factors, including:

Neural fatigue;

Depleted energy supply including alterations to the phosphocreatine adenosine triphosphate system (PCr-ATP), anaerobic glycolysis, and oxidative metabolism;

Metabolite accumulation; and

Muscle excitation¹.

Improving anaerobic power would be most influential on optimizing RSA. Anaerobic power is augmented by improving the ability to produce work rapidly.³ Work is related to force production; therefore, increasing force production should increase anaerobic power. This is clear when appreciating jump performance as a measure of anaerobic power. Stronger athletes produce greater power than weaker counterparts in weighted and non-weighted jump testing.^4,5

It is best to improve strength in an athlete through a logically organized and sequenced training plan. An ideal plan will be all-encompassing and synergistic and include appropriate stimulus for adaptation (resistance training, conditioning, skill practice); appropriate means to assess progress (monitoring systems); and planned rest-recovery phases, psychological reinforcement, daily nutrition, supplements, sleep, etc.⁶

Dealing with Fuel Depletion and Metabolic Acidosis

Repeat sprinting is an extreme metabolic stressor. This is repeatedly demonstrated by extended exposure to high levels of metabolic acidosis associated with elevated lactate levels, low levels of local oxygen availability, and, in response, high levels of ventilation. A major purpose of repeat high-intensity running drills is to expose athletes to metabolic stimuli that drive adaptations, such as increased buffering capacity, as well as increased PCr and glycogen storage⁷.

The long-lasting fatigue, deformation of optimized technique, and potential for injury from repeat high-intensity running drills do not outweigh the benefits they may provide. Share on X

Typically, exercises associated with these adaptations include, but are not limited to, repeated sprints, stair running, sled drags, and prowler pushes. The long-lasting fatigue, deformation of optimized technique, and potential for injury from these exercises do not outweigh the benefits they may provide. My approach to eliciting these same adaptations includes surgical-like precision in planning and execution.

You can use programming tactics to achieve adaptations while maintaining other traits with a fluctuation of concentrated and retaining loads—for example, seamless sequential integration⁸. These paradigms include logically sequenced concentrated loads that potentiate one another, with varying emphasis on desired qualities. Periods of general preparation, where training specificity is relatively low and usually accompanied by lower running volumes, typically include larger training volumes in the weight room. These larger training volumes have two major purposes: 1) accumulating training volume and work capacity (training to train); and 2) potentiating gains in strength and power during later blocks.

This phase is commonly associated with larger rep/set ranges at lower intensities (in comparison to 1 repetition maximums); for example, three sets of 10 repetitions of full range-of-motion complex lifts, such as the barbell back squat. High-volume resistance training has been linked to increased power output and repeat sprint ability. Along the same lines, there are strong correlations (that grew stronger) between maximal strength (1RM) and cycling peak power, average power of 15 rides, and average accomplished work over 15 rides (figure 3). What does this mean? Stronger athletes will be more valuable and do more for your team throughout a game, season, and quadrennial as you seek out championships.

If you have novice athletes with little to no training history, you can help foster the longevity of their career by boosting their strength, buffering capabilities, and overall endurance in the weight room. Why would you do this? Providing the athlete with a basic level of strength, work capacity, and body awareness that is adopted through resistance training will reap larger benefits when performing skill development drills. Too often, skill development drills lose their purpose when athletes are: 1) unable to maintain the intensity required and the drill regresses to a conditioning drill; and 2) unable to maintain the positions or posture required to further develop a skill such as sprinting.

Increases in work capacity can include alterations in metabolic efficiency. Following a 12-week plan of resistance training (three days per week, 3×10, bench press, hip flexor knee extension, knee flexion, push-up, leg press, lat pulldown, arm curl, parallel squat, and sit-up) elicited a 12% increase in lactate threshold⁹. Furthermore, a 10-week resistance training program targeting leg and hip strength improved maximal strength (20%–38%) and increased time until exhaustion of a cycle ergometer test. Continuing high-volume resistance training increased power output and repeat sprint ability.¹⁰

Resistance Training and Neural Adaptations

Most studies that evaluate the effects of resistance training on RSA utilize relatively light loading and high-volume schemes that primarily elicit metabolic adaptations^11,12. These training methods were found to increase RSA primarily through metabolic alterations. These improvements are valuable, though they are only a drop in the bucket of potential gains. When resistance training is programmed as an additive metabolic conditioning stimulus—aka larger set/repetition schemes combined with minimized rest intervals—minimal strength gains will be observed.

As we challenge our body to learn new skills, our brain undergoes biochemical processes to alter the number and type of motor units activated, the synchrony of recruitment, and the rate coding. Share on X

Untrained or weak individuals will more rapidly exhibit gains in strength and power due to neurological adaptations. Neural adaptations are vital to develop, as they are directly influential to force generation. As we challenge our body to learn new skills, such as producing force, our brain undergoes biochemical processes to alter the number and type of motor units activated, the synchrony of recruitment, and the rate coding (the frequency of motor unit activation).

A motor unit is simply a single nerve and all the muscle fibers that it innervates. A whole muscle is comprised of hundreds to thousands of motor units. While that seems simple, there is a complex interaction that occurs between motor unit recruitment and inhibition that allows for movement to occur. Resistance training by repeatedly exposing an athlete to concentrated loads can alter the efficiency of these recruitment strategies.

Henneman’s size principle describes how motor unit recruitment is dependent upon force production. You may be familiar with the spectrum of muscle fiber types, from slow (type I) through fast (type IIx). These different muscle fiber types require different levels of activation in order to contract.

For instance, type IIx has the highest threshold for recruitment, making it the most difficult to activate. The task demand creates high force outputs that best recruit type II muscle fibers. Using maximal strength training will create an opportunity to expose an athlete to a force production overload that they would not otherwise see in training. With concentrated training loads, this training will elicit adaptations that allow for easier activation of these units, such as modifications to the motor-endplate receptor density, quanta of neurotransmitter stored, and efficiency of neurotransmitter release and reuptake.

Neurological efficiency is also gained by enhancing the peripheral neural network to promote intramuscular coordination and intermuscular coordination. Initially, strength gains within a muscle occur by increasing the number of motor units (muscle fibers) recruited. Trained individuals can further improve their intramuscular coordination by increasing synchronization of motor unit activation.

Strength training has been found to increase motor unit synchronization, which increases rates of force development and, therefore, contraction efficiency. Intermuscular coordination—the interaction between primary muscles, synergistic muscles, and antagonistic muscle groups—also improves with resistance training. The brain coordinates multiple groups of muscles to accomplish a task, thus increasing the synchronization of activation between prime movers, which will boost peak force and, more importantly, RFD and economy.

Antagonistic muscle groups resist the forces of a movement. This means that the force required to complete a task is increased if the antagonistic muscles remain active. Following the trend of this paper, resistance training can lead to beneficial adaptations. The concept of further reducing antagonistic input thought training will allow for greater contraction velocities and performance¹³.

The above-mentioned training effects from improving strength—in particular, maximal strength—lead to enhanced work capacity, buffering properties, and neural control, which are thought to increase repetitive maximal or near maximal power output. It is nearly impossible to replicate the stimuli that are imposed during resistance training without the use of resistance training. I highlighted work capacity and maximal strength adaptations from resistance training; however, the two concentrated loads used to elicit these adaptations are contradictory if completed simultaneously.

For optimal preparedness during the most important time of the season, you should plan a logical sequence of phases with complementary concentrated loads that potentiate one another. Share on X

A logical sequence of phases should be planned with complementary concentrated loads that potentiate one another, leading to optimal preparedness during the most important time of the season. For a field or court sport, this may include:

General Preparation Phase:
- Non-Sport-Specific:
  - Reduced running volumes
  - Increased resistance training volumes
  - Less resistance training intensity
- Goals:
  - Reduced impactful collisions (with other players or the ground)
  - Post season recovery
  - Muscular biochemical adaptations (glycogen storage, buffering capacity, aerobic and anaerobic enzyme activity)
  - Muscular architectural adaptions (increased CSA and pennation angles)
- Special Preparation (Transmutation):
  - Increased sport-specific volume (running)
  - Reduced resistance training volume (approximately three sets of five reps)
  - Increased resistance training intensity
  - Goals:
    - Transfer weight room work capacity on the field or court and augment with running volume
    - Develop basic strength-related qualities
    - Overload neural drive
  - Competition Phase
    - Primarily sport-specific volume
    - Approaching maximal resistance training intensity
    - Further reducing resistance training volume
    - Goals:
      - Develop maximal strength
      - Develop maximal power
      - Increase preparedness (fitness-fatigue model)
      - WIN

References

1. Girard, O., Mendez-Villanueva A., and Bishop, D. “Repeated-sprint ability – Part I: Factors contributing to fatigue.” Sports Medicine. 2011;41(8):673-694.

2. da Silva, J. F., Guglielmo, L. G., and Bishop, D. “Relationship between different measures of aerobic fitness and repeated-sprint ability in elite soccer players.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2010;24(8):2115-2121.

3. Cometti, G., Maffiuletti, N., Pousson, M., Chatard, J.-C., and Maffulli, N. “Isokinetic strength and anaerobic power of elite, subelite and amateur French soccer players.” International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2001;22(1):45-51.

4. Beckham, G., Suchomel, T., Sole, C., et al. “Influence of Sex and Maximum Strength on Reactive Strength Index-Modified.” Journal of Sports Science & Medicine. 2019;18:65-72.

5. Kraska, J. M., Ramsey, M. W., Haff, G. G., et al. “Relationship between strength characteristics and unweighted and weighted vertical jump height.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2009;4(4):461. doi:10.1123/ijspp.4.4.461

6. DeWeese, B. H., Hornsby, G., Stone, M., and Stone, M. H. “The training process: Planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects.” Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2015;4(4),308-317. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.07.003

7. Haff, G. G. and Triplett, N. T. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, 4th edition. Human Kinetics, Inc. 2015.

8. Wagle, J. P., Bingham, G. E., DeBusk, C. A., Lee, A. D., and DeWeese, B. H. “Seamless Sequential Integration as a Comprehensive Means of Advanced Athlete Preparation: A Case Study. Coaches College Conference, 2016.

9. Marcinik, J. E., Potts, F. J., Schlabach, F. G., Will, F. S., Dawson, F. P., and Hurley, F. B. “Effects of strength training on lactate threshold and endurance performance.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1997;23(6):739-743. doi:10.1249/00005768-199106000-00014

10. Robinson, M. J., Stone, H. M., Johnson, L. R., Penland, M. C., Warren, J. B., & Lewis, D. R. “Effects of Different Weight Training Exercise/Rest Intervals on Strength, Power, and High Intensity Exercise Endurance.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 1995;9(4): 216-221. doi:10.1519/00124278-199511000-00002

11. Edge, J., Hill-Haas, S., Goodman, C., and Bishop, D. “Effects of resistance training on H+ regulation, buffer capacity, and repeated sprints.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2006;38(11),2004-2011.

12. Hill-Haas, S., Bishop, D., Dawson, B., Goodman, C., and Edge, J. “Effects of rest interval during high-repetition resistance training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2007;25(6):619-628.

13. Geertsen, S. S., Lundbye-Jensen, J., and Nielsen, J. B. “Increased central facilitation of antagonist reciprocal inhibition at the onset of dorsiflexion following explosive strength training.” Journal of Applied Physiology. 2008;105(3):915-922.

How to Manipulate “The Big 3” Lifts for Your “Bigs”

Blog| ByJustin Ochoa

The first rule of strength and conditioning is “Do no harm.” A very close second rule would be “One size fits NO ONE.” This basically means if you attempt to employ a one-size-fits-all model, usually no one will benefit from it.

Taking a cookie-cutter approach to training is actually called exercising. In exercising, activity is the goal. Anything counts.

A cookie-cutter approach to training is actually called exercising. In exercising, activity is the goal. In training, our goals are individual-specific adaptations, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

In training, our goals are individual-specific adaptations to help the athlete physically and mentally prepare for the demands of their sport. Exercising will usually leave your athletes’ results up to pure chance, while training is a more calculated and monitored approach. No matter what setting you coach in, team or private, some level of individualization is non-negotiable. This is especially true when training tall athletes, such as “bigs” in basketball, middle blockers in volleyball, pitchers in baseball, and other “bigs” who are simply long-limbed compared to their peers.

Building Our Athletes

As coaches, we often talk about “building” our athletes. When it comes to building things, it’s vital to have the right tool for the job. If you need to use a screw, the right tool for the job would be the proper screwdriver. You could just use a hammer and end the job quickly, but would the long-term result be the same? The goal is not to finish the job but to do the job correctly.

The same thing goes for coaching. Athletes need to train several movement patterns and skills specific to them in order to achieve the adaptations we’re looking for from the program. So if we know we need them to improve lower body strength, that is the screw. What tool will we use? That is the exercise selection.

I know this is a blog for SimpliFaster, not HGTV, but let’s stick with this tool analogy. We know a squat will improve lower body strength. Boom. The job is done, right? Not so fast… What kind of squat will work best for that athlete? There are several types of screws that fit uniquely with several types of screwdrivers. You can fasten a Phillips screw with a flathead screwdriver, but it will damage the screw and probably take much longer than if you use a Phillips head screwdriver.

Okay, now let’s leave Home Depot and go back to the weight room.

When it comes to the popular “Big 3” lifts—squat, bench, deadlift—the unfortunate truth is that many athletes are simply not good candidates for those particular lifts. This is especially true for big and tall athletes.

Tall athletes, long-limbed athletes, and those with odd lever lengths may require some slight modifications to perform these lifts with a lower risk for error and injury. That’s not to say that tall athletes need to select totally different exercises, but rather find a way to make these lifts fit them better. Simple tweaks like a deadlift from blocks, bench pressing to a board, or squatting on a slant board can help your taller athletes perform lifts at a higher level without risk of compensation or pain.

Simple tweaks like a deadlift from blocks or bench pressing to a board can help your taller athletes perform lifts at a higher level without risk of compensation or pain, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Find the right tool for the job. Remember, the goal of training is to TRAIN. And train hard; don’t constantly take things away from the training menu.

Principles vs. Methods

A paradigm shift that may help coaches find the right tool for the job is to evaluate the relationship of principles and methods as it connects to training. You’ve got thousands of methods to choose from, but only a handful of solid foundational principles.

For example, in a deadlift there are some things we absolutely know we do not want to occur. We don’t want to see excessive lumbar ranges of motion. We don’t want to see athletes jerking the weight off the floor. We do want to see lats, glutes, and hamstrings loaded and engaged. We want to see a neutral spine throughout the lift. We want to see a hip-dominant movement, not a knee-dominant movement.

Knowing the principles that you’re looking for actually unlocks the plethora of methods that you could potentially employ for any given athlete. In the case of tall athletes, their methods often need to be altered to be able to hold these principles intact. An easy example is a chin-up—I love chin-ups and wish I could have all of my athletes do them. But my 7-foot tall basketball players simply can’t do them because of equipment limitations. Most squat racks with chin-up bars and/or stand-alone chin-up bars are simply not tall enough to support the long limbs of a 7-footer.

One of the principles of a chin-up is to get full range of motion, which includes lowering yourself down to full arm extension. Another principle is that the athlete’s legs should be extended with ankles in dorsiflexion to hollow out the anterior core. Athletes who are 6’6” and above will have some trouble doing that on normal-sized equipment, as their feet will hit the ground before they can reach full arm extension. So, throw that method out. Go back to the principles of a vertical pulling exercise. Ask yourself what you want to have the athlete achieve with a chin-up, then find a way to accomplish that.

This is the easiest example because it’s an equipment limitation. But what happens when the athlete has a range of motion, strength, or pain threshold limitation? Below are some of the most common obstacles for big athletes while doing the “Big 3” lifts, examined with some of the root causes and simple solutions.

Back Squat

Often labeled “The King of Exercises,” the barbell back squat is a dominant choice for strengthening the lower body. It’s a main lift in most programming, especially in team settings where it can be more difficult to individualize programming.

For tall athletes, one of the major issues I’ve noticed is accomplishing good squat depth without compensation or pain—that’s a long way down for some of these athletes. And, especially for more experienced athletes who have spent a long time in sports that feature partial ranges, it may be even more foreign for them to sit deep into a squat.

For example, a basketball player who has played years upon years of basketball has spent a lot of time in basketball-specific positions. We see a lot of jumps from quarter squat (or higher) depth, a lot of wide-stance quarter-depth squats on defense, and a lot of landing and takeoffs from a single leg. Mastering these partial ranges is what makes these athletes so good at the sport, so filling the gaps in the weight room with full ranges of motion may not always come easy; however, it will leave a lasting impact on their long-term health and development.

As simple as it sounds, I want my athletes’ squats to look like squats and their hinges to look like hinges. Tall athletes often tend to hinge their squats. On squat days at the gym, you’ll hear me repetitively yelling the overly simplified coaching cue, “Let’s bend the knees today!”

It’s silly, but it’s true.

The tall athlete’s go-to compensation is to try to counterbalance their lack of knee flexion with an increase of lumbar extension. This helps the athlete feel more upright or feel like they’re getting lower, but puts the stress in the wrong areas of the body.

Video 1. Athlete performing two kettlebell front squat in learning progression for the lift.

Another common mistake is just the opposite. The athlete will fold over and lose all pillar integrity during the squat, allowing their torso to fall forward and their spine to round.

The root cause here is that knee flexion is being limited somehow. It’s our job to find out how and then correct it. Athletes often cite knee pain or tenderness as a reason for their lack of ROM. Any time an athlete is in discomfort or lacks the movement quality needed for an exercise, it’s a good idea to not only assess that region of the body, but also look at the joints that surround it.

The knee is between the ankle and the hip, so either of those two joints could also be a part of the problem and solution. Whether a lack of ankle range of motion or a lack of hip stability, it all comes down to the athlete’s inability to control their center of mass during their squat.

One of the most beneficial solutions to the tall athlete’s inability to control their COM during the squat is to start from the ground up and introduce a slant board, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Joint assessments aside, one of the most beneficial solutions to this is to start from the ground up and introduce a slant board for tall athletes to squat on. This will help the athletes access more knee range of motion, especially if their ankle was the limiting factor to begin with. In turn, athletes will be able to achieve a better squat and then gain more strength and stability, which often leads to a reduction of aches and pains during training.

Terminology update: You may call it a slant board, some call it a heel lift, others call it a squat wedge. Whatever you call it, it’s a great tool for taller athletes!

Video 2. Example of front squatting with a slant board. Here, the athlete is returning from a knee dislocation.

It is extremely important to actually invest in a slant board. Elevating the heels with small weight plates is often mistaken as an equal alternative, but it’s not the same. A slant board places the ankle in a slightly dorsiflexed position and allows the athlete’s entire foot to be on the same surface. This helps athletes produce force as if it were on the ground while still adding the benefits at the ankle joint.

Elevating heels on plates places the ankle in a similar position, but the ball of the foot is on the ground while the heel of the foot is on the plate—a completely different surface—and the mid-foot floats in thin air between the two. This does not allow for optimal usage of the athlete’s whole foot during the squat. There are several “leaks” with this setup.

Any squat variation is perfectly compatible with a slant board, from bilateral to unilateral options, but the goal is to eventually train without it. Use it to help athletes strengthen their weaknesses and move to squat variations that don’t require them to constantly use lifting aids.

Bench Press

The bench press is a lift that many coaches love to demonize and push athletes away from. It’s bad for your shoulders. It’s not sport-specific. It’s not athletic.

The way I see it, any lift can be bad for athletes if repeatedly done incorrectly or misused. If a bench press checks the boxes you’re looking for, go for it. If you have a tall athlete who struggles to meet the principles of a bench press, there are plenty of helpful options that can assist them.

If you have a tall athlete who struggles to meet the principles of a bench press, there are plenty of helpful options that can assist them, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

One of the biggest roadblocks for long-armed athletes while benching is constantly being stricken with shoulder pain. This pain can often be pinpointed to an anterior humeral glide during the bottom portion of the bench press.

Anterior humeral glide occurs frequently on pushing and pulling exercises where the athlete lacks control and retraction of their shoulder blades. In a bench press, this happens at the bottom phase of the lift. The humerus actually slides forward in relation to the shoulder socket, rather than staying centered. This forward motion of the top of the humerus can irritate the shoulder structures, but it can most commonly cause tendonitis of the biceps tendon that attaches in that joint.

Anterior Humerol Glide — Image 1. Example of anterior humeral glide and proper joint positioning versus poor joint positioning in the bench press.

Even for athletes with great technique, their structures may win in the end. Some athletes’ arms are so long, they literally cannot lower the bar fully to their chest without shifting the humerus forward to get that deep.

In these cases, we just raise the level of the chest by adding a board(s) or a block(s) to the lift. By finding the point of the eccentric phase where the compensation occurs, we can use those tools to elevate the end point of that lift and allow athletes to bench press compensation-free.

Video 3. Bench pressing with a block to raise the chest level in the lift.

In most cases, all we end up doing is taking out excess range of motion for the athlete, so the focus remains on the proper muscle groups. If we take away too much range of motion, it becomes triceps dominant rather than chest dominant, and in those rare cases, you may want to completely scrap the barbell and use dumbbells instead.

Again, you don’t have to bench press. You can floor press with a barbell or dumbbells. You can perform loaded push-ups. You can perform cable chest work. There is no shortage of pressing variations. But I know a ton of athletes who absolutely love to bench press. Motivation and enjoyment are a huge piece of training, so if you can safely keep a fan-favorite exercise in the mix, that’s always a good thing.

Deadlift

Last, but definitely not least, comes the deadlift—one of the biggest bang-for-your-buck exercises in a coaching toolbox. The question is, which kind of deadlift?

Deadlifts are to training as shrimp are to Bubba (you know, Forrest Gump’s dear friend).

You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it… [There’s] shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There’s pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich.

There are so many ways to deadlift. Different bars, different stances, different ranges of motion, different speeds, etc. As always, the key is to find what fits your tall athletes the best.

There are so many ways to deadlift. Different bars, stances, ranges of motion, speeds, etc. As always, the key is to find what fits your tall athletes the best, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

The word “tall” is simply an umbrella term for someone who is, well, tall. But there are different kinds of tall. Two people can be the same height, but have two completely opposite structures. One is all legs with a short torso, the other could be more proportionate. Those two people may need to lift differently, whether height is an issue or not.

Limb Lengths — Image 2. These two athletes are the same height, but notice their vastly different structures.

When it comes to the deadlift and taller athletes, back pain is a big complaint that coaches usually hear. One of the biggest causes of low back pain during a deadlift is simply using an improper setup for the athlete. Actually, this can be true for any athlete of any size.

When athletes are too long or can’t get wedged into a good deadlift position, the main compensation we see is loading the quads more than the hamstrings. Because of their long legs and arms, some athletes are forced into a squatty deadlift, which actually puts an immense amount of stress in the lumbar spine.

Picture an athlete in this squatty deadlift start position. Their knees are deeply bent, hips are low, torso is upright, and they begin their initial pull. The first thing that usually happens is the bar goes nowhere on the initial pull, but the hips raise up. This results in a loss of lat tension, hamstring tension, and possibly core engagement. Then, the bar finally starts to come off the floor, but the levers being used are more low back dominant than hamstring and glutes.

Video 4. Example of the hips shooting up while performing a deadlift.

Repetitively doing this will probably start to irritate the low back. Worst case scenario, the athlete may experience disc herniations and all of the complications that could come from that. Best case scenario, they adapt and overly develop their spinal erectors and QL’s, which also has its pros and cons.

For your big athletes, Romanian deadlift variations can take over as the go-to “deadlift” exercise. I recently wrote about why we use the single leg RDL as a main lift and all of the benefits we’ve seen since doing so. Although a deadlift and Romanian deadlift share a common word, they are actually not directly related. Cousins, maybe. But not siblings.

The RDL is a top-down movement. The deadlift is a ground-up movement. One is more eccentric in nature, the other focused more on concentric strength. There is still a great benefit from an actual deadlift due to the extreme amounts of concentric strength athletes can build.

If the deadlift fits your program better than an RDL, you can use the same approach as the bench press by elevating the floor. Using boxes, blocks or plates or even a snatch grip, you can help elevate the height of the bar to fit your tall athlete’s optimal deadlift position. This will allow them to truly hinge at the hips and get the proper pulling position to be able to load the hamstrings and glutes more than the quads and lower back.

Another great tool to introduce would be a trap bar, because it comes built-in with high & low handle heights and could help the tall athlete find their perfect setup, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Another great tool to introduce would be a trap bar, because it comes built-in with high and low handle heights and could help the athlete find their perfect setup. The downside is that the trap bar is naturally kind of a hybrid deadlift, kind of a middle ground between posterior and anterior chain dominance. That turns a lot of coaches away from using the trap bar, but I’ve found that it’s a great option with no major drawbacks.

Video 5. Tall athlete performing a trap bar deadlift using bumper plates to raise the floor.

Training Your “Bigs”

I’ve been extremely lucky to work with some incredible—and tall—athletes over the years. A lot of what I’ve talked about in this article was the result of trial and error, plus strong communication with the athletes. I love to get their feedback and learn how I can better serve them, straight from the source. After so many conversations, you really start to notice trends among this unique population.

The most prominent and fulfilling feedback I’ve received regarding some of these modifications is the noticeable reduction of pain. Many athletes simply don’t know or forget what it feels like to feel good. Helping them get back on track and move the needle in the right direction is one of the most important things we can do for our athletes.

The domino effect from this is the real deal. When athletes feel better, they perform better. We often get hung up on the shiny objects of training. I want my athlete’s RSI to go up, I want their vertical jump to increase, I want their 40 time to get faster. We use force plates to measure this, we use VBT to track that, and so on and so forth. But we often overlook the low-hanging fruit, which is health drives performance. Sometimes, all of those things will naturally happen simply because the athlete feels better.

The “Big 3” lifts are called that for a reason. They are big, compound lifts that yield great results for athletes, from beginner to pro. They are also extremely scalable and great for use in team or large group settings. The squat pattern, upper body pressing pattern, and hip hinge pattern are irreplaceable. Their benefits build the foundation not only for weight room performance, but also athletic performance and in-game strength.

Remember: We need to find the right tool. If one of these major lifts isn’t the right tool, we can mimic the movement pattern in another lift that may be a better fit, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

With that being said, remember we need to find the right tool. If one of these major lifts isn’t the right tool, we can mimic the movement pattern in another lift that may be a better fit. After all, that is what coaching is all about: problem solving, communicating, and finding ways to empower our athletes by any means. When it comes to working with tall athletes with limitations on the Big 3 lifts, these small tweaks have delivered big results.

Task Decomposition & Simplification: ALTIS “Need for Speed” (Excerpt)

ALTIS, Blog| ByALTIS

What is speed? Why is speed important? And how do we develop speed?

Each of these questions serve as titles to the three ‘books’ that make up the ALTIS Need for Speed Course.

The excerpt below—taken from the middle of Book III: How Do We Develop Speed?—is directly preceded by a thought experiment.

Suppose you are the newly appointed S&C coach for a collegiate group of American football players and the Head Coach has tasked you with improving the speed of the team. After reviewing some film and speaking with various staff members and key athletes, you determine your focus will be on sprint mechanics and maximal sprint speed.

You have 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks prior to football activities—what do you do? How do you organize your training sessions?

How Do We Develop Speed (Excerpt)

When it comes to facilitating the process of skill acquisition in sports, there are two primary approaches: from a systems-perspective, one can be thought of as ‘system-oriented,’ and the other is ‘parts-oriented’ (Figure 1, below).

System Part Approach — Figure 1. In a system-oriented approach, the coach designs the training session in a way such that skill emerges from the interactions of the athlete, task, and environment. A parts-oriented approach removes the function and interactions of the system, and attempts to affect the technique in an isolated way, with the assumption it will be embedded back into the system in a productive way.

The extreme end of the system-oriented approach is analogous to throwing your young child in at the deep end of a pool filled with a bunch of piranhas, and expecting her to swim. All learning at this end of the pool comes from performing the skill in full context all the time. At the other end of the pool, (and on the other side of a barrier, so no fish can get past) is the parts-approach, where learning is assumed to develop from first separating each part from the whole, and then plugging them back in once they have been mastered in isolation.

“He scores great goals in practice, but always seems to panic when presented with goal-scoring opportunities in the game”

“She plays great against the lesser teams, but always seems to fall apart against stronger teams”

“He’s the fastest player, but never seems to run fast with pads and carrying the ball”

While we can all point to numerous examples like the above, we may have different rationale as to why they may occur. Often, the player’s ‘mentality’ is blamed—i.e., they are ‘mentally weak.’ But more often, it is probably that the player has not stabilized their patterns of movement in complex environments; the increased information leads them to perform in less than optimal ways.

Simply—there are too many piranhas in the pool.

Consider Jamaican sprinter Asafa Powell. Asafa has run the most sub-10 second 100m runs of all time (97 at the time of writing). He has been seemingly poised to win multiple global titles, but—despite often dominating smaller competitions—he was never able to appropriately manage the increased ‘information‘ that comes with international competitions, and instead has no individual Olympic medals, and only two from the World Championships.

In the relatively controlled world of track & field, this information really only manifests itself in greater levels of arousal from higher standards of competitors, bigger stadiums and crowds, more pressurized competition, etc. (additionally—especially in the jumping events—different weather conditions can be challenging, particularly for athletes who train predominantly indoors).

In team sport, on the other hand, this information is literally everywhere. It includes not only the increased arousal level from playing the actual game, but also team tactics, individual tactics and responsibilities, and the continuous, complex interactions with teammates and opponents.

So what can coaches do to increase the likelihood that athletes can manage the increasing magnitude and significance of information that occurs in the game?

We probably don’t just throw them in the deep end, and ask them to “figure it out,” right? And we probably don’t only perform repeated drills, under the assumption they will magically improve game-play, either.

Obviously, the truth exists somewhere in the middle: the appropriate removal of some amount of complexity from the skill in context so that the athlete is not overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information—but not too much such that it no longer represents the game in any significant way.

There are two general approaches to deciding how to remove complexity to aid in the learning objective:

Decomposition
Simplification

Before moving forward into this next section, please note that we are discussing motor learning, specifically. While related—and even somewhat intertwined—the organization of primary motor abilities (speed, strength, endurance, etc.) does not necessarily adhere to this distinction.

Decomposition

Simply put, task decomposition involves breaking a movement down into its component parts, training each part separately, and then reintroducing it into the whole movement under the assumption that it will improve the primary task.

This approach to learning is often called the ‘part-whole’ method, and generally includes the removal of, or reduction in, the amount of perceptual information—in many cases completely ‘decoupling’ perception from action.

Popular examples in sport include hitting a baseball off a tee, catching a football from a passing machine, and performing sprint drills.

Intuitively, this method makes a lot of sense and, in practice, coaches and athletes are often inspired by the process, and encouraged by the outcome: training the parts in isolation can lead to significant improvements in the execution of the part that is trained. A football player might, for example, break the sprinting skill down into its parts, and spend 10 minutes performing wall drills. Because of the relative simplicity of the task, it can be ‘perfected’ very quickly. This process of improvement encourages the player, and confirms the biases of the coach—as he observes the improvement in real time.

The player feels good about himself—confident in the task, and—even though there might be multiple generations between the part and the whole—he can see and feel the ‘connection’ to the extent that he can convince himself of the direct equivalence to the game task.

An outside observer might be impressed by this process: it is structured, it is ‘clean’, and he can observe clear improvement. The observer might consider this to be ‘good coaching.’

But he’d be wrong.

The problem is that learning should not look, or feel ‘clean’—it is messy. It requires that coaches place athletes in uncomfortable situations that present opportunities to make mistakes.

But how messy should it be? And how many errors are acceptable?

These are questions that the Challenge Point Hypothesis (CPH) attempts to answer.

Proposed by Guadagnolli and Lee in 2004 the goal of the CPH is to provide a framework for understanding how practice design variables influence skill acquisition.

Learning depends upon the functional difficulty of the task—and the CPH identifies three key points related to this:

Learning does not occur in the absence of information: meaning, if an athlete is always successful, then the feedback is always the same—if there is no information, then there is no learning

There is a Goldilocks Effect to the relationship between learning and information: too little, or too much, and learning is retarded

For learning to occur, there is an optimal amount of information: This amount differs as a function of the skill level of each individual, and the difficulty of the to-be-learned task

Some might argue that the best athletes in the world have the ‘best technique,’ and for the most part, this is in fact true. Rarely will an athlete rise to the top of her sport without excellent fundamental technical abilities.

However, this is not the limiting factor to ultimate expertise.

As an athlete progresses through her development, expertise has increasingly less to do with how she can execute an isolated part of the game (the technique), and more to do with how she manages the information in the game (the skill).

Technique is important—but skill is more so!

The best athletes are not only the ones with the best technique; they are the ones with the best skill.
Technique is the content of an athlete’s movement; while skill is the technique in context—i.e., in the game. @ALTIS #NeedForSpeed. Share on X
Decomposition focuses on the content.

Some coaches might feel that this part-whole method stabilizes techniques in less complex ways, so that they can be reintroduced at higher levels of complexity.

In reality, however, most coaches probably operate this way because it is easier, and looks better. It is far easier to choose from a list of drills than it is to design more representative training sessions, with the objective of greater transfer—and most of us are pretty uncomfortable with messy practices.

Skill is a problem-solving process, the solutions to which only make sense when considered in the context of information in the game. Therefore, if we want to improve an athlete’s skill, we need to provide them with problems they will encounter in the game.

The question is how do we do this?

With developing athletes—or with athletes who are experiencing specific problem-solving challenges, a preferred method to decomposition is simplification.

Simplification

“Without our context, we are not what we are. We are not a list of attributes. My aim is not to fracture and break apart what should be together, not to decontextualize. And that’s the oldest approach on earth.”—Manchester City Assistant Coach, Juanma Lillo.

In task simplification, movement and the information remain coupled—we simply scale the problems to the level appropriate to each athlete.

There are at least three primary ways 3 to do this:

Reducing object difficulty: for example, youth football players playing with a smaller ball, youth basketball players shooting at a lower basket, or tennis players playing with a larger racket head and shorter handle

Reducing attention demands: for example, manipulating the size of the field and the number of the players

Reducing speed: simply governing the speed of the game or players within the practice.

Our friend, Dr. Rob Gray, identifies two keys to effective scaling:

The coupling between the movement and the information should be similar to that which is required by the full skill

An appropriate level of variability within the movement problems, so that athletes develop greater problem-solving abilities

Our challenge lies in how to do this effectively.

The process begins with investigating the athlete’s current movement behaviors in context to determine how movement solutions emerge within the game, so that we can appropriately identify where any weaknesses exist within their movement behavior repertoire.

If an athlete is having difficulty changing directions in the game, we might design the practice in such a way as to increase the number of change of direction problems the athlete will encounter (for example, by increasing the density of the playing area—creating a smaller area and more players). Similarly, if the athlete’s upright sprinting mechanics require improvement, rather than totally eliminating the relevant information and sprinting in isolation, we could design the practice such that there will be more opportunities to ‘open up and sprint’ (for example, by decreasing the density of the playing area— thus increasing the size of the practice area, and the number of players within it).

Such an approach to learning has been termed representative learning design which implies that the session goals revolve around precisely enhancing how a movement action occurs in its emergent process in sport.

“I think that the first thing that needs to be observed is something you cannot quantify easily. It’s the real game movements. If you’re a football player and you don’t add the football specifics into the model, it’s not a good model.”— J.B. Morin, ALTIS Interview, August, 2020

This is the opposite of a traditional approach to analyzing movement (i.e., a ‘movement screen’), which looks at the content of the movement first and foremost, and makes assumptions as to how it is executed in context.

We maintain that the initial level of analysis should be at the athlete-information interface: i.e., how the athlete moves in the game, and support this through studying and measuring the relevant underpinning capacities and abilities.

We then use this information to guide our training prescription to create more representative problems, and to better organize our training over the longer term to improve the skill in context.

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

1080 Sprint Workflow and Best Practices

Blog| ByJacob Cohen
One of the top questions I get asked in regard to the 1080 Sprint is about workflow. Differing from sled use, the 1080 Sprint provides a significantly enhanced experience over other forms of resisted and assisted training. Since most people are lucky if they have one unit, the question of how many athletes you can get through in a timely manner is always at the forefront of peoples’ minds. We are lucky enough to have two units here (the University of Illinois), but with time restrictions on most practices—whether you are in high school or college—along with most private performance centers having timed slots, it is a very fair question to ask.

The 1080 Sprint utilizes a Microsoft-enabled tablet to run the machine itself. Since it has one tablet per unit, this brings up many questions, such as:

Do I need another person to run it?

How many athletes can you get through the machine at one time?

How easy is it to move from athlete to athlete?

How easy is it to digest and utilize date while the athletes are using the machine?

While I am not a master of the 1080 Sprint by any means, and my situation is not the same as everyone else’s, I feel like my experiences with the machine and being around other coaches using the machine with varied group sizes and ability levels allow me to confidently answer these questions.

The Setup of the 1080

The setup of the machine itself is relatively easy and takes just one person. I often set up both machines by myself before practice in less than 10 minutes.
The setup of the 1080 Sprint itself is relatively easy and takes just one person. For instance, I often set up both of our machines by myself before practice in less than 10 minutes, says @jake_co. Share on X
The machines are stored in a hard, protective case. Once you take them out of the case, there are two wires that you have to plug in (the power source and the wire for the emergency stop). You then flip a switch, and, assuming you remembered to plug the cord into the outlet, the machine comes on. After this, you grab the tablet, connect it to the machine’s Bluetooth, and open the application on the tablet. I honestly think this is easier than dragging sleds and weights out to the track, and I prefer this to that any day of the week.

Number of Coaches/Employees

I have had anywhere from 1-3 coaches help run the machine(s). It only takes one person to operate the tablet or even tablets in our case with two. After you have loaded all the athlete profiles, which we do before the workout begins, moving between athlete profiles is as simple as one click. Once you have the workout template up, which we start on the athlete’s first rep, tracking reps is really easy.

The software allows you to categorize different workouts and sets and reps within the workout. Moving between resistance or assistance metrics for different athletes is also just another click. While the machine retracts the cord back to the start position, you can make these changes for the athletes. They also have to put on the belt, which provides another few seconds for you to make these changes. We always have some sort of parameters we work within.

Video 1. Simple acceleration is smooth and effective with the 1080 Sprint. Athletes of all sports, not just track, can benefit from motorized resistance.

When we only have one coach available (me), I feel confident personally running the machine and coaching at the same time. The tablet has a connectivity window where you have to be within a certain number of meters of the machine for the tablet to work. I generally sit right behind the machine. While this limits my view and perception within the practice, it offers me a chance to engage more with the athletes. I tend to view practices from the side more often than not, but having a session once per week where I only view them from behind is not a deal-breaker to me.
My athletes like to see everyone’s metrics as well and will hover around me. It’s a unique opportunity to be in the thick of the athletes during their recovery time, says @jake_co. Share on X
My athletes like to see everyone’s metrics as well and will hover around me. It’s a unique opportunity to be in the thick of the athletes during their recovery time and get to hear some things I may not hear when I am on the track or viewing from a different angle. When we have multiple coaches, I generally wander around and view the practice from wherever I deem necessary while I let the other coach run the machine.

Athlete Numbers

As I mentioned before, we are privileged to have two machines for our team. We started with one unit in 2016 and made the move to purchase another unit two years later. I have had anywhere between 3 and 30 athletes at a time whether we had one unit or two.

I will write another article about my favorite workouts to do on the 1080, but what I can tell you here is that with larger groups we tend to use the 1080 as a potentiation or contrast effect. With bigger groups, there obviously will be a waiting period if you just used the 1080, and while I defer to people much smarter than me on the best ways to use resisted or assisted training, a large number of people who use sleds have gone to contrast or potentiation type workouts to begin with.

Image 1. Coaches who need to work on force, power, and velocity can see the variables in real time during training. The software is easy to use and reports the estimated output in a digestible manner.

The benefit of that with the 1080 is completely about flow. Even with a group of 30, if we do a set and rep scheme that involves work on and off the 1080, by the time we account for a reasonable amount of recovery, we end up having kids working seamlessly on and off the 1080. They generally end up lining up, and by the time they get to the front of either line, it’s right at the end of the prescribed recovery time.

We also used some of our older methods of resistance training with the 1080 when we only had one unit. I would throw out a few sleds or weight vests near the 1080 to improve the scheme and workflow within the workout itself. You can get a force-velocity profile with just three different resistance reps, and I have had days where that was all I needed to accomplish, and sleds could fill out the rest. While this is not my favorite thing to do, I can still get some metrics for the day and accomplish what I need to.

Utilizing Feedback from the Machine

Obviously, one of the main benefits of having a 1080 is the metrics you receive from each rep on the machine. Immediately available to you are peak and average speed, power, and force. As a track and field coach who works mainly with sprinters, hurdlers, and horizontal jumpers, power is the main metric that I like to talk about on the 1080 Sprint. Especially during general prep and specific prep, I feel that power development and correct technical models will be the things we ideally want to set up for the foreseeable future.
One of the main benefits of having a 1080 Sprint are the metrics you receive from each rep on the machine. Immediately available to you are peak and average speed, power, and force. Share on X
The power metric itself is what athletes like the most during our early sessions. They very frequently hover behind me and ask to switch over to their workout page to see what the last rep looked like. Our male athletes generally like to see 2,000-watt peak outputs, while our female athletes get pretty excited about anything over 1,000 watts. This creates a great work and practice environment with the athletes. It also feeds right into what I try to do anyway, which is get them to be more powerful.

Due to the athlete’s need for competition and the quick feedback from the machine, we now utilize the feedback in the best way possible to get what we want out of the workout. I will also say, unlike velocity, using the power metric in practice does create a more competitive situation. While my short sprinters will have the fastest times, using the power metric gets kids to ask for more or the right resistance to increase their power output. It levels the playing field and also helps me steer the athletes toward their goals.

Video 2. Dual systems enable the optimal competitive training session, a popularized concept with teams that have two or more 1080 sprints. You can be very creative with individualized sessions for groups and make adjustments on the fly as needed.

As for using the other metrics, they are just as easy to check. I use the average speed and peak speed metrics to make sure we are within whatever percentage I want to be of their top-end speed through the distance we chose. When looking at dosages for volume for the day, I am much more general in the assigned workload because I know I have immediate feedback and metrics to help determine when their day is over.

As mentioned previously, I will have a follow-up article about which workouts I like to use and how, but due to the immediate feedback, I write the workout for the day with a larger difference between minimum and maximum reps. On an acceleration-based 1080 day, you may often see something like 8-12 total reps for that day with some people being stopped immediately at 8 when power output drops, or someone making it all the way to 12 because power and speed were still getting better. The immediate availability of the metrics makes it possible to make these decisions instantaneously.
The immediate availability of the metrics on the 1080 makes it possible for coaches to make these decisions instantaneously. Share on X
Cataloging and Reviewing Metrics

After the workouts are done for the day, there is an option to sync the 1080. I always choose to do this because it sends all the reps from every athlete to the cloud-based website, which then stores all the information under each athlete’s individual profile. Some of the things you can do are significantly easier once the information has synced to the website, and I find it more productive to do them when I have time in my office. Almost everything can be exported to your preferred method of cataloging information, whether that is Microsoft Excel or another software program.

When viewing the information on the website, you can break things down into segments to see the metrics for each rep. I personally like to work in 10-meter segments because that’s how I was taught to find stride length and stride frequency, along with 10-meter segment times being the gold standard in my mind. This, coupled with the ability to plot points to find force-velocity curves, gives you quite a bit to work with to determine what the continuing goals will be for each athlete.

Image 2. Using a smoothing filter, athlete acceleration patterns can be analyzed even better. Note the individual surges of each step detected by the 1080 device.

I try to not spend too much time looking at a specific individual rep or even one session so I don’t get lost in the fact that the athlete could have just had a good or bad day. Having information stored from years, though, helps create a unique looking glass to see back into the past. I often go back and look at sessions from previous years at the same time in the training calendar to decide if we are on the right path or if I’m missing something. Going from one year to another is as simple as one click. This offers a truly unique ability to have quantifiable information easily accessible at all times.

Differences in Assisted vs. Resisted Workflow

While most of the information I have talked about so far has been through the lens of resisted work sessions, there do tend to be some differences when athletes perform an assisted or overspeed session. For simplicity’s sake, when we do assisted or overspeed sessions, I tend to not record the data in individual profiles. I know a lot of people who do, but when we do these sessions, I have already made decisions about the top-end velocity I want them to reach, or how long I want them to be towed distance-wise from the standpoint of assisted speed.

I am more likely to actually track the things I need to in these particular sessions through alternative means (video for foot contact time, Freelap cones for 10-meter splits, etc.). In these sessions, I usually pull up a random profile, tune the machine to the resistance I want that athlete pulled at for the start of the rep, set the zero point for the machine to stop pulling (I usually use at least 20 meters before they reach the machine), and just change the top speed it will pull to depending on the athlete. The benefit of this goes back to timeliness. I now accomplish everything I need to without adding any extra steps.

A Higher Level
The 1080 Sprint gives you the ability to take your assisted and resisted workouts to a level that its predecessors could not achieve, says @jake_co. Share on X
Overall, the 1080 Sprint’s workflow is very easy to navigate. With many options and solutions to look at depending on your situation, I think it is easy to see the many benefits available to users and the coaches behind the scenes. While it can seem like a daunting task compared to just throwing some sleds or weight vests on the track and telling your athletes to get to work, the tool itself provides the ability to take your assisted and resisted workouts to a level that could not be achieved by its predecessors.

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

Increasing the Applied Factor of Sport Science with Helen Bayne

Freelap Friday Five| ByHelen Bayne
Helen Bayne is a sport scientist and lecturer at the Division of Biokinetics and Sport Science, University of Pretoria (South Africa). She is a registered biokineticist and former gymnastics coach and holds a Ph.D. in Sports Biomechanics from the University of Western Australia. Bayne has served on the board of directors of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sport and is currently the chairperson of the South African Society of Biomechanics.

Bayne’s research interests lie in the development of physical capacity and movement patterns to enhance athletic performance and reduce injury risk. Working in the field alongside her academic career, she has consulted with numerous professional sports organizations and elite programs, with a focus on cricket and sprinting.

Freelap USA: Wearable loads to the shanks of sports athletes are a viable way to help performance. With so many coaches worried that wearable resistance (WR) could be a problem, what benefits do you see in a practical setting for this modality for sports such as American football or soccer?

Helen Bayne: The concept behind wearable resistance sprint training is that light weights on the shanks of athletes will have minimal interference in the training environment but provide enough of a mechanical overload to stimulate the desired adaptations. For example, acute changes (difference between unloaded and loaded running within a session) have shown that WR sprint training overloads step frequency during acceleration and maximum velocity phases of sprinting, without altering step length. There is also no meaningful change in joint kinematics (hip and knee angles and angular velocity) with light WR.

We recently tested the longitudinal effect of WR training with 1% body mass (0.5% on each limb) in a group of rugby players. The position of the weights was adjusted from a proximal position on the shank to a distal position over a six-week training block, to gradually increase the imposed load. The players who trained with the WR maintained their 30-meter sprint performances while the players who trained without any load detrained, based on sprint times and force-velocity mechanical profiles.
Wearable resistance training is really simple to implement, and there are numerous combinations for how you can apply it to individualize the prescription and progressively overload. Share on X
In team sports, it can be difficult to program the volume and frequency needed to achieve the desired adaptations for speed improvement. WR training is a viable tool to increase the intensity and thereby the volume load. The WR is well tolerated by athletes—the perceived exertion was the same between the intervention and control groups in our study. There is still a lot of scope to test the effect of training with different loads and placements of the WR, but that’s the good thing about the tool—it’s really simple to implement, and there are numerous combinations for how you can apply it to individualize the prescription and progressively overload.

Freelap USA: Countermovement jump monitoring is more popular than ever due to the business of force plates. What do you think are the potential pitfalls of having athletes jump too much for the sake of collecting data? How do you think teams should better employ testing?

Helen Bayne: Here is a checklist to keep in mind when deciding whether to implement any measurements with athletes:

Have a clear question in mind: What do you want to know?

Can you measure this: Is your measurement valid, reliable, and sensitive?

Is it feasible for you to implement the measurement at the necessary frequency to answer your question?

Is the data you are collecting actionable? In other words, do you have the resources and operational structure that enable you to properly interpret and use the information?

If you can properly address each of these points, I think you will avoid any “pitfalls” of testing too much or testing just because you have neat tools available.

As tools such as force plates become more accessible, it can be tempting to start with “Well, let’s measure everything and see what we find.” An element of this might be beneficial in an exploratory analysis, but in an applied sport science environment the starting point should be specific and have direct application. Then, the exploratory analysis can take place in the background. Aaron Coutts described this really nicely in his “Working Fast and Working Slow” editorial in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance.

Freelap USA: Lumbar mechanics are something of importance in cricket. How can other sports such as javelin and baseball monitor the motions without 3D capture? Any ideas such as IMUs or even 2D cameras?

Helen Bayne: Quantifying lumbar mechanics is a huge challenge. Even with lab-based 3D motion capture, we’re not really able to get down to the level of individual vertebral segments, especially during the complex and fast motions that we’re interested in in sport. Typical biomechanical analyses treat the various parts of the body as a series of linked rigid segments—for example, the feet, shanks, thighs, pelvis, and trunk. None of these segments are truly rigid because there is soft tissue mass (including muscle, fat, and skin) surrounding the bone, but the foot and the trunk have the additional complication of containing multiple joints.

The trunk has typically been segmented into an upper and lower portion. Our work in cricket fast bowling aligned these segments to the anatomical lumbar and thoracic regions of the spine and used inertial parameters specific to these segments to develop an inverse dynamics model to quantify lumbar motion and load. We tested a group of junior fast bowlers before the start of the season and then documented all new lower back injuries that occurred. One of the key parameters that came out of this prospective injury study was lateral flexion of the thoracic segment between the time when the bowler’s front foot landed and ball release, which was related to higher lumbar loads and injury risk. This trunk lateral flexion angle (relative to the vertical) is something that can be measured using 2D video methods.

This is an example of needing the resource-intensive research to improve our understanding of injury mechanisms and using that information to evaluate alternative field-based measures that can be implemented by practitioners. IMU technology also has the potential to be used in this way and improve on the video solution because it can bring the 3D perspective to the field, and this is something we’re investigating at the moment. When it comes to other sports, the same approach can be applied, but it’s important that the evidence base is specific to the technique of the sport.

Freelap USA: Illness tends to be treated like a second-class citizen compared to musculoskeletal injuries. What interventions have you found to be both effective and practical in team sports?

Helen Bayne: Preparing athletes to perform depends on them being healthy and available for training as much of the time as possible. So, it’s just as important to minimize the risk of illness as it is injury. Also, the potentially severe health implications of athletes training through illness extend beyond sport.
In our study we found that a pragmatic illness prevention strategy reduce the incidence of illnesses by about 60% and days lost due to illness by about 40%, says @HelenBayneZA. Share on X
In a study over a seven-year period involving at least five professional rugby teams per year, we found that a pragmatic illness prevention strategy reduced the incidence of illnesses by about 60% and days lost due to illness by about 40%. This strategy involved:

Screening to identify individuals at increased risk (such as history of recurrent infections);

Good hygiene practices (regular handwashing, avoiding sharing utensils or drink bottles);

Prophylactic treatments (such as high-dose vitamin C and antimicrobial spray, especially when international travel is involved);

Early reporting of symptoms; and

Early isolation of players on presentation of symptoms.

Any club or program can achieve most of this with minimal resources, and if you work with a medical professional, the whole system is attainable.

Freelap USA: “Fatigue” is still a very nebulous term. Knowing your background with collaboration in this area, how have you changed your mind on fatigue in the sporting world over the last decade, if you have? If not, what principles do you think are being ignored?

Helen Bayne: A nebulous term indeed! Studying fatigue was where I cut my teeth in sport science, in research related to fatigue within an exercise bout and the relationship between physiological changes and the perceptual regulation of effort. Within the session, you have an interaction between the physiological response to the work completed, a “prediction” of the work that lies ahead, and the up/downregulation of intensity that allows you to complete the exercise task without compromising homeostasis.

I wonder about how this model might be extrapolated to the longer-term expression of “fatigue.” There has been a lot of recent focus on athlete self-reporting measures and neuromuscular performance (countermovement jump testing, for example) as markers of fatigue. These measures have been shown to be sensitive to increases in training/match load, but the implications for “readiness” (regulation of intensity in the subsequent session) are less well understood.
In order for biomechanics-focused interventions to be effective, they must also consider the athlete’s physical capacity, coordination, and skill, says @HelenBayneZA. Share on X
This topic also emphasizes the integration of numerous biological systems in human performance. That sounds really obvious, but so often when we study sport, we isolate single disciplines. Using the example of my current area of research and applied work: In order for biomechanics-focused interventions to be effective, they must also consider the athlete’s physical capacity, coordination, and skill.

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

Feser, E., Macadam, P., Cronin, J. “The effects of lower limb wearable resistance on sprint running performance: A systematic review.” European Journal of Sport Science. 2020;20(3):394-406.

Feser, E., Bayne, H., Loubser, I., Bezodis, N., Cronin, J. “Wearable resistance sprint running is superior to training with no load for retaining performance in pre-season training for rugby athletes.” European Journal of Sport Science. 2020; doi: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1802516.

Coutts, A. “Working fast and working slow: The benefits of embedding research in high performance sport.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2016;11(1):1-2.

Bayne, H., Elliott, B., Campbell, A., Alderson, J. “Lumbar load in adolescent fast bowlers: A prospective injury study.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2016;19(2):117-22.

Cottam, D., Bayne, H., Elliott, B., Alderson, J. “Can field-based two-dimensional measures be used to assess three-dimensional lumbar injury risk factors in cricket fast bowlers?” ISBS Proceedings Archive: Vol. 34. 2016.

Schwellnus, M., Janse van Rensburg, C., Bayne, H., et al. “Team illness prevention strategy (TIPS) is associated with a 59% reduction in acute illness during the Super Rugby tournament: a control-intervention study over 7 seasons involving 126 850 player days.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(4):245-9.

Crewe, H., Tucker, R., Noakes, T. “The rate of increase in rating of perceived exertion predicts the duration of exercise to fatigue at a fixed power output in different environmental conditions.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2008;103(5):569-77.

A Data-Driven Approach to Analyzing & Correcting Technique in Elite Swimmers

Blog| ByAntti Kauhanen
In this article I will outline the approach used in technique analysis with Finnish national swimming teams. The senior team usually consists of approximately 20 swimmers, among whom there are currently a medalist from the World Championships and several medalists in European Championships. In this mix there are several athletes hoping to take the next step to international elite level, while the junior teams are composed of 20-25 promising swimmers between the ages of 15 and 17 years old.

I’ve been working as a technique analyst for both senior and junior national teams in Finnish Swimming since 2013. My job is to provide feedback on national team camps through biomechanical analysis to give athletes and coaches information on each swimmer’s strengths and weaknesses as related to international level performance. In my time as a technique analyst for those teams, we have used video, speed measurements, and Trainesense SmartPaddles as tools to analyze a swimmer’s performance. Of these tools, the SmartPaddle is the newest addition to our arsenal.
The Trainesense SmartPaddle measures hand force, hand speed, and the direction of the force in water, which provides us with useful information about our athletes’ strengths & weaknesses. Share on X
The Trainesense SmartPaddle measures hand force, hand speed, and the direction of the force in water, which provides us with useful information about our athletes’ strengths and weaknesses. Traditionally, power in water has been measured with a wire attached to the swimmer’s hip—thus giving the total force produced by the swimmer’s movements—but there hasn’t been an easy way to go into details regarding which parts of the swimmer’s stroke produce that power and which parts should be further developed to swim even faster. Using SmartPaddle, we have access to all that data.

As a part of our validation process with the SmartPaddle, we measured both hand forces and swimming speed simultaneously to see the interplay of force and velocity. In figure 1 below, there is an example of a swimmer’s hand force and speed. This graph clearly shows that there is a connection between the force measured from the hands and a swimmer’s speed in freestyle swimming.

It’s also interesting to note that there is a 0.1-0.2 second delay between force increase and velocity increase. This added mass effect is evident in all movement, but I believe that in swimming it is one of the key reasons why swimming fast is so difficult for most people. It takes time for a human body to accelerate in water, meaning propulsive force in a single stroke should be exerted for 0.4-0.6 seconds per stroke to reach high velocities. This requires some patience and is somewhat counterintuitive if you consider that in human natural locomotion (sprint running), the ground contact time is only 0.1 seconds.

In essence, swimmers need to learn to hold onto the water long enough to accelerate the body forward and fight their natural, land-based habit of producing force as explosively as possible.

Figure 1. The interplay of horizontal hand force (blue line) and swimming velocity (red line). Source: Huippu-uinnin vaatimuksia (the requirements for top-level performance by the Finnish Swimming Federation)

Thus, a continuous propulsive force phase of 0.4-0.6 seconds per stroke, where most of the power is directed back toward the swimmer’s feet, is one of the parameters that I check first during our national team camps since it’s one of the most fundamental aspects of swimming fast. This applies to freestyle, backstroke, and butterfly. However, in the breaststroke, less force is produced backward due to the sculling motions prevalent in the breaststroke pull.

Limiting Factors for Creating Force in the Water

It is kind of surprising how many swimmers can’t produce a consistent propulsive force during the stroke. This uninterrupted force production phase requires an ability to sense small changes of pressure in the palm of the hand and forearm, as well as the ability to control the force produced by the swimming muscles. In my experience, these two components are the main ingredients for a good feel for the water, and they should be trained accordingly.
The abilities to sense small changes of pressure in the palm and forearm and to control the force produced by the swimming muscles are the main ingredients for a good feel for the water. Share on X
Some common difficulties in producing propulsive force in freestyle are:

Exerting too much of the force downward instead of back toward the feet.

Muscling through the stroke, so that the swimmer produces a lot of power in the beginning of the stroke, but the force tapers off too fast. (This results in too short of an impulse for accelerating the body forward.)

The first problem is usually seen in swimmers with a lot of upper body strength and/or bad shoulder and thoracic spine mobility. Pushing down in the beginning of the stroke increases the feeling of pressure in the palm and forearm, giving the swimmer a feeling of a powerful stroke. However, most of the force is used to lift the swimmer’s upper body higher in the water instead of moving forward faster. This downward push is also detrimental to shoulder health and can lead to injury. Poor mobility leads to a similar technique error due to difficulties in keeping the hand in a streamlined position after the entry.

It is worth noting that in SmartPaddle data, the best swimmers usually produce a little force downward in the beginning of the stroke as well, but the magnitude of the force is small. With good swimmers, it seems their hands are active after entry into the water, but excessive downward push is avoided.

The second issue is typical in swimmers with good endurance, but little patience. The problem is that they accelerate their hands too fast in the beginning of the stroke. After this aggressive catch, hand speed usually starts slowing down mid-stroke, resulting in a loss of pressure in the hand and, consequently, the loss of propulsive force as well. This early force peak in the stroke leads to too short of an impulse to accelerate the body forward optimally.

The graph showing force and velocity curves also has an interesting detail just after the one-second mark (highlighted by an arrow in the picture). Here, the swimmer’s stroke has produced similar force as the prior stroke, but the gain in speed is less than it had been previously. Intrigued by this, I checked the video to see a reason for the discrepancy and found that during that particular stroke, the swimmer was breathing, and his kick was too wide to balance the breathing action. Thus, the increased resistance during breathing negated some of the work done in that stroke.

This specific detail in that one swimmer’s performance data highlighted a fundamental law of swimming for me:

Backward force created by the hands increases forward velocity unless increased resistance due to technical errors negates it.

If the data shows a consistent force production phase that lasts long enough, and the swimmer produces high enough peak forces but the swimming speed is still lacking, the usual reason is that the swimmer is creating too much drag. Therefore, every now and then it is a good idea to supplement SmartPaddle use with underwater video to determine whether the swimmer’s body position or limb movements produce unnecessary drag.
Every now and then it is a good idea to supplement SmartPaddle use with underwater video to determine whether the swimmer’s body position or limb movements produce unnecessary drag. Share on X
Using Force Data to Assess Performance

Coaching literature commonly highlights the importance of accelerating the hand throughout the stroke. In fact, difficulty in smoothly accelerating the hand is usually the reason why a swimmer is unable to produce force consistently through the underwater part of the stroke. The graph below details both hand speed and hand force.

From this graph, force levels clearly start to drop off as soon as hand velocity decreases in the pull. Even if the swimmer’s hand starts accelerating again after a slow phase, the forces produced during this second fast part are less than those produced in one smooth, accelerating stroke. Therefore, smooth hand acceleration in the underwater part of the stroke is one of the factors I look for in the SmartPaddle data when evaluating a swimmer’s performance.

Figure 2. Hand velocity and hand force data from SmartPaddle. One of the factors I look for in this data to evaluate a swimmer’s performance is smooth hand acceleration.

The difficulties in maintaining steady pressure on the hand by accelerating it throughout the stroke are, in my opinion, partly caused by the way swimming is taught. Coaches and analysts (myself included) love to talk about different phases in the stroke to highlight certain key positions—for example, the high elbow position in freestyle. Even though these positions are important, coaches should take into consideration that from the point of view of hand acceleration and force, the transitions from one phase to the next are usually where we see a drop in hand velocity and force. Thus, concentrating heavily on the correct execution of one part of the stroke can be detrimental to executing the whole stroke with correct hand acceleration—and this tendency should be countered with enough skill training where the focus is the whole stroke as one fluid motion.

Addressing Left-Right Asymmetries

One interesting aspect of swimming performance that we can monitor with the SmartPaddle is the difference between left- and right-hand strokes. It has been previously reported that 50% of top-level swimmers (FINA points classification over 900 points, meaning roughly top 10 in World Championships) participating in one study had significant left-right asymmetry in their freestyle strokes.¹ Fixing some of this asymmetry seems like a promising way to improve performance, even with elite-level swimmers.

In technique analysis, this left-right difference is sometimes visible in the video, but usually only with less skilled athletes. Side differences can also be evaluated through velocity measurements in freestyle and backstroke if the system used is precise enough. However, with a velocity-based method, you can’t be sure whether any speed discrepancy between the left and right side is due to a force difference between the respective hand strokes or a different level of drag during those strokes.
Without the SmartPaddle, there isn’t an easy way to verify left-right force asymmetry in butterfly and breaststroke. Share on X
Additionally, without the SmartPaddle, there isn’t an easy way to verify left-right force asymmetry in butterfly and breaststroke. For example, I have previously seen a significant hand force asymmetry in a breaststroker who is a medalist in World Championships. Without the force data, we wouldn’t have had any way of knowing this is the case.

When trying to identify and fix significant left-right asymmetry in swimming, there a few things to take into consideration:

It is natural that some level of difference will remain, due to strength difference between the dominant and non-dominant side.

Also, especially in freestyle, the technique usually isn’t totally symmetrical due to breathing action. It is quite common that the stroke executed to the breathing side is stronger due to hip and shoulder rotation assisting in force production.

Despite these factors, in my experience it is fairly common to have simple and fixable asymmetries in a swimmer’s stroke. Sometimes these issues arise from a faulty movement pattern and are clearly technical in nature. There are, however, many cases where swimmers have difficulties activating latissimus dorsi or scapular muscles. Therefore, it’s a good idea to conduct regular screening by physiotherapists to identify and correct such muscle activation issues.

From Technical Analysis to Results in the Pool

In this article, I have outlined my way of analyzing swimming technique with SmartPaddles. In essence, I look for sufficiently long force production time and smoothly accelerating hand speed in both hands.

With national teams, I supplement SmartPaddle data with speed data and video to give as objective a view of an athlete’s technique as I can. After that, we look at the data and videos together with the athlete and the coach to find ways to improve. For example, with one junior national team athlete, based on the data and the videos, we have been going for a shallower trajectory for the right hand since his too-deep stroke pattern made him lose propulsive force in the latter half of the stroke. During this process, we have observed a 17-centimeter increase in stroke length in one year and corresponding increase in submaximal swimming speed, and we’re excited to see how this translates to performance in upcoming meets.

In processes like this, I find SmartPaddle and speed data crucial, since everyone (including me) has their own ideas of how to go forward, but measurable facts are the thing keeping us on the right track.

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. Formosa D., Mason B., and Burkett B. “The force–time proﬁle of elite front crawl swimmers.” Journal of Sports Sciences. May 2011; 29(8): 811–819.

4 Ways to Utilize Corrective Exercises in Performance Training

Blog| ByJimmy Pritchard
Injuries are an unfortunate, yet naturally occurring, part of the competitive process in sporting activities. Ankles will roll, ACLs will tear, and shoulders will separate no matter what we do. These things happen, and yet countless “injury prevention programs” falsely claim that they have the answer to ensure nobody will suffer the unfortunate consequences competition can bring. Newsflash: If you truly want to ensure an athlete never gets injured again, tell them not to play the sport—otherwise, you have to accept that there are always inherent risks and do your best to reduce them.

Personally, I am a die-hard believer that in order to get your athletes to perform at a high level and remain healthy, they must get strong. Not everybody needs to squat 600 pounds, but they should be able to move through key movements (squatting, hinging, pressing, etc.) with adequate technique and eventually under load. When they can’t do these things, they are at a greater risk for injury.

When they can’t do these things is also when corrective exercise is of particular importance. Although it does assist in the injury reduction process, the greatest benefit of corrective exercises lies in keeping athletes well equipped to strength train properly (which is perhaps one of the best injury reduction tools of all). These exercises are critical to the safety and health of an athlete, which ultimately underpins their performance potential: A broken athlete will never succeed.
Although it does assist in the injury reduction process, the greatest benefit of corrective exercises lies in keeping athletes well equipped to strength train properly, says @jimmypritchard_. Share on X
I know that a number of coaches will roll their eyes at the overly saturated “corrective exercise” niche market that has come to life today and balk at the idea of another movement screen predicting when and how their athletes will get injured. That is not the point I wish to debate. I wholeheartedly believe that there is no one-size-fits-all movement screen or particular way of correcting movement dysfunctions. I do, however, believe that corrective exercise is an integral piece of any successful training program aimed at attacking the weak points or deficiencies an athlete may have, so they can get back to what matters most: training.

If coaches take a proactive rather than reactive approach to addressing their athletes’ movement dysfunctions and inadequacies, they will find less time lost to nagging chronic injuries, coupled with greater performance outputs.

Where to Start

Selecting and implementing proper corrective exercises for the task at hand requires a coach’s eye and an understanding of how athletes may respond to any given movement. There are suggested frameworks from which we can find starting places with our athletes to begin correcting dysfunctional movement, but the key will always be to adjust on an individual “needs” basis. Identifying and prescribing these exercises is one thing but implementing them is another. Not only is it clear that corrective exercise is important, so too is the manner with which we implement it.

Eric D’Gati was the presenter/coach at the FMS level 2 course I attended four years ago, and he had one of the most useful perspectives I’ve ever heard a coach take regarding corrective exercise. He discussed it as an art, while the ability to implement it in a strength and conditioning program represents a true skill. We must be able to provide our athletes and clients with all of the appropriate exercises while improving their movement, but most importantly, addressing their goals!

Corrective exercise is simply a means to improve movement capabilities, thereby reducing the likelihood for injury and enhancing the toolbox of movements we can prescribe in a training program. Never—and I repeat, never—should a performance program turn into an exclusive corrective exercise program.

A football player who comes to us hoping to increase his 225-pound bench press for maximum reps and improve his 40-yard dash time for the NFL Combine needs a heavy dose of accelerative speed and strength endurance work. If the same athlete has a poor squatting pattern and hip mobility issues, we will surely address those—but in no way will we ever completely prioritize that over the goal of improving his needed performance qualities. What we would do instead is select exercises that we know he can safely execute to improve his targeted athletic qualities, while supplementing with corrective exercises.
One of the biggest mistakes I see coaches make when attempting to implement corrective exercise is allowing it to take precedence over the athlete’s goals despite their best intentions. Share on X
One of the biggest mistakes I see coaches make when attempting to implement corrective exercise is allowing it to take precedence over the athlete’s goals despite their best intentions. Coaches who do so will quickly discover that they no longer have clients to train, for they are not working toward their clients’ goals. Building performance and improving movement quality simultaneously is possible, and one could argue that by improving movement, we are also improving performance.

Implementation Strategies

Once coaches recognize the importance of corrective exercise in their programs, they often wonder how to effectively implement it without disrupting or detracting from the overarching themes of the program. While it may be a daunting task at first, incorporating these movements is quite easy and can be done in a multitude of ways.

1. Rest Intervals

One of my favorite methods of introducing a corrective exercise into a program is to have my athletes or clients do them between sets of compound strength and power exercises that require rest intervals.

Image 1. Banded dorsiflexion exercise, which can be performed during rest intervals in a program.

If one of my athletes completes a heavy set of five front squats and also needs work on their ankle mobility, I will have them do their banded dorsiflexion stretches for the prescribed repetitions during their rest period. This kills two birds with one stone and is a huge help for athletes who already may be strapped for time but need to get multiple things in at once. Add in the fact that these exercises will likely enhance the performance of the intended movement we are training, and it becomes a clear no-brainer.

Video 1. Between sets of an exercise like a front squat, athletes can incorporate individualized corrective exercises.

2. Warm-Up

An obvious but effective time to implement corrective exercises is during the initial stages of the workout or during a warm-up. Most of these movements do not require a significant load, nor will they tax the athlete in any way that will harm their performance. If I have athletes who struggle with single-leg stability, but I know I’ve prescribed them some lower limb unilateral work for the day, I will often have them do hurdle work in their warm-up. In these exercises, they must step over and under hurdles while maintaining solid posture to get everything in the hips, knee, ankles, feet, and core firing properly.

3. Cooldown

Similar to the warm-up, the cooldown is another obvious place to implement corrective exercises because there is no fear this will detract from the remainder of the program. While I prefer to implement corrective exercises both intra-workout and in the warm-up as opposed to during the cooldown, I find this period an excellent opportunity to address any underlying mobility issues. During the cooldown, we can do extensive levels of static stretching in order to improve nagging areas that we need to address without the fear of it comprising our force-generating capacity, as we know that we certainly don’t want to do this before or during a workout.

4. Rest Day or Extra Mini Session

While I like to consolidate the work I prescribe my athletes as much as possible, one last method for implementing corrective exercise is through an extra session, planned either on a training day or a rest day. As previously mentioned, the load for the majority of these movements is rather insignificant in terms of stress, so it is highly unlikely that athletes will become fatigued from them. For that reason, a coach could execute an entire corrective exercise session on a rest day, or even as a second session at some point after the completion of their other regularly scheduled conditioning session.

This can be a particularly useful method when an athlete requires a significant amount of corrective exercise work and simply cannot fit it all into the main session without that dragging on too long. In that case, the athlete would benefit from a separate, shorter session focusing on correctives. For example, an athlete may struggle with core stability, bracing, and anti-rotation, so they may benefit from a circuit that includes exercises such as a half kneeling dowel lift.

Putting It All Together

Remember, in order to reduce injuries, athletes must be able to move effectively and train hard, building a solid anatomical foundation. Corrective exercise serves as a supplementary tool to assist with dysfunctional movement and ensure we address issues before they get out of hand. There are a multitude of ways to implement corrective exercises into a program, and a coach must develop the artistic form to insert them into their athlete’s program where they best see fit.
There are a multitude of ways to implement corrective exercises into a program, and a coach must develop the artistic form to insert them into their athlete’s program where they best see fit. Share on X
Coaches should never compromise performance training programs in order to create exclusive corrective exercise programs; rather, they should use assessment tools to guide their exercise selections toward intelligent movements that their athletes can safely execute while attempting to concurrently improve their movement competency. If corrective exercise simply doesn’t seem “worth the squeeze” or appears too time-consuming, think about how much time will be wasted when an injury occurs. If coaches can take a proactive approach to their athletes’ movement ability (and dysfunctions) rather than a reactionary one, they will have a better chance of achieving continual progress and successful performance.

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. Cook, G. Movement: Functional Movement Systems: Screening, Assessment, Corrective Strategies. On Target Publications. 2010.

2. Patel, K. Corrective Exercise: A Practical Approach. Routledge. 2014.

3. Sherrington, C., Tiedemann, A., Fairhall, N., Close, J. C. T., and Lord, S. R. “Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: an updated meta-analysis and best practice recommendations. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin. 2011;22(3-4):78-83.

Agile Periodization: Triphasic Training and Planning in Uncertain Times

Blog| ByWilliam Wayland
I’ve written before about the compressed triphasic system I use with fighters or any athlete peaking for singular events. This is an idiosyncratic approach to applying the triphasic method to MMA fighters; hopefully there were lessons others could glean from marrying an intensive method to an athlete, which leads to a lot of complexity for strength and conditioning coaches. But the fundamental lesson is how we can achieve our desired outcomes in an environment that is chaotic and ever-changing.
The fundamental lesson is how we can achieve our desired outcomes in an environment that is chaotic and ever-changing, says @WSWayland. Share on X
The limits of block sequence and linear periodization systems mean that for prolonged periods of the training year, we cannot utilize highly qualitative training instances to improve specific qualities and that often a mixed modalities approach means some qualities can end up being undertrained. The triphasic system’s rigidity bumped up against my reality of needing condensed models, like with MMA or grappling, versus flexible models accounting for higher degrees of variability.

Most of what we are taught in strength and conditioning is a series of small-world models that are sequentially lined up to build what looks like a coherent long-term strategy. In Mladen Jovanovic’s book, he suggests “We must be cautious in applying small-world, scientific, optimal ‘truths’ to the real world of athlete development.”

Puzzles vs. Mosaics

Good strength and conditioning practice is a gestalt of sorts, with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Much of the theory is based on lining those parts up to achieve a desired training effect or optimal athlete state. Top-down strength and conditioning strategies such as block linear-style periodization are often like jigsaw puzzles, with neatly designed interlocking pieces. They’re complex, it takes time to put the pieces together, and if you lose one piece, it ruins the puzzle. Or to take this analogy to a Jenga puzzle, take away enough pieces and it falls down, or it is easy to knock over when external forces act upon it. Degrees of variability are what cause issues for top-down or small-world thinking.

One solution I have grown fond of is to take more of a mosaic strategy approach than a puzzle one. Mosaic warfare, from which the strategic idea borrows its name, is a multi-domain, combined arms warfare conducted in parallel over wide areas, at machine speeds that cognitively overwhelm a linear adversary. The basic idea is more flexible and adaptable than monolithic systems and rigid architectures. If a small part is taken out by the opposition, it does not render the whole useless. Mosaic FOREX trading, for instance, is a diversification strategy that traders use to spread risk.

When a puzzle loses a piece, it’s clear that a piece is missing, and the replacement needs to be an exact copy of that specific size, shape, and color. A mosaic strategic approach uses a palette of broken tiles of different shapes and sizes to build something ordered. If you break or lose a piece, there are many like it that you can use as a replacement to complete the picture. Up close—let’s say a few inches away—a mosaic looks like a mess, but as you draw out, it builds a large, clear image.

Image 1. A puzzle versus a mosaic of the same image. From up close, the mosaic looks sloppier, but from far away, the images look the same. The advantage of a mosaic strategy is that it’s more flexible but yields the same results as the more rigid puzzle.

To a strength and conditioning coach or a sports coach, those broken or missing pieces could appear as an acute injury affecting this week’s training plan, a lack of equipment, a flat battery on a piece of technology, a viral pandemic, or a losing streak for an athlete, causing an upheaval in circumstance. Mosaic strategy asks what we can use to fill that hole that may not be exactly the same color, size, and shape as the original piece, but at a distance match the perceived whole. The opportunity also exists to piece together new effects on the fly.

The key point to this is that different capabilities from different domains operate on different time scales. Strength and conditioning coaches get a unique insight into athlete readiness—psychology that the sports coach, nutritionist, physiotherapist, or sports med (and vice versa) might all miss, as these different domains operate on different time scales and information sets.

Making the Most of the Unknown

The unknowns you will encounter obviously depend on the types of athletes you work with. If you work in a conventional team sport, you probably have a regular team calendar and regular access to team training facilities, so you can plan for athletes around regular season games, athlete readiness, and training residuals.

In my own situation, an athlete will sometimes come to a training session without my having ever met them. Not knowing their capabilities, this requires a bottom-up approach that satisfies the principles of training rather than any long-term speculative modeling or planning. Barbell sport athletes, for instance, have the most rigidity in their preparation, usually working in the same training space while having minimal variables to deal with. It is interesting that the athletes with the fewest variables and most rigid and least plastic training approaches should inform the orthodox training approach the rest of us are encouraged to take.
It is interesting that the athletes with the fewest variables and most rigid training approaches should inform the orthodox training approach the rest of us are encouraged to take. Share on X
Nonuniform waving between rigidity (our whole mosaic) and plasticity (the ability to change pieces) in our approach is key to making this work. Trying to plan this type of training from the top down doesn’t work; you just have to plan accordingly so that the training dose occurs often enough to maintain training effect. You need to use collaboration with the athlete along with your best judgment to decide when the time is right—what is known as “sprint and release” programming.

Sprint and release programming is an approach I have borrowed from Mladen Jovanovic. An iterative model, as Mladen explains, consists of “three time-frames: release, phase and sprint, each having a planning component, development component, and review & retrospective component (which are needed to update the knowledge for the next iteration). Why did I choose different names? To act smart? First of all, different frameworks demand different language. Second of all, planning in this framework, as opposed [to] contemporary planning strategies, is iterative rather than detailed up-front. Taking all of that into account, it is essential to use the terminology which will better represent the iterative planning approach and differentiate it from more common planning strategies as well.”

Mladen has used terminology largely synonymous with Silicon Valley tech start-ups. The process, however, is a simple one: Release a product, reflect on it, release another, rinse, and repeat. Rather than plan out a detailed process from top to bottom, have a release strategy guided by principle, a phase strategy guided by refinement, and a sprint strategy guided by pragmatism. Release, in this case, is my mosaic, and sprints are the interchangeable pieces.

Well, what does this have to do with triphasic concepts or microdosing? Below I will explain how I’ve taken this conceptual framework and applied it to my approach with loading, moving from macro planning to micro day-to-day workouts.

Iterative Triphasic, Microdosing, and Training Half-Life

The strategy with the release, phase, sprint approach lies in iterative dosing of the right individual qualities expressed across sprints. It’s not as structured as year-round planning, and not as frequent as the microdosed approach that inspired this thinking.

The idea is that if we microdose the right high-return individual qualities, we can use them to build upon a sustained training effect for the subsequent training phases and sprints. Derek M. Hansen borrowed this nomenclature from the world of doping, and I’m paraphrasing it: the strategic use of exogenous testosterone by athletes to sustain elevated testosterone levels just under the allowable testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio of 4 to 1. So, to keep this ratio up, the athletes would regularly microdose small amounts to pass testing.
The idea is that if we microdose the right high-return individual qualities, we can use them to build upon a sustained training effect for the subsequent training phases and sprints. Share on X
Proper use of a microdosing program means we can kick the can of training qualities a bit further down the road and employ proper residuals. This is the beauty of microdosing with occasional supramaximal or submaximal training.

Do not get too hung up on semantics here, as it is not really microdosing in the true sense. I started using the phrase “iterative dosing,” which then became iterative triphasic (IT). What sort of training am I approaching in each sprint/phase iteration? Well, in this case, making the most of supramaximal effects. Does it have to be triphasic? No. Does it have to be supramaximal? No. Use whatever intensive iteration of your own model you want. I am just laying out mine, based off a model I’ve used extensively.

Why would I want to dose heavy eccentrics or supramaximal work in season?

There are several acute physiological changes that supramaximal training forces on the body, which is the biggest justification for this method and the same justification for trying to fit in intensive strategy in season. I talk about this in my squat article for SimpliFaster.

“Reconciling these benefits (of heavy strength training) with an athlete who may have a busy schedule and high training volumes can be tricky for coaches. We can, however, manipulate things a little to provide intensity, keep volumes appropriate, and make changes to minimize technical aberrations. The key is to apply stress in a fashion that yields benefits and mitigates drawbacks. If this has to bend orthodoxy slightly, then so be it. We can provide this in the form of derivatives, clever rep schemes, and load manipulation.”

Having a smart iterative plan that allows for the implementation of intensive methods when needed would be an addition to derivatives, rep schemes, and load manipulation, but you need to be able to justify it. I’m not shy about trying to integrate intensive methods and heavy barbell work in season and, in general, as part of my long-term training principle.

The physiological and neurological response from supramaximal training is enormous. It kicks tissue remodeling and neural changes into overdrive. We see improvements in maximal muscle recruitment and maximal fast twitch recruitment and even the potential for very controversial hyperplasia.

Why would I want to microdose heavy eccentrics in season?

The key points are these:

Eccentric training can improve muscle mechanical function to a greater extent than other modalities.

Novel muscle-tendon unit adaptations associated with a faster (i.e., explosive) phenotype have been reported.

Eccentric training may be especially beneficial in enhancing strength, power, and speed performance.

Increased stiffness of titin isoforms.

Robustness.

I’ve said before that, ostensibly, an athlete could derive an enormous amount of structural and strength benefit from just eccentric-focused supramaximal training, but muscle action is a three-part process.

Why would I want to microdose heavy isometrics in season?

Greater tissue adaptation.

Muscle fibers are fired and re-fired throughout the duration of the repetition to the greatest extent with supramaximal loads, even though no movement occurs.

Maximizes the free energy that is transferred throughout every dynamic muscle contraction and the SSC.

Second order benefits, like peripheral BP and bracing.

Robustness.

In both of these methods, the key effect is that optionality of robustness. By taking the time to insert these phases into training, their benefits help form the foundation for future training cycles and help me get the most out of our freer form of training design. Back to our earlier analogy: I like to think of robustness as the bonding agent that holds our mosaic together.

The type of iterative intervention we use matters because the repeat bout effect of supramaximal training, for instance, can be effective at yielding long-term protective effects better than prophylactics. As the old adage goes, a little intensive short-term suffering is preferable to prolonged low-level suffering.

This type of microdosing is not the same as, say, the sprint microdosing set out by Hansen, which would have near-daily frequency. Keep in mind that with supramaximal work you might only do this 1-2 times a year as part of a conventional 16- to 20-week intensive off-season program. What I suggest is a frequent dosing of 4-, 8-, and 10-week intervals. Compared to just, for instance, once a year, these are still a lot more dosages.

Why dose training this way? Supramaximal residuals are long and punctuated often enough throughout a trainer year as various phases and iterations can keep conferring benefits for a prolonged period. The point is that the benefits of this type of rigid structured training are numerous, so we have to insert it into our planning somewhere.
The point is that the benefits of this type of rigid structured training are numerous, so we have to insert it into our planning somewhere, says @WSWayland. Share on X
The compressed method means we can aim for 4-, 2-, or even 1-week blocks when the opportunity arises. For those forced into 2-week training windows, you can look at choosing between eccentrics or isometric stimulus depending on what the athlete needs to work on. You can employ a lower-quality mixed approach that merges both eccentrics and isometrics into the same working rep (eccentric iso’s). This comes with the drawback of being energetically demanding and, as a result, it will be much less qualitative than training eccentrics or isometrics as singular target qualities. This, in turn, gives us time to employ a submaximal approach during or between dose weeks.

The stronger the athlete, the more variability we can get away with and less residual loss we will see. I will set out how we go from phase to sprint planning, down to the individual workouts, to give you a sense of what I am getting at. I abhor when coaches lay out fancy strategic models without showing how they actually execute them from whiteboard to rack. To quote Nassim Taleb: “It’s easier to macro bullshit than it is to micro bullshit.”

Figure 1. Three examples of implementation over time, accounting for variable facilities.

Ideal Facility Week

For the extremely time-poor, when implementing in season is impractical, try to fit two doses within the week. I sometimes do this to give me and the athlete more time before the next time we need to dose. I have used the strategy below in golf, but it could also work well in baseball.

Figure 2. A look at my training strategy in-season during a week away at an ideal non-home facility. When time is poor, try to fit doses twice in the week.

The above situation dictates our strategy on the day we scout our facility. A lot of my struggle with the triphasic system or any block system is its first contact with reality. The bottom-up approach and agile decision-making work well for me with athletes who travel; however, if you want to apply it to athletes who play regular season games and have a known base of operation, you can take whichever approach suits. Conversely, you could use the same approach if an athlete is at a “home base” facility before traveling off again.

Below is a regular training week I’ve implemented in season for an athlete who preferred an upper low split across a seven-day week.

Figure 3. An example of a regular in-season training week for an athlete who preferred an upper low split across the entire week.

The Training Week and Within Week Variability and Using Data to Inform OODA Loops

“Variable weeks” speak not only to equipment variability, which is a very possible scenario for me with athletes, but also variability in readiness. This increasing mix of subjective and objective measures is starting to creep into the training environment, empowering the athlete to shift the ever-changing pieces of their physical state. This could be HRV scores, subjective questionnaires, dialogue, or velocity-based measures. This where interoperability—for instance, information sharing—is a super important aspect of the mosaic approach, as at its heart, athlete preparation is not just strength and conditioning but an interdisciplinary practice. A crucial element in this thinking is the “speed” of adaptability to a changing situation, not just paying lip service to the concept.
An increasing mix of subjective & objective measures is starting to creep into the training environment, empowering the athlete to shift the ever-changing pieces of their physical state. Share on X
We have more data solutions than ever, which means we can adapt to variable circumstances but also track solutions. We feed this information into an OODA loop, which stands for observe–orient–decide–act. This is a type of decision cycle developed by military strategist and United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd that is also used in business, litigation, and law enforcement.

A lot of coaches may perform elements of this as part of their normal practice. I was first introduced to an OODA loop as an agility concept for athletes; an implicit strategy for not actually being the most agile, but having the ability to disrupt an opponent’s OODA loop, using fake movement, etc. I use OODA loops as part of my process of choosing how to approach a sprint based on the data I have available.

“A key part of this is distinguishing the relevant from the insigniﬁcant, and this will be based upon a number of factors including experience. This ability to interpret information is critical as all the information in the world is of no use unless it can be interpreted. The Decision phase then involves deciding on a course of action and selecting one path, and the Action phase will then carry out this decision. Performance is therefore dependent on the effective development and execution of each phase, and a weakness in any will reveal itself as a limit to performance.” (from Performance Management That Makes a Difference: An Evidence-Based Approach)

Having a decision-making framework of some sort is crucial because there is no excuse for winging it. The busy work coach, the spontaneous exercise inventor, and the drill-them-’til- they’re-dead coach are the sorts who put deciding and acting above the crucial skills of observing and orienting.

Sprint Planning

Individual session design should be a straightforward affair using an OODA loop.

Session design for my in-season (or offseason) planned triphasic sessions is fairly straightforward: Rather than applying triphasic means to as many exercises as is appropriate, we apply the triphasic stimulus to the movement that will get us the most return, second order benefit, and residual. This is usually the movement that starts the session. Part of the selection is informed by athlete preference and equipment availability.
Rather than applying triphasic means to as many exercises as is appropriate, we apply the triphasic stimulus to the movement that will get us the most return, second order benefit, and residual. Share on X
Micro planning for your triphasic days can also require adaptability. Because many athletes I work with now have variable training environments, my triphasic approach must account for that variability. If they have safety bars or trap bars, we can employ a near (90%+) or semi supramaximal approach within a training week when the opportunity presents itself— it is a training feast-and-famine approach. The beauty is that the more you and the athlete do this, the easier it becomes.

The session planning or decision-making itself is where the craftsmanship qualities of a coach get to shine. The aim should be brilliance in subtlety, objective measures informing coach decision-making—basic exercises with tweaks in joint angles, force velocity relationship, and TUT that provide just enough specificity for the needs of the individual but also are able to adapt to variable situations.

Programs should be aesthetic. I am a big believer that if it looks good, it is good, and most good coaches can intuit this just by looking at a program and its intent. Programs should be minimal or at least meet the idea of another Mladen principle I like: minimal viable performance (MVP)—is it enough to achieve our immediate aims? It should have enough context and be easy to understand, it should match the thrust of intent in order to fit even roughly into our overall picture. To bring it back to my earlier metaphor, these are elements that make the mosaic.

Here is an example of an ideal week that allows us to employ intensive dosing.

Figure 4. An example of an ideal week that allows us to employ intensive dosing.

We can boil this down further into an ideal scenario versus non-ideal scenario for our agile weeks. I outlined a little of the plan A, B, C thinking in my tips for golfers post. Below is a suggestion for approaching that day 1 scenario based on whether you’ve had to adapt to an optimal or suboptimal scenario using an OODA loop.

This where we move away from our structured triphasic sprints; we have to implement what is, in effect, a form of adaptive planning based on circumstance. This is a commonality for athletes based in touring sports like golf, tennis, motorsport, etc. Either way, training IS happening.

Observe the training facility or lack thereof— what does it have: barbells, racks, trap bar, med balls, etc.? Orient based on what the athlete needs. Strength? Ballistics? Hypertrophy? Decide by merging the last two together. How do I use this to embrace the challenges I am facing today? Then finally act and execute the training plan based on these.

Figure 5. Sometimes we have to abandon our structured triphasic sprints and implement something more adaptable to the current situation. First observe what’s available in the facility and then what the athlete needs. Next, execute the training plan.

Could I Dose Intensive Work More Regularly?

Using supramaximal eccentric or isometric means that dose volume and frequency would be lower, whereas the submaximal method would have a less pronounced and prolonged effect but could be based more frequently. A lot of frequency is dictated by training age, athlete competency, and also buy-in to the approach. So, an intensive submaximal compressed method would look like this (repeat throughout the year):

Figure 6. Example of an intensive submaximal compressed method.

While I am trying to articulate a very fluid approach, I have found that the more very experienced coaches I talk to, the more they seem to operate in this fashion, usually as an expression of implicit knowledge. The other big caveat to this is that, at least initially, most athletes may need to start their training in a very rigid sense. Then, as training age accumulates, it gives them the solid foundation upon which abstraction can be built.

The key to this approach being successful is using a pragmatic decision-making process like an OODA loop, and it becoming a long-term iterative process of refinement across repeat applications of releases and phases. I am not naive enough to believe this approach will work for everyone, but it is an approach that has recently served my own idiosyncratic circumstances very well.

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

References

Jeffries, I. “Agility training for team sports – running the OODA loop.” Professional Strength & Conditioning. 2016;42:15-21.

Munger, C.N., Archer, D.C., Leyva, W.D., et al. “Acute effects of eccentric overload on concentric squat performance.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2017;31(5):1192-1197.

Wirth, K., Keiner, M., Szilvas, E., Hartmann, H., Sander, A., Wirth. “Effects of eccentric strength training on different maximal strength and speed-strength parameters of the lower extremity.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2015;29(7):1837-1845.

Adopting a Technical Model for Acceleration and Speed in Team Sports

Blog| ByJohn Grace
It’s no secret that acceleration capabilities and sprint speed are sought-after qualities for many field- and court-based sports. Since it seems to be so highly regarded by coaches and management (teams), we must develop a multi-pronged approach to develop speed. Many classical approaches in team sport have attempted to address speed improvements in the weight room, specifically through strength improvements. While strength can assist with relatively underdeveloped athletes and more force-end-of-the-spectrum athletes, this approach will only get you so far. Beyond initial strength improvements for the underdeveloped athlete, searching for speed improvements through strength gains may be futile.

The use of more potent methods in the weight room and during training is necessary for the continued development of acceleration and speed. To do this, it vital to understand what makes people fast, physiologically and technically.
The use of more potent methods in the weight room and during training is necessary for the continued development of acceleration and speed, says @john_r_grace. Share on X
Elite sprinters don’t sprint faster than team sport athletes by chance. Of course, things like genetics and specificity of training come into play. No one is really arguing that. It’s tough to max out one single physical quality like speed when many skills and physical qualities are at play in team sport success. Simply recognizing what makes the elite fast can have a trickle-down effect for team sport athletes.

Newton doesn’t care if you compete in soccer, basketball, football, or track. How you run fast is how you run fast.

Now, before everyone gets up in arms about this comment, there are other considerations and game situations that put constraints on the ability to execute speed with model technique. Spatial constraints can change the sprint technique the athlete has to adopt. The proximity of an athlete to an opponent or teammate, the need to change body position based on another’s movement, sprinting while simultaneously trying to put the body in a position to defend, etc.—these all can change the athlete’s sprint technique from model technique to a potentially more successful technique for that given situation. These ideas, though, are beyond the scope of this article.

Acceleration and Max Velocity Characteristics

The qualities that make an athlete a great accelerator are quite different than those that make a great top-speed sprinter. There is some carryover of acceleration qualities to maximal velocity sprinting, and vice versa, as sufficient levels of vertical force production are needed throughout an entire sprint. Additionally, longer, more efficient accelerations typically yield higher maximal velocities, but the physical and technical qualities needed to remain at maximal velocity are at separate ends of the same spectrum.

To start to put the sprinting puzzle together, take a look at the sprint characteristics of the elite sprinting population.

Figure 1. A look at the sprint characteristics of elite sprinters.

While sub-elite and team sport athletes don’t typically exhibit these elite characteristics, this table does give a glimpse into how the elite sprint fast.

Since we know that speed is the product of stride length and stride frequency, our initial assumption may be to dissect those two characteristics and aim to train those fairly directly.

On the surface, this equation leads us to believe that increasing stride length, stride frequency, or both simultaneously would be the surefire way to increase speed. From a purely mathematical standpoint this would be true. What we sometimes fail to recognize is that when we speak about increasing stride length or frequency, there is an underlying reason these elites have the stride parameters that allow them to sprint as fast as they do.

If we view stride length and frequency as the main drivers of speed and try to directly increase either one of them in an attempt to sprint faster, we could actually be turning an average sprinter into a bad sprinter.
Increasing stride length without a thought of its effect on the rest of technique will result in inefficient ground contact in front of the center of mass, says @john_r_grace. Share on X
Increasing stride length without a thought of its effect on the rest of technique will result in inefficient ground contact in front of the center of mass. Planting well in front of the center of mass will very likely decrease performances in speed, as well as put the athlete at a greater risk of injury (more on this later). This is also true when coaches and athletes increase stride frequency without consideration to other technical sprint characteristics. Think of the cartoon roadrunner spinning his (her?) wheels—super high frequency but going nowhere, and as a result, stride length deteriorates as a result of suboptimal force application.

There is an interplay between the two, but typically, when an athlete tries to increase one without regard to the other, the potential gain from doing so is negated by the drop-off of the opposing value. Oftentimes, the decrease in the opposing value is greater than any potential increase created. This means that when we attempt to increase one parameter, the athlete will often become slower.

So, where does this leave us?

When we look at other characteristics like ground contact times and force production, we also see elites exhibit seemingly impossible values. This leads us to the cause of speed and, in fact, successive improvements in stride length and stride frequency parameters. Rather than viewing stride length and frequency as two separate entities, we must look at how to improve one or both of these qualities without the other deteriorating significantly.

The most effective way to do this is to apply a large amount of force in the appropriate time constraints and in the appropriate directions.

With this in mind, increasing speed comes down to two main factors:

Increasing technical proficiency in sprinting.

Increasing physical qualities related to acceleration and maximal velocity sprinting.

Governing Principles and Sprinting Commonalities

There are commonalities in technique among the best at anything. It’s no coincidence that the best athletes exhibit similar technical execution in sprinting. Because technique is not the only thing to come into play, and genetics is another major factor in success, someone with suboptimal technique and superior genetics can still be faster than a technical wizard with suboptimal genetics. While you generally need a combination of genetics and great technique at the highest level, there are athletes with some major quirks who are anomalies.

It is important that we don’t look at the anomalies as an example, but rather, a range of competitors. The anomalies are always the ones who get mentioned when it comes to debating how important technique really is or what it should really look like. Many times, the technical quirk does not make them great (although it may); it is that their genetics and other physical qualities are great enough to overshadow the quirk.

Great sprinters all exhibit the same basic technique and then develop individual styles around their anatomical and physical constraints. This should be no different from team sport athletes.
Great sprinters all exhibit the same basic technique and then develop individual styles around their anatomical and physical constraints. This should be no different from team sport athletes. Share on X
While the following are general hallmarks of good sprinting, it does matter what is happening in between them. Plus, if the athlete does not have requisite physical qualities, there may be deviations within these examples.

Governing Technical Principles of Acceleration:

General Leg Action: Piston-like. On first steps, at ground contact the opposite knee will punch forward with minimal cyclical action. The free leg thigh will block perpendicular or near perpendicular to the body, and the shin should be parallel or near parallel to the body. With each subsequent step the foot should “cycle” higher relative to the previous step.

General Arm Swing: Powerful through large ranges of motion. Front arm angle decreases and hand finishes near the eyeline as rear arm angle increases to near full extension and finishes above the body.

Posture: Once the initial push is complete, you should see a near straight line from the shoulder to ankle. Minimal to no folding at the hip. Forcing or cueing the athlete to “lean” or “stay low” may directly impact other technical elements such as placement of foot on touchdown.

Projection: Projection ties into posture a bit, but they are different from one another. You should give the athlete guidance as to how projection should feel and look but chasing specific projection angles shouldn’t be the goal. Forcing the athlete to push out at a specific angle that is beyond their current strength abilities can create stumbling out of acceleration and/or inefficient ground contacts in front of COM. As specific strength increases, the ability to project horizontally should as well. As long as you see steps that gradually progress from the athlete pushing to upright, you’re in the right ballpark.

Ground Contact: Underneath/behind center of mass. This is paramount to appropriate force application. Touching down in front of the COM may elicit higher ground contact times and improper force application in relation to the rest of the body.

Full Support: Support leg continues to push away to near extension while free leg punches to the front side of the body as fast as possible. Intentionally pushing the stance leg to maximal extension may yield worse sprint results due to greater ground contact times. I will cover this potential error in more detail below.

Toe-Off: See the posture and projection sections above.

Governing Technical Principles of Maximum Velocity

Posture: Upright and tall.

General Leg Action: Leg action should move to more cyclical with minimal backside mechanics.

General Arm Swing: Rhythmic and relaxed but pumping hard. The arms should open and close with a smaller angle at the elbow exhibited in the front-side arm and a larger angle at the elbow to the back-side arm. The arms should not stay locked at 90 degrees.

Initial Ground Contact: Foot contacts ground slightly in front of COM. While it’s best to teach athletes to contact under the hip, this actually doesn’t happen in efficient sprinting, as they would fall over forward if it did. The foot, though, should not contact excessively in front of the COM as it would cause excessive braking forces. The free leg thigh will be in line with the stance leg thigh. If the knee is behind the stance leg thigh, this may be excessive backside mechanics.

Full Support: Leg is directly under the hip with as minimal amortization at the knee as possible (this aspect ties into the physical attributes of the athlete). The free leg’s knee should be slightly in front of the support leg’s thigh with the foot continuing to “step over the opposite knee.” If the athlete exhibits appropriate technique, this will look like a “number 4” from a side view.

Toe-Off: On toe-off, the athlete should exhibit near full extension during push-off. Full extension at toe-off is not necessary though. This will increase ground contact time. Achieving full extension in a contrived manner in an attempt to increase vertical or horizontal force production is a fool’s errand, as the peak force application is already completed, and any excess time spent on the ground will deteriorate speed.

Mid-Flight: Maintenance of a generally neutral pelvis is of great importance (not just in flight, but throughout the entire sprint as well). In flight, the shoulder joint to the knee joint should be in a relatively straight line with no major curvature in the spine. The most common backside mechanic problem in team sport is butt kicking.

If you were to draw a vertical line from the shoulder through the hip, the knee would be significantly behind if butt kicking were to occur. Butt kicking puts a huge stretch on the rectus femoris and may cause the pelvis to rotate anteriorly. Without high levels of flexibility in the quad and hip, this will typically put the low back into lordosis, putting the hamstring on greater stretch during the late swing phase and ground contact. This also typically reduces the likelihood of subsequent knee lift, which can limit force application upon ground contact.

Moving Toward a Technical Model

To make any concerted effort at changing sprint technique, we have to first understand what we’re looking at and what deviations we’re looking for. Following a model and developing a coaching eye allow us to do this. The general principles outlined above are the major technical commonalities in successful sprinting. I do believe we need to move team sport athletes closer to that model, but there may be a point when moving closer and closer to a technical model or searching to change finer and finer detail, especially in team sport, can become detrimental.
There may be a point when moving closer and closer to a technical model or searching to change finer and finer detail, especially in team sport, can become detrimental, says @john_r_grace. Share on X
Team sport competition offers many other ways for the athlete and team to be successful than just the physical. Technical and tactical elements will often win and lose games more often than physical elements. Individuals in the NBA may be able to jump out of the gym, but if the team’s jumper is off for the night, they may lose the game. In soccer, if the tactical element is not addressed through training and video, the team may not be prepared well enough to be successful against an opponent. But when all you have are technical skills to rely on, that gives you less chance to be successful than if you also had some physical abilities to fall back on.

Stealing time from sport technical training in the hope of changing a few degrees of arm swing or achieving another inch of knee lift in upright sprinting because “that’s what puts us closer to the model” is probably not worth it. We really need to think about how all the elements of being a successful athlete interact, not just the physical.

Once the foundational concepts are in place and learned, the athlete can and will gravitate to a more individualized style based on anthropometry and personal restrictions and limitations.

As a side note, just because an athlete has sprinted with poor technique their entire career does not mean that we can use the cop-out that this is their “individual style.” This poor technique came about because they have never been taught how to sprint efficiently. Much of their youth was probably spent developing technical sport skill with little development on the technical performance side.

Injury Considerations

Hamstring injuries in sport are not going away, and there is some evidence to say these modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors play a role:

Previous injury

Knee flexor strength

Muscular properties (fascicle length)

Age

Exposure to relatively high sprint speeds

Technical execution of sprinting*

There are certainly more considerations than these, and injuries never come down to just one thing. We must balance all of these and more to mitigate hamstring or any other soft tissue injury risk. Additionally, some of these risk factors bleed into one another, meaning that increased knee flexor strength as well as exposure to sprint speeds can enhance fascicle length.

We’ll tackle the two that deal specifically with speed:

Technical execution

Exposure to maximal velocity

Modifying Sprint Technique

Sprint technique should be addressed as a way to reduce risk of injury. Even if research does not fully support this idea yet, I believe it will. Many strength and conditioning coaches agree that performing weight room exercises under great load with suboptimal technique has a higher injury risk when compared to that same exercise and load completed with closer to optimal technique for that individual. Sprinting is no different than this idea—it’s a high-force, high-velocity exercise that demands technical execution.
Sprint technique should be addressed as a way to reduce risk of injury. Even if research does not fully support this idea yet, I believe it will, says @john_r_grace. Share on X
Most sprint coaches would agree there would be some increased risk of injury if their 11 m/s athlete started to sprint with major backside mechanics or plant significantly in front of the center of mass, as some team sport athletes do. Just as important to injury risk is performance—that 11 m/s athlete would not be an 11 m/s athlete anymore if these things were to occur. If anything, the bigger picture reason may be decreased performance and sprint speed.

If the best sprint coaches and researchers believe there is a relatively clear definition of optimal and suboptimal technique, why are some technical issues not always viewed as suboptimal in other sports?

Once we understand the governing principles, we can start to take inventory of what we potentially want to change in certain athletes. Don’t expect to change every technical flaw either. Trying to perform a complete overhaul of technique to mimic these governing principles in one fell swoop may cause issues. We’re better off fixing the big rocks first. Big errors, when fixed, can sometimes clean up the little errors.

Generally, work from big flaw to small flaw, biggest performance gainer to smallest performance gainer, and/or biggest injury risk to smallest injury risk. It is crucial to understand the “big rock” components of the model and recognize how far away technically the athlete is currently. I think there are a few key considerations when looking to change sprinting technique for a team sport athlete:

Does their current technique put them at a higher risk for injury? This points to the idea of how far away they are from the technical model. Assuming there is a connection between technical execution and injury risk, this becomes one of the most important considerations.

If you were successful at changing a specific aspect of sprint technique, are you confident this change will improve performance or reduce injury risk? If not, it may not be worth the time investment.

What is that athlete’s injury history? If the athlete’s injury history is clean, you may be a bit more aggressive in your approach than what you may do with an athlete who has had a rash of hamstring strains or soft tissue injuries.

If the athlete does have a clean injury history, where are they in your bandwidth of technical acceptability? This brings us back to consideration #1.

Spending significant time to modify a few degrees of arm swing or trying to get an athlete’s knee up another inch might not be worth it. Greater performance gains in team sport might be seen by spending that time working on technical and tactical elements of sport.

Another important consideration is the athlete’s age. Do we spend as much time on a 30+ year-old athlete as we do a 20-year-old athlete? It’s not that we can’t improve older athletes, but they’ve had significantly more time engraining their current sprint technique than a 20-year-old. This may make the 30-year-old a bigger project, and it can potentially be more time-consuming to pull them out their bad habits. This scenario also brings us back to the considerations above.

Dose and Frequency

Many coaches now tout maximal velocity sprinting as a protective mechanism for the hamstring. I am no different. I do believe that exposure to intense sprinting is quite important. If an athlete is not prepared to perform intense work or the tissue is not capable of effectively handling high levels of tension, there is an increased risk of injury. Intense preparation is imperative for intense competition.
Intense preparation is imperative for intense competition, says @john_r_grace. Share on X
There are research studies that show there is a “sweet spot” of speed exposure to reduce injuries. One, in particular, shows the U-shaped curve, and the lowest incidence of injury is between 5 and 11 maximal velocity speed reps per week. While great conceptually, this does not account for the frequency at which it is dosed within the week (and based on anecdotal evidence, I think the number of reps may be overzealous).

We must think about the frequency at which we expose athletes to this high-intensity work. Is the athlete being exposed to this volume of sprinting 2-3 days in a row, twice a week with a day or two between, once every seven days? Completing five near-maximal velocity sprints in one training session or game is not the same as completing one near-maximal sprint five days in a row. I’m not suggesting anyone is actually doing the latter, but this is an illustration to show that it is not only the count of sprints at the end of the week that matters, but the frequency of exposure as well as the quality of movement matter more.

Figure 2. While you can see the total number of exposures are identical at five per week, how they got there is completely different for each of them. This fact is just as important. The risks of a hamstring or lower body soft tissue injury for these individuals on any particular day and leading into the following week are certainly not the same.

I’ve tracked velocities >90% in training and matches for a few years now, and I’m not convinced it needs to be as frequent or in as relatively a high volume as the research would indicate. If an athlete missed a seven-day rolling window of sprinting at high velocity, I never forced them to make it up immediately. My step-in point was usually between 14 and 21 days, as I thought this would be the point that tissue preparedness would start to decrease. I have no hard evidence on that 14- to 21-day window, but I know tissue preparedness does not wane from Friday to Monday. Forcing an athlete to “make up” maximal velocity work without a thought on where it should be placed can actually cause problems in itself.
Forcing an athlete to “make up” maximal velocity work without a thought on where it should be placed can actually cause problems in itself, says @john_r_grace. Share on X
If you neglect where you place maximal velocity sprinting and just check the box to check the box, you could easily blow an athlete up. Maybe not on that particular day, but a few days down the road is possible. If this does happen, the temptation is then usually to blame it on lack of exposure and that the athlete needed more. In reality, it could have had nothing to do with lack of exposure and actually been the placement of the stimulus that did it—sprinting at an inappropriate time can be just as harmful as not sprinting.

Ability

You shouldn’t treat your speed-power studs like your donkeys. Sprinting and plyometric activities are largely self-intensifying. In other words, as the athlete jumps farther and higher, and as sprinting speeds become faster, the tension generated within the muscles and tendons is greater, in turn creating a greater stress response. A 10 m/s team sport athlete may not be able to handle the speed volume of work that an 8.5 m/s athlete can.

A common thought is that the speed-power stud needs to do more to raise the ceiling or can handle more because they have a more robust set of physical qualities, but in fact it is quite the opposite. The speed-power stud typically shouldn’t do more because of the additional stress incurred from working at higher intensities. For this reason, there is little need to progress volumes over the course of the year, as long as the exercises chosen allow the athlete to express high levels of intensity, and the athlete’s physical qualities are improving.

Anecdotally, slower, less powerful athletes have fewer muscular injuries simply because they don’t have the engine to produce the intensities needed to actually injure themselves.

Acceleration and Speed Development Is Not Just Acceleration and Speed Development

Strength and conditioning coaches often don’t view sprint training as “strength” work.

Why?

Take a couple steps back and think about what strength is. Rather than thinking of strength as how much you lift, think of strength as a neural quality that requires the muscles and tendons to produce appropriate levels of tension to complete a task. If we adopt this definition of strength, exposing an athlete to sprinting is one of the, if not the, highest tensions a muscle and tendon complex will ever be exposed to.
Rather than thinking of strength as how much you lift, think of strength as a neural quality that requires the muscles and tendons to produce appropriate levels of tension to complete a task. Share on X
Is acceleration and speed training “strength” work? Yes. Sprinting has the ability to improve tissue capacity due to the high levels of tension just like traditional strength work does. I don’t necessarily think they are an equal trade-off and wouldn’t ditch the traditional strength work in the weight room, but this does put sprinting as a means of strength/neural training in a new or different light, especially when a weight room is not available. We don’t have to revert to bodyweight lunges and squats that are largely fluff and fillers to make it look like we’re doing something. Sprinting, jumping, and throwing are a viable maintenance strategy during the competition season.

Traditional strength training largely carries over to speed because of the neural adaptations, not necessarily because the muscle was able to produce more tension or force. Maximal intensity sprinting produces the highest tension in the shortest amount of time out of any exercise that you can do. It’s not a one-sided connection in that strength improves speed. It’s reciprocal, as there is a connection between these two qualities. Strength training can enhance sprinting from a neural stimulation standpoint, whereas sprinting can enhance strength and power from a neural and tension standpoint.

Outside of actual transfer of speed to the field and court, this is the reason sprinting as a means of training to maintain and/or develop other physical qualities is useful. Maximal intensity acceleration and speed training is such a potent stimulus. The qualities developed from sprinting can carry over to sports that don’t necessarily need speed to be successful, such as volleyball or tennis.

Complementary Training Components to Acceleration and Speed

Training elements need to be complementary to the end goal. In this case we’re specifically dealing with the abilities to accelerate and sprint faster. It is important to note that these complementary training elements are also applicable to other sporting movements, as the goal is to largely enhance specific aspects such as improving motor unit recruitment, rate coding, and motor unit synchronization. Of course, these suggestions are not exhaustive and are most likely more of a representation of the philosophy I have adopted though the years.

There are certain exercises that lend themselves much better to acceleration than others. Training elements that can be complementary to acceleration development:

Speed: Heavy and light resisted sprints, hill sprints, accelerations

Plyometric/Jumps: Horizontal and vertical jumping with relatively longer GCT, basic bounding, static medicine ball throws, skipping variants, etc.

Resistance Training: moderate to heavy Olympic lifts and pulling variants, squats, deadlifts, lunges

Note: Be careful with heavy sled pushes to assist here. The benefits of any joint angle-specific loading can be washed away with flat-footed contacts and a hunched-over torso. On top of this, a sled push requires the arms to hold the sled handles, which takes away from specificity as well. I’m also skeptical that heavy sled pushes have similar neuromuscular coordination characteristics as something like heavy back squats.

There are also certain exercises that lend themselves much better to maximal velocity. Training elements that can be complementary to speed development:

Speed: Flys, sprint float sprint type, maximal sprinting

Plyometric/Jumps: Hurdle hopping, depth jumping, vertical emphasis bounding variants, dynamic/elastic medicine ball throws, assisted jumping, etc.

Resistance Training: Light to heavy Olympic lifts and pulling variants, quarter/half squats, shorter ROM step-ups, etc.

Note: Assisted sprinting is sometimes a popular method to employ, but this can backfire easily. Assisted sprinting leads one to believe it is working because it looks faster and because of the end result of faster sprint times when performing the exercise. These faster sprint times are largely due to covering more distance during flight. In fact, assisted sprinting may result in longer ground contact times due to the athlete needing to place the foot down farther in front of COM to stay balanced. This the exact opposite of the characteristics needed to sprint fast.

Interconnected Qualities and Techniques

Each one of these topics could certainly be an article in itself, and while I initially wanted to write a few thoughts about sprint technique, it’s hard to mention only one of these topics on its own without the others since they are all quite connected.

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

A Holistic Approach to Athlete Recovery with Dr. Josh Nelson

Freelap Friday Five| ByJosh Nelson
Josh Nelson currently serves as the Assistant Athletic Director for Applied Health and Performance Science at Penn State University. There, he leads areas of sport science and performance education and works to connect all areas of the university community—including athletics, academics, and key stakeholders—around high performance. Nelson previously spent time as a strength and conditioning coach at Baylor University and Emory & Henry College. He completed his doctorate degree at West Virginia University.

Freelap USA: What is your take on cold/ice as a recovery element/modality?

Josh Nelson: I truly think that every tool has a place and a job—the more tools I have, the more solutions there are at my disposal. That does not mean that a single tool should be used for every situation or that every tool needs to be used in a single case.

As with all our tools, I think that cold/ice has its place with recovery. It is extremely available in most facilities, and athletes are often accustomed to using it. I do think that there is a time and a place to allow inflammation to run its course in the natural process of healing and adaptation—I tend to like to utilize cold/ice during times of the year when we really need to combat inflammation.
I do think that there is a time and a place to allow inflammation to run its course in the natural process of healing and adaptation, says @DrCoachNelly. Share on X
This goes back to a principles-based decision-making system: If we know the specific goal of the time of year, that then dictates what recovery we choose. For example, if we are in the off-season, and the primary goal is development, there may be room for inflammation to run its course and to contribute to the healing and tolerance-building process. On the flip side, if we are in the middle of a season, and the primary goal is readiness on Saturday, we need to do anything and everything we can to get the athlete to feel good for game day.

I also think that there is some merit in not using a single recovery tool on a day-to-day basis. While this may be tough for certain units that do not have the resources to accommodate teams with many different options, I feel that being selective with how and when we use our tools will actually increase their effectiveness when we do use them. From a day-to-day perspective, I think we should focus on sound habits revolving around sleep and nutrition.

Freelap USA: How do you approach the mind-body aspect of recovery and athlete well-being in general?

Josh Nelson: When we are talking development or recovery, it is important to consider how our body manages stressors—especially as it pertains to adaptation. Regardless of the direction or type of stimulus (e.g., physical, mental, social), our bodies will interpret and treat the stressor in a similar way by ramping up physiological processes that will allow the body to survive. It is also important to consider that these stimuli that cause the response can come from an outside source (e.g., physical, environmental) or an internal source (e.g., mental, emotional).

When we think about the training and recovery experiences we create for our athletes, it is crucial for us to be able to see the whole athlete experience and all the directions they are pulled. This is where a long-term calendar or annual plan can really be beneficial. On the annual plan, we can put all stressors that may impact our athletes at that point in the year (e.g., pre-season practice, mid-terms, travel, holidays). Then, as we start to look more closely at specific weeks and days, we can begin to be more precise and individualized with the recovery programming that we prescribe.

I also think there is a time and a place to teach athletes about key principles of training, adaptation, and recovery. We have many athletes who will be moving on to play at the next level, and even more who will one day become parents and teach their children the basics of sport. Surrounding them with this information allows them to be more informed, to make better decisions, and to be more invested in their personal development. With that, we work to involve athletes (and coaches) with conversations pertaining to the “why” behind what we do. An important note is that we do not use direct styles of teaching or lectures to provide this information, but rather authentic experiences embedded in organic conversations and interactions with our athletes and staff.
During the time away from our normal operations due to COVID-19, we’ve had a lot of success with teaching recovery (and activation) through a principles-based approach, says @DrCoachNelly. Share on X
I think a lot of recovery modalities have their place if we break them down to their principles. During the time we have been away from our normal operations due to COVID-19, we have had a lot of success with teaching recovery (and activation) through a principles-based approach. If we really dig down deep into each recovery tool, we can then begin to understand the actual impact that it has on our bodies. Once we understand this, we can refine when and how we may use the recovery system and then also find alternatives if we run into a situation when it is not available (e.g., travel, weather, worldwide pandemic).

A principles-based approach to using recovery tools:

Understand the impact the current training has on the body as a system.

Examples: heavy CNS load, heavy metabolic load, recovery load

Organize recovery (or activation) tools that you have available by what they do.

Examples: target sympathetic/parasympathetic, reduce inflammation, restore energy stores

Pair recovery (or activation) tool with the physical/mental stressor that the athlete has encountered.

Examples: Pair energy-dense fueling opportunities following metabolically demanding training exposures

My approach to athlete development and performance science revolves around the holistic development of the athlete and the person. Athletes must be able to build tolerance in order to prepare and compete at a high level. This is accomplished through the application of appropriate physical and mental stress, a great lifestyle, and sound recovery principles. None of these three areas exist in isolation but rather as an interconnected system that has both the athlete and the coach as driving players. While it is the responsibility of the athlete to have positive habits as it relates to preparation, lifestyle, and recovery, it is the duty of the coach to provide dynamic and developmentally appropriate environments for athletes to learn and grow.

Freelap USA: Do you have any recovery pieces you utilize that you would consider “nontraditional” in nature?

Josh Nelson: While I always consider the “why” behind different recovery tools, I try to continually explore new options and keep an open mind with new tools that may become available. I do not currently utilize very many nontraditional tools, but rather I encourage athletes to find ways to achieve recovery by balancing their perceived sympathetic and parasympathetic states. The off-season can provide great opportunities for athletes to explore new tools and see how they may fit into their personal toolbox.
The bottom line here is that we aren’t relying on any one tool, but rather the principle of moving to a recovery state, says @DrCoachNelly. Share on X
If we can find a recovery system that allows a sympathetically charged athlete to move to a more relaxed parasympathetic state following training, we are working in the right direction. Examples of this may be simply switching the tempo of music, walking barefoot on grass, or even drinking a caffeine-free tea before bedtime. The bottom line here is that we are not relying on any one tool, but rather the principle of moving to a recovery state.

Freelap USA: What are some of the more overrated forms of recovery that exist? What are some of the most underrated?

Josh Nelson: I think the most underrated forms of recovery exist within our lifestyle and habits. Too often we focus on external objects to solve a problem or to give us an edge. If we can first start with sound decisions as they pertain to sleep, nutrition, and positive choice in our everyday lives, it will set us up with a wonderful foundation for development. Once we have that set, I think we can begin to individualize our recovery for the specific situation or time of year. The bottom line is that habits and lifestyle are not only some of the most underrated forms of recovery, they are also some of the most underrated forms of development in our careers.
Habits and lifestyle are not only some of the most underrated forms of recovery, they are also some of the most underrated forms of development in our careers, says @DrCoachNelly. Share on X
As far as tools or systems that are overrated, I think that everything has a time and a place. If we can focus on the “why” and the principles associated with everything we do, everything will have its place.

Freelap USA: What are some ideas in regard to integrating a total stress-recovery plan into your work with the coaches in your department?

Josh Nelson: When working to balance work and recovery within the annual plan, it is important for everyone to respect the impact that stress (from any direction) has on athlete readiness and development. This lens allows us to have a progressive plan and to pair complementary experiences together. At the end of the day, development is like a puzzle—we must fit all the pieces together!

As far as integrating these concepts across an entire department, I feel as though I always need to be learning and seeking understanding from other staff members as opposed to instructing them on the specifics of loading and recovery. Personally, I want to talk about the planning and application of load all day—I love it! At the end of the day, however, I first need to understand the reasons behind what already exists and then the specifics of each coach’s style before I make a change or push to install a personal model. Through this process, I really like to be consistent in sharing manageable chunks of content, data, or real-life examples with the goal of creating a common language and cultivating conversation.

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

Why Extensive Sprint Warm-Ups Are Your Key for Return to Play

Blog| ByJacob Williams
The sports performance industry is currently in uncharted territory, simply from the standpoint of the uncertainty shadowing how and when we will all return to doing what we do best. On top of that uncertainty comes this crucial question: As coaches, how do we ensure it is safe for our athletes to return to physical activity? Any strength and conditioning coach will agree that the concern over soft tissue injuries is at the forefront of our minds during this process.

As we begin bringing back our athletes, many of us have realized that you can tell and show an athlete what to do independently, but their training intensity is not the same as when they are being coached. We can tell them what to do, but without a coach correcting their technique, creating motivation, or pushing them to strive for more, the training effect is not the same. Therefore, despite all the time spent on at-home training programs and trying to hold your athletes accountable, they still may not be prepared when circumstances allow a return to training or competition.
One of the major steps we are taking to ensure that our athletes will be prepared when their season begins is extending our sprint technique warm-up. Share on X
At Varsity House Gym, one of the major steps we are taking to ensure that our athletes will be prepared when their season begins is extending our sprint technique warm-up. Simply put, this is a way for us to stress the mechanics of sprinting without stressing their joints and tendons with the higher forces and velocities of actually sprinting. There are three reasons I believe extending your sprint prep warm-up is the key to helping prepare your athletes for return to their sport:

The low-impact nature of warm-up drills will not overtax their tendons and joints, and they will be more prepared for the higher intensities of sprinting.

By extending our warm-up process, we are building in some extra work capacity through the increase in tonnage (by yards) of the amount of work the athlete performs. For example, we will have them do all their sprint prep work through 20 yards down and back. After six drills, we will have already built up to 240 yards of work without taxing the athlete as much.

Making athletes perform more reps of their sprint technique will give them more opportunities to figure out how to solve the complex motor issues of live sprinting.

What Does an Extended Sprint Warm-Up Look Like?

When we perform our sprint prep series, there are, generally speaking, approximately 4-6 drills that we do, depending on the time of year, the time within the training block, and the experience of the athletes we work with. Along with that, we work from slow to fast and simple to complex in the drills that we choose to do for that day. This allows the athlete to build on one drill into the next, again giving us more reference points to pull from for technical cues.

Table 1. Example of sprint prep progression used in an extensive warm-up.

As you can see, all of the drills follow the progression of slow to fast and simple to complex—simply adding a level of intent or speed to a drill is a progression in itself. Therefore, each time you add speed to a drill (i.e., A-Walk to A-March), you require the athlete to solve the same movement problem in a more intense environment. Even a small change in pace can expose imbalances or technical inconsistencies with an inexperienced athlete.

Next, when it comes to the warm-up process, we do our volume considerations in three- or four-week waves, again giving our athletes optimal opportunities to adapt to the stimulus. Yet the way we work, it actually happens in reverse: We have a longer warm-up during the first 1-2 weeks, as it helps our athletes adapt to the training stimulus a bit better. We may perform our sprint prep drills for 20+ yards or meters for two rounds during the initial weeks.

As athletes become more efficient with the warm-up process, we can then decrease the volume and increase the intensity of the warm-ups by introducing some more complex warm-up options. When we lessen the volume, we can start by lowering the number of sets first and then lowering the distance traveled, as we want to still allow them actual time to adapt to the more complex stimuli.

Why It Works

I previously mentioned the three reasons that extending the sprint warm-up helps to prepare athletes for return to their sport. Here, I explain the thinking behind those reasons as well as how to apply it with your own athletes.

1. Has a Low Impact on Joints and Tissues

The best ability is availability. Coaches across all levels cannot express this mantra enough to their athletes. This will be our #1 job as strength coaches—ensuring our athletes are available when it is time to hit the field. Athletes will not be ready to start moving at fast velocities on day 1, week 1…maybe not even month 1. Therefore, we need to make sure we initially do things that are low impact and joint- and tissue-friendly to ensure continued availability to train and play.
As a return-to-play policy, extending the warm-ups will help increase the resilience of the athletes’ tissues, helping them become more accustomed to those forces over time. Share on X
The low-impact nature of warm-up drills like marching, skipping, and dribbling make them great places to start. Performing these drills allows us to reintroduce proper sprinting mechanics without the added velocities and forces of live sprinting. As a return-to-play policy, extending the warm-ups will help increase the resilience of the athletes’ tissues, helping them become more accustomed to those forces over time. The resilience and stiffness of their tendons will correlate highly to their readiness to jump, throw, and sprint, as it will directly affect the stretch-shortening cycle of the muscle¹.

Given the amount of time many of our athletes have been on the couch, their tendons will not have the prerequisite tissue stiffness to handle the necessary intensities. Using low-impact warm-ups to help re-establish tendon stiffness and resilience will be vital to helping them return to play. Providing more stiffness in the tendons will prevent overloading our athletes to perform activities that their bodies are not prepared to perform.

2. Increases Work Capacity

A major obstacle to returning to play will be the athletes’ level of conditioning (or lack thereof). Even when experienced athletes work out on their own, there can be a different training stimulus then training in the gym environment. For example, one of our elite-level athletes in the NBA was still training on his own throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the minute he came back to training, he was highly detrained, and it took him about two weeks to get back to where he was before the quarantine started. Considering that reality, if an elite-level athlete can take two weeks to get back to regular training, what do we think high school athletes will be like?

Using the warm-up to gain work capacity is an easy layup for creating additional opportunities without the direct stress of a conditioning protocol. Even something as simple as a few 50-yard shuttles will be a challenge for athletes who have been slacking during the time off.
Using the warm-up to gain work capacity is an easy layup for creating additional opportunities without the direct stress of a conditioning protocol. Share on X
Extending the pre-sprint warm-up process creates an opportunity to increase that work capacity in a low-impact environment. Performing the drills with optimal technique over distances of 20 or 30 yards/meters will tax both the muscular and cardiovascular systems of athletes who may have been less active than their norm. You can also opt to perform drills stationary, using time instead of distance, which can give you greater control over the work-to-rest ratios and more ability to dial in the conditioning aspect. Thankfully, the general low intensity of warm-up drills can allow you to have athletes perform them for extended periods without worrying about overworking the athlete.

Using these tools to sneak in extra “conditioning”—without the high impact or intensity of real conditioning—will be paramount for an efficient return to play. We can push the time of work without the fear of detrimental soft tissue injuries, as long as we maintain low intensities over an extended distance or time. Building back a base of basic work capacity will help us lay the groundwork for increased work down the line—and now, more than ever, this needs to be at the forefront of our consideration.

3. Improves Technical Proficiency

When it comes to sprinting, getting your athletes to understand the proper postures and positioning is an important step. Yet, we aren’t always able to spend the amount of time we probably should on giving the athlete’s brain time to figure out the proper positions.

Many of us are familiar with the 10,000-hour rule, which states that it may take 10,000 hours to become an expert at something. Especially when it comes to something as complex as sprinting, this rule is something that we can apply—so why not try and get more practice in? Literally reaching 10,000 hours will probably rarely happen, but mastering an essential skill for sport performance with intent and deliberate practice is something that we can work toward.

When working with younger athletes in particular, it may take them longer to grasp the complex concepts of sprinting, so we should give them more opportunities to figure out those issues. By extending the sprint warm-up process, we give them those opportunities at focused practice to keep getting closer to mastery of the skill of sprinting. As they continue to build and grow their understanding of the desired postures, patterns, and shapes they are trying to accomplish with their bodies, their understanding of technical cues will grow in concert.
By extending the sprint warm-up process, we give younger athletes opportunities at focused practice to keep getting closer to mastery of the skill of sprinting. Share on X
As coaches, we can shout whatever cue we want, but if our athletes do not understand what the cues mean, we are wasting our voice and their time. If we can grow their base of movement knowledge, we can provide more reference points as to what patterns or shapes they are trying to accomplish. A novice athlete may not understand the concept of good frontside lift and why it is important, but if we can give them a reference point of an A-Skip or A-Run, they can connect those dots more easily.

By extending the warm-ups and benefitting from the combined effects of improved work capacity and technical proficiency, our athletes can also become more accustomed to maintaining those postures for longer periods. This may be something more pertinent to track coaches, where middle distance runners may be forced to maintain technical proficiency under extreme levels of fatigue. But even team sport athletes can use this concept—a soccer athlete may have to make a big push in the final minutes of the game under fatigue. Even though the technique of the sprint mechanics may not be the same, the idea of being able to pull from those capabilities while fatigued is still important.

Warming Up with a Purpose

The simple act of extending the sprint warm-up process and using these drills as a chance to get some more light and extensive plyometrics before a training session will be a saving factor for many of our athletes returning to play. Their joints and tendons will be very lax and not ready for the intensities of all-out extended sprints, and we need to be prepared to give them the proper time to get back into shape. But, let us not forget the reason we even do sprint prep to begin with—the complex movement patterns of sprinting need to be constantly practiced and refined, even for the best athletes in the world. By using an extended warm-up of upward of 20 meters, we give our relatively novice athletes more chances to understand these complex patterns.
This time in history may be unprecedented, but it does not mean that we do not have the tools to deal with it. Share on X
Above all, we as coaches need to ensure that we do no harm to our athletes: Their health is our job to maintain and improve. This time in history may be unprecedented, but it does not mean that we do not have the tools to deal with it. By simply moving around some volume in different areas, we can give our athletes the best chance to be prepared for their respective sports as we start the slow return to normal activities. And using the sprint prep warm-up in an extensive fashion and as a low-level plyometric to prep the body for more intense activities is a major key to getting them prepared.

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

Kubo K, Kawakami Y, and Fukunaga T. “Influence of elastic properties of tendon structures on jump performance in humans.” Journal of Applied Physiology. (1985). 1999;87(6):2090‐2096. DOI:10.1152/jappl.1999.87.6.2090

Blog

Standards for Promotion to Block 3 ‘Advanced’ Level

A Review of Programming

Block 4

Common Measures of RSA

The Ignored Measure for RSA – Strength

Train Slow Athletes to Repeat Slowness or Fast-Track Your Athletes for Success

Dealing with Fuel Depletion and Metabolic Acidosis

Resistance Training and Neural Adaptations

References

Building Our Athletes

Principles vs. Methods

Training Your “Bigs”

How Do We Develop Speed (Excerpt)

Decomposition

Simplification

The Setup of the 1080

Number of Coaches/Employees

Athlete Numbers

Utilizing Feedback from the Machine

Cataloging and Reviewing Metrics

Differences in Assisted vs. Resisted Workflow

A Higher Level

References

Limiting Factors for Creating Force in the Water

Using Force Data to Assess Performance

Addressing Left-Right Asymmetries

From Technical Analysis to Results in the Pool

References

Where to Start

Implementation Strategies

1. Rest Intervals

2. Warm-Up

3. Cooldown

4. Rest Day or Extra Mini Session

Putting It All Together

References

Puzzles vs. Mosaics

Making the Most of the Unknown

Iterative Triphasic, Microdosing, and Training Half-Life

Sprint Planning

References

Acceleration and Max Velocity Characteristics

Governing Principles and Sprinting Commonalities

Moving Toward a Technical Model

Injury Considerations

Modifying Sprint Technique

Dose and Frequency

Ability

Acceleration and Speed Development Is Not Just Acceleration and Speed Development

Complementary Training Components to Acceleration and Speed

Interconnected Qualities and Techniques

What Does an Extended Sprint Warm-Up Look Like?

Why It Works

Warming Up with a Purpose

References

COMPANY

Coaches Resources

CONTACT INFORMATION

SIGNUP FOR NEWSLETTER