Blog

Failure is a facilitator of growth. I full-heartedly believe that we learn so much more from our mistakes than from our successes. There is something about failure that stimulates our minds and makes us find a better way to accomplish the task at which we were unsuccessful.

Indeed, we have likely all made mistakes in our careers that we are extremely grateful for, as our failures typically helped shape us into the coaches we are today.

We have likely all made mistakes in our careers that we are extremely grateful for, as our failures typically helped shape us into the coaches we are today, says @bigk28. Share on X

However, although failure may be an integral part of everyone’s career, I have come across a few simple mistakes in my own career that I want to save you the burden of going through personally. In this article, I share five mistakes to avoid in order to help solidify your position as a sports performance coach and a necessity in your athletic department.

1. Giving in to the Athlete(s)

I see this way too often: coaches judging the effectiveness of their program based on the athletes liking/disliking what they are doing. At the end of the day, you are the professional, and you know what is best for the team and the individual players. If you go by what the athletes enjoy, you will spend the entire weight room session doing bench presses, tricep pushdowns, barbell curls, static stretches, and core work. Breed a culture where players value performance and want to do well with the workout you prescribe. Create value for your workouts by linking them to tests that challenge similar characteristics to the ones needed by athletes in the sport they play.

Create value for your workouts by linking them to tests that challenge similar characteristics to the ones needed by athletes in the sport they play, says @bigk28. Share on X

These are some of the tests that I connect to our activities in the weight room:

Speed —> Timed 10/20/40s, flying 10s

Jumping —> SRJT, max vert

Lift —> Barbell power output

We perform these tests weekly and rank each player so they can see where they stand amongst the team. It breeds competitiveness, and you won’t have players asking to do alternatives that aren’t effective in improving performance. Don’t get me wrong, it is vital that athletes respect the workout and its benefits. Sometimes the simple act of explaining the workout and how it carries over to their sport goes a long way in having athletes put 100% of their effort into the workout, instead of them complaining that there is other stuff they should be doing. If your program does the job of improving sports performance, athletes will buy in.

2. Giving in to the Sports Coach(es)

I say this with a caveat, because I know at some levels, sports performance coaches are linked to their sport coach, and that relationship is the most important part of them retaining their job. However, if you do have the flexibility to be autonomous, you should not follow the demands of the sport coach on what exactly you should do for speed, power, and strength development.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that players need quicker feet and to do more ladder drills (cue the eye roll). I say “exactly” because you can’t be a dictator blocking out any input the coaches share with you. The sport coach’s input is a valuable piece of developing a sports performance plan. And, at the end of the day, it is their butts on the line if they don’t have success. There are things we may not notice that are very clear to them the more time they spend with the players.

However, sport coaches are experts in one thing—the sport they coach. Just as you are the professional for developing sports performance, they are responsible for developing the tactics and skills of the players during their time in the program. Still, it is important to have a great relationship with your sports coach, as you are both on the same team when it comes to maximizing a player’s potential.

Most of the time when I ask coaches what they need the players to work on, it boils down to a few things—to be: 1) faster; 2) more explosive; 3) stronger; and 4) in better “shape.” This is where you need to do a good job educating the coaches and remove the phrase “sports specificity” from their vocabulary. The most sport-specific activity any athlete will participate in is the sport itself!

I don’t think the sport coach should dictate the sports performance plan, but it’s important to get their feedback on what their “coaching eye” tells them throughout the course of a practice/game. Share on X

Now, I particularly believe that conditioning should occur by building up max velocity, thereby improving their speed reserve, or built up through high-intensity practice. But I all too often hear coaches telling their athletes to go on long runs or do treadmill sprints to get in better “shape.” This is not ideal, and the sport coach should speak to the sports performance coach before making any type of suggestion. (NCAA catastrophic guidelines are a big step forward for athletes, as the sports performance coach should be the one making the prescription in the first place).

Although I don’t think the sport coach should dictate the sports performance plan, I think it is important to get their feedback on what their “coaching eye” tells them throughout the course of a practice or game. Use what the coach sees in games/practice as an additional piece to the puzzle in designing your sports performance plan. My program is structured on developing speed, power, strength, etc. I often ask a coach, “What sport is specific to the qualities of being fast, powerful, and strong and having the ability to repeat that over and over again?” The answer is all of them.

3. Devalue the Position

There is nothing I hate more than hearing coaches openly devalue themselves in their role and how much (or little) they contribute to the success of the team. When coaches do this, they not only diminish their value in their own athletic department, but when they do it often enough, administrators and coaches will start to agree. Then we as a profession will struggle to improve our compensation.

Do I think that sports performance plays a huge role in the success of the team? Yes! Do I think it is the most important thing? No. The most important factor in the success of any team at any level is the ability to recruit talented players who play the sport at a high level. That is the bottom line. However, if you are at a school where you can’t get top-level athletes, the sports performance coach’s role becomes even more critical in the development of the athlete.

We sport performance coaches need to stop humbly devaluing our role and our contribution to the success of the team, says @bigk28. Share on X

Guess what the next most important part of the equation is? Keeping those players on the court/field/ice, etc. This is where the sports performance coach has huge value for protecting the players so that they are able to compete at a high level all year long. I think that good sports performance coaches will continue to improve (or at least maintain) their athlete’s athletic qualities all year long, while also keeping them healthy enough to compete at that high level. We are not injury preventers and should never make the claim. But we do play a huge role in reducing the risk of injury and helping players compete throughout the entire year.

If you are at a school where you are the only person on your sports medicine staff, your value becomes even greater. Some would say that at the high school level, ATCs are a necessity, but sometimes, unfortunately, there isn’t enough money in the budget to hire both positions (at least from what I’ve seen locally). There is no need to worry here; as long as you have your CPR/AED certification, you can provide frontline standard care in the case of an emergency until EMS arrives on the scene. A well-structured sports performance plan acts as an ATC in itself, reducing the incidence of injury and keeping your athletes competing at a high level.

I love the quote “the best ability is availability,” and we as sports performance coaches play a huge role in that. I love when I read articles where the head coach openly praises their sports performance coach and say how they are the most important coach on their staff. We need to live up to the expectations and make our coaches feel that way instead of humbly devaluing our position.

4. Not Using Technology as a Resource

I write about this with a grin because I have made this mistake my entire career. If you want to be able to run an effective sports performance program and save yourself the man hours of inputting and evaluating, find a technology you can trust. Luckily, there are so many good systems out there nowadays, you can have your choice of the system that fits in with exactly what you are looking for.

I personally do a ton of testing with regard to speed, power, and strength and need a system that saves me the hassle of sitting at a computer and manually inputting numbers into Excel. For example, with regard to speed, we time some type of sprint 2-3 times a week with each of my 21 teams. With roughly 400 athletes, that comes out to 800-1200 sprint times a week.

Do yourself a favor—get yourself a tracking system, as it will act as another assistant coach on your staff, says @bigk28. Share on X

Even if I did have the time and energy to input all those test scores, I would definitely not be able to take the time to go through each individual athlete and notice any trends. If I can’t effectively judge whether or not my program is working, what is the sense in getting all these testing measures? Having a system where all of the technology is linked and recorded for me is a huge timesaver and one all coaches must explore. I personally would go with CoachMePlus, as it pairs with a plethora of technology already on the market. Do yourself a favor—get yourself a tracking system, as it will act as another assistant coach on your staff.

5. Saying “It Isn’t About the Money.”

I am lucky to be part of a profession with the most committed and dedicated professionals I have ever come across in any field. If you are in the sports performance field for a prolonged period of time, it is safe to say that you absolutely love what you do, otherwise you would never last. I am 10 years in the profession, and I am always giddy when I get to train my athletes and see progression and growth throughout their careers.

However, I don’t know if there a profession more guilty of saying the phrase “it isn’t about the money” than the sports performance one. I get it—we are so in love with what we do as a career that we almost make it seem that we would do it for any salary they offer us. And therein lies the problem. When we say things that show that we don’t care about monetary compensation, we lower our value as professionals. If you do a job that isn’t about the money, why shouldn’t your bosses pay you the least amount they can? I mean, do you ever hear doctors use this phrase?

Maybe in a humanitarian vision we all work for free, but in the real world that is not sustainable if you wish to support yourself and your family. We should advocate for everyone in the profession to be paid more because of the value we bring and stop acting like what we do is a charity. It is okay to push for higher pay and higher compensation; as a profession we deserve it.

When we say things that show that we don’t care about monetary compensation, we lower our value as professionals, says @bigk28. Share on X

As we grow older in life and have to take care of families and mortgages, saying our job isn’t about the money will put us in very difficult situations. That phrase also gives schools the freedom to make starting salaries extremely low and attract someone who is just dying to get in the field and willing to accept any dollar amount to do it. That is unacceptable, and we need to eliminate this language from our vernacular. We are high-functioning professionals who bring a ton of value and deserve to be compensated as such.

Avoid the Easy Mistakes

Mistakes are a part of the sports performance profession, but there are some easy mistakes we can avoid. We are leaders in our departments and one of the biggest assets for our teams, and we need to act as such. Communication with players and coaches is so vital for the buy-in to your program and for facilitating a program that is best-suited for each one of your teams. Without communication you will never be able to build trust and develop your athletes the way you want to.

All of the assessments, from both the sport coach and the performance coach, are all pieces of the bigger puzzle and must be taken into consideration when designing a sports performance plan. As you look to expand and grow your department, rely on technology as another “assistant” and help with everyday tasks that would be tedious for you otherwise. Remember, we are high-level professionals and deserve to be compensated as such. Don’t sell the profession short—we are one of the most passionate professional groups out there.

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

This article is part of a series in which I outline the athlete level classification program, also known as “blocking,” that we use at York Comprehensive High School (YCHS). It’s imperative for sports performance coaches to have a well-planned, evidence-based program to progress young athletes through as they grow. Just as a teacher in an academic class would build on concepts and practices, so must we.

In this article, I expand on how we prepare our rising freshmen as they move through our “Block 1 New” classification and eventually graduate to “Block 2 Novice.” I outline the programming and technique protocols we use with our Block 2s in depth. Finally, I discuss how our athletes prepare for graduation from Block 2 and into our “Block 3 Advanced” category.

I hope this article will be of help to you and your athletes. We work in a field where taking other coaches’ ideas and adjusting them to your own program needs is a very powerful skill to possess. If this or anything else I have will be helpful to you, I urge you to copy, adjust, and make use of it in any way possible.

Review of Transitioning Block 1 Freshmen to Block 2 Sophomores

In my previous article on introducing new athletes to our program, I discussed the “slow cooking” process of transitioning our incoming freshmen from our Block 0 program to our freshman Block 1 level and touched on the Block 1 “graduation” standards. In general, the process stays consistent as we progress up the ladder of our program’s layered programming model. We use a combination of movement mastery, body frame, body weight, and strength ratios in our three strength movements to recommend promotion. Our Block 1s must achieve a combined 80% of the following “goals” to be eligible for promotion to Block 2.

Figure 2 shows an example of this using the chart of a large-framed athlete with a body weight of 200.

This athlete is well above the 80% threshold. If he also masters his movement, he will be promoted to Block 2. These numbers will be projected 1 rep max totals. In general (there have been individual exceptions), we do not 1 rep max test our athletes until the end of Block 2 (sophomore) in preparation for transition to Block 3. We project these off a “plus” set that we do at approximately 86% of their previously predicted 1RM, which we do for each of the three strength movements once in each four-week cycle (to be discussed later in the article).

Once our athletes reach these standards, we graduate them to Block 2 Novice and adjust the programming to reflect the progression. At this point, we also introduce our athletes to our devices. Part of earning promotion to Novice is being given 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 move from coach control to a student-athlete controlled learning model.

Review of Block 1 Programming

In the previous article, I discussed how we use a modified version of progression for our three main strength movements that is very similar to Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1, or a traditional BFS program with some slight modifications for our Block 1 athletes. As with all parts of our program, athletes must earn this in a progressive manner. Initially (starting in the summer of freshman year), we spend time reviewing and reteaching all movements from Block 0. We slowly progress throughout the summer, adding variation until we feel the group is ready for the next step.

Step 2 of our progressive program introduces our athletes to the general outline of how they will do things on a daily basis during their time with us. We put the workout in the form of our modified tier system, using the movements that they will learn and use throughout their time in Block 2. We print these as sheets from our CoachMePlus calendar.

During this period, the load is set and does not change until they have sufficient mastery of each movement and we are ready to add weight to the movements. Not all of our athletes will graduate at the same time. We do our best to promote only when each athlete is physically prepared to do so. The set load is kept very light. This can sometimes frustrate athletes who may be capable of lifting more weight than programmed. You must explain to the group why you program the way you do and the advantage they will have when you finally do add to the load.

During Block 2, our goal is mastery of movement, and the weight used doesn’t really matter to us at this point except as a teaching tool, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

This is also an excellent opportunity for our athletes to master technique and practice bar speed. We always have a few athletes who, even with the very light load, struggle with it being too much. We instruct those athletes to stop at whatever weight they can do without a struggle and use the same weight for the rest of the programmed sets. Our goal is mastery of movement, and the weight used doesn’t really matter to us at this point except as a teaching tool.

Here is an example of a printout given to the Block 1 athletes during the last few weeks of summer.

The final step of Block 1 is to progress to using percentage of projected max, as well as volume periodization, which they will use through the end of Block 2. This programming starts out initially with a very modest projected max for our bench press, hex bar deadlift, and front squat movements. It also features progressing variations of vertical and horizontal push and pull movements, Olympic variations, and posterior chain variations, as well as squat variations other than the front squat. The vast majority of those reps will be done initially in the 50-59% relative intensity range to focus on movement mastery and bar speed.

We progress from that point with both main movement projected max and relative intensity of all other movements and variations. By the end of Block 1, our athletes will have progressed to the point where we have a pretty good idea of a predicted 1RM for our three main movements based on the plus sets they do once in each cycle. Those plus sets in Block 1 set the projected 1RM, along with technique proficiency, and we use them to determine when an athlete is eligible for promotion to Block 2. By the late winter and early spring, we usually have a handful of freshmen ready for Block 2.

Programming for Block 2 Athletes: Basic Design Layout

Our program for all layers is a three-day-a-week split. We use a modified tier system with the traditional total, upper, and lower daily split that rotates once per week through speed/dynamic Tier 1, total strength Tier 2, and volume acclimation Tier 3. Tier 1 includes 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 is where one area of our “modified” version really comes into play. Traditionally, this is a volume/hypertrophy tier. We use this much of the time for that same programming. However, this is also a place where we work in some additional Olympic squat and/or pull variations as dictated by our volume progression plan, which I will discuss later.

Our yearly plan is split into four-week cycles. We use a concurrent periodization plan and train equally for power, strength, and hypertrophy together. What may be different from some programs is that our method of progression uses volume as our priority method of overload. Intensity is a secondary factor and is not necessarily tied into volume—both can be manipulated independently as needed.

Therefore, when I say “heavy” or “light” day or week when describing a microcycle or day within a microcycle, that does not refer to the intensity range of our lifts. In fact, it 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). Our heavy days may indeed use lower-intensity ranges and our light days often include heavier intensity.

Why we do this is an article in itself (or a book called “The System,” which is one of the most influential books I’ve ever read). Basically, we do this because we place great value on movement proficiency and bar speed over absolute strength. We must always remember the actual sport we are preparing for is the priority, not the number we can hang on a goal board.

Moving a bar loaded so much that they move it very slowly (and do it often) will make an athlete stronger. However, the strength they gain from that will likely not translate to sport as well as a little more moderate load moving at max velocity. Bar speed is the king of transfer to sport from the weight room. We believe using volume as our primary form of forcing adaptation via overload is the most effective way to produce our desired outcome for our athletes.

We believe using volume as our primary form of forcing adaptation via overload is the most effective way to produce our desired outcome for athletes, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

As in all aspects of our layered block program, we transition from a more consistent set-rep scheme to our volume wave periodization in steps. In Block 2, our athletes use the wave volume program in all movements except our Tier 2 base movement. We continue to use the version of “5/3/1” we began using at the end of Block 1. Block 2 athletes use a wave within the days of the week, but the total reps stay consistent except for the volume deload during the fourth week.

In blocks 3 and 4, we further “wave” the volume within each week of a cycle. This is another way we use volume to ensure the athlete continues to progress and avoids training plateaus as they age in our program. We also do not use “snatch” variations until closer to the end of the block, so those are not reflected in the volume count at this point.

Our four-week mesocycle is divided into three-day weekly microcycles. The total volume for each cycle is based on the goal number (850-875 counting reps per month) we want our elite athletes to reach by the last few cycles before their preseason. We then work back, subtracting +/-10% per cycle (with a regression cycle at the start of each new block) until we reach a number our Block 2 athletes will actually start with (520 in Cycle 1). Within the week, each day is also subdivided as shown in figure 4.

During this time, we keep the intensity ranges low, spending most of our time in the 50-69% range with all base strength movements. We increase the intensity slowly and cap our relative intensity for each individual movement at 2% per four-week cycle.

Figure 5 below shows a week. Remember, we only count reps over 50%, so even if it says “8 reps” we may do 12, but four of them would be below 50% intensity.

Strength movement programming is the final component for our Block 2 athletes. Our Novice athletes use a less complex version of programming for our “Big 3” Tier 2 base movements (TBDL, front squat, and bench press for this layer). As stated above, this is a version of Wendler’s “5/3/1” program that I adapted from a good friend, Jeremy Evans. We really embrace the idea of simple to complex in our slow-cooking process.

I feel that jumping “full go” into our volume periodization program with sophomores may cause some confusion. Therefore, we allow them to use the following program (figure 6) for their main lifts while we acclimate them to the increasing volume. Our athletes should have technique proficiency with these three movements by this point, and we feel comfortable adding intensity to them.

Our goal is to eventually have the vast majority of our Block 3 and 4 athletes’ reps coming in at the “sweet spot” of 70-85% for bar speed/strength, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

While we keep the majority of our reps in the 50-69% range and build from there, this program provides an opportunity for our athletes to experience a higher load with less volume. As in the “5/3/1” program, we set a training max of 90% of predicted 1RM. Therefore, when you see a set at 95%, it is actually a set at around 85%. Our goal is to eventually have the vast majority of our Block 3 and 4 athletes’ reps coming in at the “sweet spot” of 70-85% for bar speed/strength. This is their first step toward that goal.

Our program has four separate volume intensity ranges. Our athletes do one each of the three training days in a week. On Day 1 of the next week, we do the fourth and then start over. This ensures we get one “dose” of each range with each of our base movements. Using the AMRAP set, we can get an approximate adjusted max each cycle for each movement as well.

It’s very important to keep in mind that just because an athlete graduates to Block 2, doesn’t mean any of these programming items are set in stone. The “coach’s eye” is still the best tool to give our athletes what they need. Too many times, coaches get caught up in rushing athletes to heavier loads and more complexity of movements.

There is no need to do that. Just about anything we do for them at this age will result in growth. I see no need to push any of our athletes to missed reps or failure, especially our Block 2s. Make sure you have a progression and regression program and use it. The vast majority of our Block 2s do not rack cleans or do back squats. When they are ready, they will do them.

Just about anything we do for them at this age will result in growth. I see no need to push any of our athletes to missed reps or failure, explains @YorkStrength17. Share on X

From a safety and a sports performance standpoint, a loaded jump or a quick and soundly executed clean pull are superior to a “reverse curl”-looking hang clean. Remember SPORT first, numbers second. A clean doesn’t translate to the field of play if it’s done with poor technique. Neither does a slow, overloaded or “half” range back squat.

Our job isn’t to make athletes the strongest people on the field or court; it’s to help them reach maximum performance. Mastery of movements and being able to do those movements at max velocity BEFORE heavy loads are added will help athletes stay healthier and be more explosive during their sport. Adding load and more movement complexity slowly as they master bar speed can make that explosion very powerful as well.

Here is a typical workout from CoachMePlus for our Block 2 group.

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Block 2 Final Notes

The program design above is what our athletes use as we move through Block 2. Generally, we see a small handful of athletes begin to transition to Block 3 during the mid-spring of their sophomore year. Most, especially my football athletes (who have classes year-round), graduate after our May testing.

As I said above, this is also the time when a few athletes also begin the transition from pulls and loaded jumps to hang cleans, and from front squats to back squats. I do not allow an athlete to do hang cleans if they “short pull.” That is the No. 1 mistake my athletes make. The second is foot displacement being way too wide during the catch. Both of these errors take away from the power development of the movement. I’d rather they do a loaded jump for four years than a poorly executed clean.

With squats, we look for a solid position and mobility to gain proper depth. If they can’t do a proficient back squat, why not just keep them doing a great front squat? Again, I have to say SPORT first, lifting second. Use movements and variations that develop the athlete and transfer to sport, not just some that sound good to say you have them doing but can’t be done efficiently.

Use movements and variations that develop the athlete and transfer to sport, not just some that sound good to say you have them doing but can’t be done efficiently. Share on X

In my next article on this topic, I will write about the transition from Block 2 Novice to Block 3 Advanced and Block 4 Elite. I will begin that article discussing the body weight goals and technical expectations that must be reached to qualify for graduation to those levels. I will also get further into our volume periodization programming and how we take our athletes fully into that program during blocks 3 and 4. I hope you can take what we have had success with and integrate it into your program.

If you have not read the book, “The System,” I urge you to do so. One of the authors, the great NFL strength coaching legend Johnny Parker, told me that once I used this type of programming, I would never go back. He was 100% correct. We are two years into it, and it gets better every cycle.

We have used that model as the top end of our programming. It’s what we use for our advanced and elite groups. We then reverse engineered it to peel off layers of complexity and depth, and come up with solid layered progressions that allow us to “slow cook” our athletes and fully prepare them as individuals for the rigors of high school athletics.

My hope is that if you do not already do this with your program, this will inspire you to do so. Even if you don’t do it the same way we do at YCHS, the framework is consistent and allows you to research and develop your own plan for layering your sports performance program. As always, please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or comments.

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

Whether it’s a running back hurdling a defender and breaking into the open field, a ballet dancer gracefully navigating the stage, or a gentleman strolling down his driveway to get the mail, one thing is abundantly clear: There is no more beautiful combination of art and function than the human movement system. And such beauty and importance naturally drive curiosity.

As humans, we have sought and continue to seek to know more about ourselves and how we operate. The ancient Greeks began dissecting cadavers as their primary means of learning anatomy, and cadaver studies have had a stronghold on our scholastic endeavors ever since.¹ However, different cohorts in the movement world have recently called into question the presence and relevance of “dead guy anatomy” and the information that has been ascertained from it.

Debating ‘Dead Guy Anatomy’

“Dead guy anatomy” (I really don’t like that phrase, but that’s what people are calling it) refers to the understanding of movement that developed from studying cadavers. It encompasses the origin, insertion, and subsequent action of a muscle, muscle innervation, fascial lines, tendon stiffness properties, etc. Simply put, it’s everything you learned in your traditional anatomy courses.

The objections to cadaver anatomy certainly have merit and are worthy of discussion. These objections may come packaged in different forms, but they stem from the same premise: We cannot understand how things function by studying them in a nonfunctional state. A fluid-less dead person lying motionless on a steel bed without a functioning nervous system cannot be representative of dynamic human movement. So, while you may yank on rectus femoris and produce knee extension or hip flexion, that’s not what it actually does during the gait cycle. During gait, rectus femoris will act eccentrically to keep the leg from collapsing on itself.

Another take stemming from the aforementioned basic premise is that we are 60% water, and, therefore, our fluid-filled nature has to play a critical role in our movement processes. Our evolutionary origin demonstrates that movement was accomplished by fluid-shifting in an amoeboid fashion to propel us through space, and our current system is just a scaled-up version of that.

Too often, though, critics dismiss cadaver anatomy as a system of levers and pulleys that do not explain how humans actually move and then leave it at that. Some go on to try to explain their more esoteric philosophy, but many just declare “dead guy anatomy sucks” and move on.

An important note here is that some of these more abstract philosophies may, in fact, be fundamentally closer to the truth of human movement or they could be completely bonkers, but regardless, their abstraction makes them less practical and less actionable. That. Is. Dangerous. It leaves coaches and clinicians with no practical framework to operate under. These confused practitioners then go searching for something actionable and stumble upon some guru or absolutist school of thought (probably with some three-letter acronym) and find their haven. Next thing you know, they’re shouting on social media at everyone who doesn’t grind every athlete’s hip into 75 degrees of internal rotation or whatever absurd panacea they’re preaching.

The most disheartening part of this whole process is that cadaver anatomy isn’t wrong; it’s just not always right. Those levers and pulleys do work to produce movement. Tendon stiffness does allow efficient transmission of elastic energy. The origins and insertions of muscles do dictate the possible movements they can produce. The patella does increase mechanical advantage of the quadriceps by increasing the lever arm.

Cadaver anatomy isn’t wrong; it’s just not always right… It helps us solve a whole host of problems that our athletes deal with, says @zguiser. Share on X

This stuff matters. It helps us solve a whole host of problems that our athletes deal with. No, it doesn’t solve everything, but models created by humans are not perfect. Furthermore, some of the models that are supposed to replace cadaver anatomy actually just build on top of it. How would we have any idea that rectus femoris acts eccentrically during gait if we did not first understand its origin and insertion through cadaver models?

The Contrarian Problem

I’ll loosely define contrarianism as being different for the sake of being different (or, more likely, for the sake of standing out). Contrarianism is dangerous. It detracts from the essence of well-intentioned, informative, and useful educational materials and undermines said usefulness.

Contrarianism runs rampant through the movement (S&C, PT, fitness, etc.) social media world these days. The vast majority of professionals, whether we admit it or not, absorb a large chunk of our information from social media. Transitively, contrarianism runs rampant through the movement world.

We operate in an unfathomably complex universe, and as human movement experts, our subjects are unfathomably complex human beings with seemingly infinite uniquities; of course, there are situations where an ideology doesn’t work. There are (nearly) no absolutes. I’m not sure if there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method or if it’s just our innate desire to seek simplicity, but we all need to realize and accept that we don’t know what we think we know. Science gives us the most plausible explanation for phenomena based on the evidence available. But both the observed phenomena and the evidence available are continually evolving in many situations, which makes our scientific explanations fluid.

Contrarianism vaults “gurus” who tout one-size-fits-all methodologies to the forefront of our industry because they at least provide actionable frameworks and rationales. This is dangerous. Share on X

With such complexity and fluidity, it is inevitable that there will always be a “but” with every model we put out there to explain almost anything. The problem is that we still need real, applicable, and practical frameworks in order to produce fruitful outcomes in our objectives. Contrarianism is actionless. Everything is wrong, so nothing can be done. Contrarianism vaults “gurus” who tout one-size-fits-all methodologies to the forefront of our industry because they at least provide actionable frameworks and rationales. I repeat: This. Is. Dangerous.

Should We Ban Isaac Newton?

Let’s consider some of the most fundamental models that underpin our existence. For the most part, we’re all pretty familiar with Sir Isaac Newton’s work. His three Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity are probably the most well-known physics concepts ever taught—and for good reason. The concepts behind his work allow us to build bridges, fly planes, and even send people to the moon. Maybe more relevant for us, though, is that he’s allowed us to build better athletes by teaching, well, everything we know about force.

Newton’s laws lay the foundation for our understanding of the universe. Here’s the kicker, though: They’re not always right! Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong about predicting a planet (which would have been named Vulcan) that was supposed to be in the area of Mercury. Without the presence of planet Vulcan, Newtonian physics couldn’t explain Mercury’s wobbly precession. This was the beginning of the unraveling of a previously infallible model.

Physicists then learned that, at high speeds, Newton’s Laws of Motion are increasingly inaccurate. The same goes for Newton’s Laws of Motion with small particles and in strong gravitational fields. The model that we thought governed our universe turned out to be incomplete.

Einstein swept in with the concept of the curvature of space-time (general relativity) and seemingly saved the day. But, that’s not the case. His theory of relativity explains all the really big and really fast stuff, but becomes nonsense when things are taken to the atomic level. Through the work of Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and Einstein, quantum mechanics accurately explained some observations where previous models failed. Quantum mechanics predicts atomic and subatomic concepts beautifully but becomes pure absurdity when applied on a large scale.

Newtonian mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics all fall short of explaining the whole picture. But that doesn’t mean physicists have just thrown them away. There’s still work to be done, so physicists understand the strengths and weaknesses of each model and employ them accordingly. If you want to understand black holes, go ahead and pull out the general relativity model. But that doesn’t mean you should go around declaring the death of Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian physics are simple, extremely practical, and accurate for 99.99% of the situations we deal with, just like cadaver anatomy.

When you understand where a muscle attaches, you can deduce its action in a variety of kinematic positions, says @zguiser. Share on X

Understanding cadaver anatomy is a foundational component of providing a framework to filter information through when trying to solve a problem. The objections to cadaver anatomy are real, but that should not detract from its usefulness. When you understand where a muscle attaches, you can deduce its action in a variety of kinematic positions.

Consider the piriformis. A tight piriformis is commonly accused of being the culprit responsible for low back, SI joint, and posterior thigh pain. As such, stretching of the piriformis is often prescribed to alleviate these issues. (Whether or not a tight piriformis is actually a common/noteworthy issue and if stretching it will produce meaningful outcomes are both debates for another day. Let’s just assume for this example that stretching the piriformis would be beneficial.) I imagine that if you’re reading this article, you have a specific piriformis stretch that comes to mind—hold onto that thought!

The piriformis originates on the sacrum and sacrotuberous ligament and then inserts into the superior aspect of the greater trochanter. When the thigh is neutral/extended, the piriformis passes posterior to the hip’s axis of rotation in the transverse plane. This makes it a hip external rotator. In order to stretch a muscle, you want to take it directly opposite to the direction of its action. So, in order to stretch the piriformis, we should take it into internal rotation, right? I’m willing to bet that doesn’t match the description of the piriformis stretch you had in mind.

When the hip is flexed to 90 degrees, the piriformis passes anterior to the axis of rotation in the transverse plane and becomes an internal rotator of the hip. The position of the thigh relative to the pelvis completely flips the action of the piriformis. So, as you raise your leg up to put it on top of a box or as you lean your trunk forward, the hip would need to go into external rotation in order to place a stretch on the piriformis.

Understanding the attachment points of the piriformis allows us to not only realize that the piriformis action completely flips based on kinematic positioning, but also allows us to understand how and why that happens. Without a firm understanding of cadaveric anatomy, we wouldn’t have this information. Cadaver anatomy serves as our foundation and allows further deductive reasoning processes to extrapolate to functional situations that take place off of the steel bed.

Question Everything

I’m not saying you shouldn’t question things and seek to have a deeper understanding. In fact, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who promotes an inquisitive nature more than I do. Curiosity is the fuel for progression. You should seek to understand the “why” behind everything that you do. Continual inquisition allows for the development of the most accurate, efficient, and optimal systems possible.

I hope that those who explore other movement strategies continue down their paths and find applications for their methodologies in the same manner that physicists have found applications for general relativity and quantum mechanics. I regard many of those individuals as much smarter than myself, and I have no doubt that their models will bear fruit in time, if they have not already. But that does not diminish the value that is afforded by cadaver anatomy.

Present the shortcomings of established models, provide alternatives, but then acknowledge the strengths and utility of the existing models, says @zguiser. Share on X

I simply encourage the manner of questioning and educating to be done in a way that does not entirely undermine the value of proven systems. Present the shortcomings of established models, provide alternatives, but then acknowledge the strengths and utility of the existing models. It’s not hard. It probably won’t get you a lot of followers, but it also won’t feed the flame of confusion and guruism that rages through the movement world.

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. Ghosh, SK. “Human cadaveric dissection: A historical account from ancient Greece to the modern era.” Anatomy & Cell Biology. 2015;48(3):153-169. doi:10.5115/acb.2015.48.3.153

Just three months into 2020, the whole world had gone through a lot. As a nation, we were nearly on the verge of war with Iran, rumors of another recession were rising quickly, the coronavirus had spread like wildfire, Kobe Bryant passed away in a tragic helicopter crash, and, as icing on the cake, we were entering an election year. It wasn’t a great start to the year, and the year hasn’t gotten much better since.

During times of hardship, society has always been brought together by sports, and now it seems like even that has been jeopardized, with high school sports being cancelled, the Olympics being postponed, and many professional sports having very different seasonal schedules, if occurring at all.

As coaches, we have all been affected as well, from our programming and personal schedules to the facilities we can use and more. As the unexpected comes and goes in my life, with the resulting personal and professional issues that arise, I wanted to write this article to help strength and conditioning coaches in their efforts to deal with the unforeseeable future.

Did the New Orleans Saints crumble after Hurricane Katrina affected the entire city? No, they kept fighting and realized that they had more impact than people originally gave them credit for. Did Michael Jordan quit in the famous “flu game”? Did Kobe Bryant not attempt his free throws after his Achilles tear versus Golden State? No, they adapted and persevered through this hard time.

Issues arise every day for strength and conditioning coaches, and we must adapt, says @KTelegadas. Share on X

Issues arise every day for strength and conditioning coaches, and we must adapt. As this article goes on, I will present examples of my own changes I have made over the past five years of my career. I will detail circumstances where I found solutions to these problematic situations, using creativity, logic, emotion, thinking outside the box, networking, and reading.

1. Creativity

In my current role, something we do right now is make videos for our clients. We use online resources within our company to deliver the programs. Some of these include online databases, social media, and email blasts.

We highlight members’ workouts, include members of the week, and send out daily motivation video/emails to encourage our clients to keep the right mindset. Remember, as coaches, what we do goes beyond the weight room. Take time to text/check in with your clients and athletes. Now is a great opportunity to show that you care, not only as a coach, but as a person.

Perform bodyweight workouts, band workouts, and other exercises to utilize everyday equipment at home. Here are some examples:

1. Circuit 1 – 4-5x through
   • RFE split squat from couch x 12/side
   • RDLs with handheld objects
   • Plank hold x 45 seconds

2. Circuit 2 – 4-5x through
   • Push-ups x 20
   • Eccentric pull-ups on a tree branch x 10
   • Wheelbarrow farmer’s carries x 50 yards

3. Conditioning – x5 rounds for time
   • Glute bridges x 25
   • Bent-over T’s x 25
   • One lap around the apartment or house

2. Logic

Using logic is a phenomenal way to solve issues. In coaching, logic can save you a ton of time. I encourage coaches to get away from hand-writing programs or using Excel. These take up so much time and may not be the easiest to adjust. I recommend moving over to apps such as TeamBuildr, Train Heroic, Bridge Athletics, etc. to logistically cut down on time spent programming.

With these, you can easily administer programs via athletes’ phones, emails, etc. They also come with video examples and cues to assist you, since you may not be in the athletes’ vicinity physically amid coronavirus restrictions. I would like to note that I am not a fan of remote or online coaching, but, as a coach, there is always a way to get it done. In tough times we must use logic to assist us in cultivating, educating, and inspiring our athletes to move forward so our progress is not lost during the off-season.

In tough times we must use logic to assist us in cultivating, educating, and inspiring our athletes to move forward so our progress is not lost during the off-season, says @KTelegadas. Share on X

Other logical ways to give feedback include videoconferencing via FaceTime, Skype, Google Hangouts, or Zoom. Examine, breakdown, and correct form. Now is a great time with bodyweight exercises to go back and work on technique for the future. Add in tempos to restore motor control and stability. Utilize this time to increase and restore mobility as well, especially if people are coming off of combat or contact sports.

3. Emotion

Emotion is like a double-edged sword. It matters how you wield it. Dan Yeong writes about a Cherokee Indian tribe parable detailing how each man has two wolves inside battling for dominance over the man every single day. It goes like this: 

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life:

“A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil—he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.”

He continued, “The other is good—he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you—and inside every other person, too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

I show this story to all athletes I work with now. We must remind ourselves, our athletes, and our industry as a whole that this battle between both wolves can be used to help us…or hurt us. Stay strong as a rock for your clients and athletes. Show them you’ve survived worse.

As a graduate assistant in Miami, I did not get paid for my work. I had to rely on income from odd jobs around town, my parents, and working all night while others slept peacefully. Share stories of rough times with your athletes and detail out what you learned from them. You’d be surprised how many people have had it easy up until now. Part of our job as coaches is to create better people, not just better athletes.

Part of our job as coaches is to create better people, not just better athletes. Send motivational videos, tips, and tricks to them…and educate through social media, says @KTelegadas. Share on X

Send motivational videos, tips, and tricks to them. One trick I use is to educate through social media, send videos to clients/former athletes, and lead by example (every exercise I have given athletes is one that I can perform well). Use these methods to cultivate your audience and establish your brand as a coach.

4. Networking

If you don’t know and/or don’t have experience…reach out.

Coming up, I had the ability to work with tactical and other athletic populations that I had no experience with. Having never played these respected sports or been on the tactical side of the field, the first thing I did was email, call, and text coaches who I knew had that experience.

Make sure to be prepared for what you want to chat about. Some considerations that I take into account before the calls or meetings are:

1. Know specifically what you want to get out of the conversation. This could come in the way of questions, programming considerations, population considerations, etc.
2. Bring examples of what you have planned already and be ready to put your ego down for the sake of bettering your clients and athletes. Remember, you are reaching out to learn, and some aspects of the conversation may challenge your current beliefs as a strength and conditioning coach.
3. Know your source. I know there are a lot of great coaches out there, but there are also some not-so-great ones. Ask around about them or do some online research before you network:

   • Where did they work?
   • Who did they work with?
   • What was the injury rate of the teams during their stay at said institution?
   • How do they form relationships with their athletes?
   • What do their co-workers say about them?
   • Should I take what they say with a grain of salt?
   • Are they constantly bringing out the best in people?
   • Are they open to sharing ideas?

5. Think Outside the Box

As coaches, some of us have become very spoiled with big, fancy weight rooms, Tendo units, PLAE flooring, and Sorinex racks, to the point where I see coaches lose creativity and the ability to think outside the box. Sometimes all you need are the basics to maintain general physical preparation. I encourage coaches to use this time to get away from the barbell and see what you can develop.

Sometimes all you need are the basics to maintain general physical preparation. I encourage coaches to use this time to get away from the barbell and see what you can develop, says @KTelegadas. Share on X

Here are some examples of exercises I have come up with:

1. Push a loaded car.
   • The car could be loaded with people, furniture, etc. Put it in neutral and push away.

2. Pick a wheelbarrow full of stones, bricks, etc.
   • If you ever did yard work for your family or on a farm as a kid, you will understand this one. Grip strength has always been a great predictor of max strength. Work on keeping the core erect and gripping tight for yardage.

3. Utilities, all forms of carries
   • Kettlebells, suitcases, sandbags, etc.

4. Build your own equipment
   • YouTube and other sites have huge numbers of tutorials for making your own equipment. I recommend watching videos, taking notes, and rewatching them as you proceed. Home Depot might become your best friend.

5. Bands, chains, medicine balls, and tempo
   • Band exercises

• Curls
• Good mornings
• Band pull-apart
• Paloff presses
• Banded overhead presses

• Chains exercises

• Chain-resisted push-ups
• Chain curls (1 chain in each hand)
• Chain 3-way shoulders (anterior, lateral, and posterior)
• Chain-loaded lunges (Zercher or back loading patterns)

6. Bodyweight plyometrics
   • Bounds
   • Hops
   • Jumps
   • Puddle jumpers
   • Sprinting

7. Logs
   • Log Zercher squats
   • Chops
   • Lifts
   • Overhead presses
   • Overhead carries

8. Partner work
   • Partner wheelbarrow carries (hold legs of your partner)
   • Partner carries
   • Partner-assisted pull-ups
   • Use your kids to load your squats and push-ups
   • Partner Nordic curls

9. Towels
   • Races
   • Curls
   • Tricep extensions with a partner under tempo

10. Rusty old plates/DB
    • DB snatches
    • DB cleans
    • DB, plate power jerks/split jerks
    • Plate curl to press
    • Plate loaded push-ups (plate placed on upper back)

6. Read, Read, Read

Take this one with a grain of salt. The human brain can only digest so much information and truly learn it. I see a ton of coaches read but never implement what they read. Figure out what you want to learn and apply more of, then find a book on that subject matter and read it.

I see coaches who read but never implement what they read. Figure out what you want to learn and apply more of, then find a book on that subject matter and read it, says @KTelegadas. Share on X

Now that you’ve read it, what the heck are you going to do with that information? Are you going to use it in coaching? What about programming? What about data collection to drive your programming in the way you want it to go? These are questions you need to ask yourself as a coach.

At one of my sites, we used Tendo units a lot to assess bar speed relative to the stimuli that we, as a staff, were trying to invoke as a phase progressed in season. We used this to help with autoregulation of the programming. If our position players came in and had to squat, they might be exhausted, or they might be fully recovered. We would add two extra sets in the warm-up and have them use those sets as “feeler sets.”

If the weight felt good, they would hit the speed-strength work for the day at their assigned weight. If the speed in m/s was more than what we needed, then we let them go up in weight. However, if the speed dropped, then we made the athletes drop the weight. As a staff, we used this time and the reading we did to not only achieve better results, but also educate the athletes and monitor progress week to week in season.

Change Is an Opportunity to Grow

The one thing you can count on is that things will always change—for better or for worse. I hope you have found this article helpful and can use any of the expertise/experiences I have had in my career to better your own. As coaches we can prepare for a lot, but sometimes we must adapt to the unexpected. Embrace the change, learn from it, grow from it, and pay it forward to young interns, graduate assistants, and coaches alike.

Who knows? These younger coaches might give you a job one day. Treat them with respect and learn from each other along the way. I have learned so much from people who have been above me and below me. Never think you “know it all” in this field. Everything is subject to change.

#BrickByBrick

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

In the sport performance world, motivation is an essential part of achievement. Sport psychology and motivation strategies seem to be continuously growing in popularity. Consider, for example, the fact that Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson has hired a personal “mental coach”—this coach helps him with a wide variety of performance issues, whether it be how to realign focus after a bad quarter or steering him away from music that may negatively affect his mental state.

There are numerous books, articles, podcasts, and YouTube videos on how to integrate principles of sport psychology into sport performance practices. The focus of these resources is primarily on coaching principles, such as Conscious Coaching by Brett Bartholomew¹, to name just one. Oftentimes, these sources discuss how to effectively communicate with our athletes (both verbally and nonverbally). They have proven to be valuable contributions to the field and have changed the way many professionals interact with their athletes. With that being said, strength and conditioning coaches, physiotherapists, athletic trainers, and dietitians may benefit from using principles of sport psychology not only in their communication, but in their strategy design as well.

By using the Self-Determination Theory in my program design, the athletes I work with progress through movement patterns faster and report finding more enjoyment in the training process. Share on X

By using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) in my program design, the athletes I work with have progressed through movement patterns faster and reported finding more enjoyment in the training process. Additionally, there are higher levels of training adherence during times when personal interaction is scarce. This article will discuss the SDT and how sport performance coaches may incorporate its fundamental principles into their prescribed training periodization plan in order to maximize athlete motivation.

Self-Determination Theory

The Self-Determination Theory is a theory of motivation. It breaks motivation down into three separate categories:

 

1. 1. Autonomous Motivation. Comprises both intrinsic motivation and the types of extrinsic motivation in which people have identified with an activity’s value and ideally will have integrated it into their sense of self.²

 

1. 1. Controlled Motivation. Consists of both external regulation, in which one’s behavior is a function of external contingencies of reward or punishment, and introjected regulation, in which the regulation of action has been partially internalized and is energized by factors such as an approval motive, avoidance of shame, contingent self-esteem, and ego involvements.²

 

1. 1. Amotivation. Otherwise known as unwillingness². If you look up some definitions via Google, you will find some interesting ones out there, but the authors who are credited with bringing the theory to popularity keep it simple.

 

We know that autonomous motivation and controlled motivation lead to very different outcomes, with autonomous motivation yielding greater psychological health, more effective performance, and greater long-term persistence². This information is seemingly of no surprise—in our profession, the ideas of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation have been commonly known for some time now.

The focus of this article will be on the autonomous motivation section of the SDT. Research suggests that if an individual is to experience high levels of autonomous motivation, they must have three basic psychological needs met: competence, autonomy, and relatedness.² While the most recent research has broken down these needs even further—adding complexities and analyzing specific situations of social context, mindfulness, energy, and vitality—I will adopt a “bird’s-eye” view to ensure brevity and practicality.

Competence

Competence is known as the ability to do something successfully or efficiently. Therefore, it is task specific. It is important to note that feelings of competence may differ many times within a training or practice session.

Let us consider a collegiate men’s lacrosse defender. In men’s lacrosse, a defender uses an implement with a longer shaft than his teammates (midfielders, attackmen, faceoff, and goalies) and typically stays on one half of the field the entire game. A defender may feel confident with passing, cradling, and checks on their half of the field, but as soon as they cross to the attacking side of the field that athlete may immediately lose a sense of competence, because they rarely find themselves there. According to the SDT, if that athlete continually feels that lack of competence, they are much less likely to ever go on the attacking half of the field. This lack of competence has the power to have major negative effects on the athlete’s performance, such as hesitation during play, unforced turnovers, etc.

As sport performance coaches, we press our athletes to improve at certain tasks on a daily basis. In order to maximize our athletes’ motivation, we must maximize their feeling of competence; but in order to improve at a task, an individual must be challenged and experience a sense of struggle³. This situation illustrates the importance of incorporating a proper progression model when developing a training plan. Maximizing motivation is just as important as maximizing physiological responses to training, because we know that consistency is the most important variable in physical development⁴.

Progression models will likely look different between sport performance coaches. We all have different opinions and experiences that drive our training philosophy; that is one of the beauties of our profession. With that being said, coaches who apply SDT consider the psychological outcomes they hope to produce in a session and plan their progressions accordingly. Athletes should leave the sessions feeling challenged, but also feeling the reward of successfully overcoming a challenge.

Athletes should leave training sessions feeling challenged, but also feeling the reward of successfully overcoming a challenge. This can maximize motivation. Share on X

Starting with fundamental movement patterns the athlete can successfully complete—while adding strain through tempo and/or volume—is a great way to maximize the feeling of competence. If the athlete continually performs complex tasks with little to no success throughout the entire session, that athlete is not likely to stay motivated very long.

Coaches may consider these things when designing programs in order to maximize the feeling of competence:

 

• • Incorporating a segment within a training session that is simple, so that the athlete may give full effort (i.e., “Finishers”).

 

• • Using single-joint exercises within a session.

 

• • Starting with the most complex movements and finishing with the simplest within a training session.

 

• • Individualizing programs based off the athlete’s abilities.

 

• • Use the sandwich approach:

 

• • Movement 1: Something relatively non-fatiguing that the athlete is highly capable with (i.e., dribbling).
  • Movement 2: Something the athlete struggles with (i.e., a specific weakness).
  • Movement 3: Something fatiguing and simple (i.e., bike sprints).

Incorporating any of these strategies may enhance your athlete’s feeling of competence. Assuming the other two basic needs of motivation are met (which we are about to discuss), these strategies will likely enhance your athlete’s motivation and maximize the sustainability of it as well.

Autonomy

Autonomy is known as the right or condition of self-government. Oftentimes, academic authors from an array of disciplines tend to have slightly varied interpretations of the term in accordance with their professional discipline. In general, almost all of the interpretations refer back to the ability of choice. In order for autonomy to exist, one must have the ability to choose.

This idea of choice is a significant consideration for sport performance coaches. The athletes we work with have most of their day scheduled for them: They are told when they have film study, practice, meals, rehabilitation, aerobic conditioning, strength training, etc. Many organizations go so far as to tell the athletes when they need to be in bed. All of these things have a positive impact on the athlete’s performance, and they are all important. The complication arises, however, when the athlete doesn’t have a choice in the matter. According to the SDT, when someone is not given the freedom of choice, motivation is diminished.⁵

As sport performance coaches, there is not much we can do about the density of our athletes’ schedules. Oftentimes, we cannot even manipulate the schedule of our athletes’ strength and conditioning training—but we can consider the lack of autonomy in their scheduling process when we are developing our training sessions.

In order for autonomy to exist, one must have the ability to choose. In our training designs, we may consider developing segments within a session in which the athlete has a choice. Share on X

In our training designs, we may consider developing segments within a session in which the athlete has a choice. These choices may be a different movement, loading structure, exercise order, physiological emphasis, etc. It is imperative that the coach have the choices available from the start of the session or training block. If an athlete has to go up to the coach and request an alternate, it no longer feels like a choice for that athlete but more like a modification. When athletes request a modification, it is often because of something negative (i.e., pain, fatigue, etc.). Consequently, when performing the alternative, it may not have as positive an impact as if the modification were already given as an option.

Coaches may consider these things when designing programs in order to maximize the feeling of autonomy:

 

• • Allow athletes to design their own workouts on occasion.

 

• • Consistently have alternate exercises available (and not based on injury).

 

• • Use RPEs as a volume and intensity structure.

 

• • Allow athletes to create and lead warm-ups on occasion.

 

• • Have optional and alternate training days available consistently.

 

• • Have alternate implements available consistently.

 

• • Have optional loading schemes available consistently (8×3 instead of 3×8).

 

Having optional training days and using athlete-led warm-ups are my two go-tos in regard to autonomy. What I like about both strategies is that they require a sense of accountability. For the warm-ups, the athlete must prepare and spend time thinking about the process; meanwhile, having alternate training days requires athletes to consider their schedules and make time commitments accordingly. Both situations have positive implications outside of sport as well.

Assuming a coach has already accounted for the sense of competence in their programming, addressing these considerations will bring us one step closer to a thoroughly motivated athlete, and hopefully a more responsible one as well!

Relatedness

Relatedness is known as the state or fact of being related or connected. This is the emphasis that most of our current sport psychology resources (those relevant to sport performance coaching) have focused on. There is a plethora of information online that illustrates how a coach may learn to better relate to their athletes. As mentioned previously, the feeling of relatedness tends to develop within one’s interactions with their athletes: showing you care about them as a person, asking about their lives outside of sport, learning what type of feedback they best respond to, giving them a bit of insight into who you are as a person outside of work, etc.

While there is no replacing the effects or importance of how a coach interacts with their athletes, relatedness can be addressed within the program design process as well. Programming movements that you can skillfully demonstrate is an undervalued part of the program design process. For instance, I separated my shoulder back in the day while playing rugby, which limits my ability to demonstrate any overhead pressing movement.

Programming movements that you (the coach) can skillfully demonstrate is an undervalued part of the program design process, and it can lead to positive feelings of relatedness. Share on X

As a young coach, I did not consider this when I was programming; then, when it came time to teach the movement, I blew it! My technique was awful, and I could feel it. I tried to verbally communicate proper technique after my poor demonstration, but it didn’t work too well. Throughout the whole day I had multiple athletes use poor technique, and some even cracked some jokes about how my demonstration looked. The jokes were well-intentioned and lighthearted, but I’d be a fool to think there weren’t some underlying negative effects due to my poor demonstration.

Now let’s consider a different situation; one in which I felt like a much more competent coach. I have always been capable when it comes to any pulling exercise. During an evening training session my athletes were performing deadlifts as the primary movement, and we had a group of them making the same mistake during their initial setup position. I decided to pause the lift and give the entire team a couple of coaching cues, and while doing so, I happened to be demonstrating on the platform of our strongest group of guys. After giving the cues, the guys started probing me to see if I could move the weight that was on the bar, so I decided to do so…10 times! Everyone started yelling and smiling and cheering, which made for a fun and energetic training session.

While this scenario sounds cheesy (and it is), it also demonstrates the positive implications of relatedness. The athletes’ opinions and efforts completely changed based solely on my ability to personally do what I asked of them. An athlete connects to their sport performance coach through the avenue of fitness—when a coach is unable to exude some basic attributes of the underlying avenue of connection, it hurts the connection. When designing a training block, a coach should consider their ability to demonstrate a skill or movement effectively throughout a session.

Supplementary training sessions in which a coach can engage in competition with their athletes create an immediate sense of relatedness. Athletes and coaches get to communicate in a less formal and more peer-like manner. In my experience, flag football, basketball, and medicine ball volleyball are all great options. When competing alongside your athletes, be sure to keep it professional.

Coaches may consider these things when designing programs in order to maximize the feeling of relatedness:

 

• • Maintain personal fitness levels and/or goals.

 

• • Schedule sessions in which the sport performance coach may compete with their athletes.

 

• • Talk about topics of interest outside of sport.

 

• • Make time to engage in one-on-one interaction.

 

Incorporating SDT in Your Own Way

We now know that in order for someone to have high levels of autonomous motivation, three psychological needs must be met: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. We have also discussed some strategies that coaches may use to incorporate SDT into their own practice. When considering how to apply SDT, it is important to make sure it is unique to your coaching style and philosophy. The more individualized and unique the approach, the more success you will have.

When considering how to apply Self-Determination Theory, make sure it is unique to your coaching style and philosophy. The more individualized the approach, the more success you will have. Share on X

I use proper progression models to address competence, because it is clear to both me and the athlete what they need to do in order to make it to the next step—there is nothing subjective about it. I use optional training days and athlete-led warm-ups to address autonomy, because they require personal commitment and effort on the athlete’s end. I maintain my own fitness levels and compete alongside my athletes whenever I can to address relatedness. These strategies align with who I am and what I believe in. I have also tried and failed at implementing other strategies plenty of times before settling on these ones.

According to my athletes, the strategies above have had an impact. Whenever I traveled with the team, an athlete and I always seemed to be reminiscing about a memory we had during a workout or competition. The athletes reported truly enjoying the training process, and consistently demonstrated commitment by showing up in the fall ready to train.

I’m sure you can come up with some objective ways to measure the effects of incorporating SDT, but my recommendation is just to ask your athletes. Engage with them, be creative, try new things, be open-minded, ask for feedback from coaches and administration, and have fun doing it!

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. Bartholomew, B. Conscious Coaching: The Art and Science of Building Buy-In. 2017. Omaha, NE: Bartholomew Strength.

2. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. “Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health.” Canadian Psychology. 2008; 49(3): 182-185.

3. Dreyfus, S. E. “The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2004; 24(3): 177-181.

4. Chiu, L. Z. and Bradford, J. L. “The Fitness-Fatigue Model Revisited: Implications for Planning Short- and Long-Term Training.” Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2003; 25(6): 42-51.

5. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.” American Psychologist. 2000; 55(1): 68-78.

Given the current circumstances, the “if” and “when” of return to many sports is uncertain at best. Coaches will soon be inundated with the tasks of getting athletes ready in a hurry, keeping them ready, and possibly presenting novel training options if training happens to be all they can do. For the coaches in the “when” stage, we know it is impossible to make up for the lost time. So how can we buttress our athletes for the rigors of sport in that short period?

Coaches must get their kids from 0 to 100 without breaking them while also answering the question: “How do we keep them ready for when the time comes?” For the coaches in the “if” stage, providing a smooth transition to the field, court, pitch, or pool is the order of the day. This may even turn into a longer period of time than we think, so having a training option we can cycle out of, vary, or temporarily return to will help break the monotony of the grind with general coverage and low cost to the system.

Enter a variation on an old classic—the med ball tempo and alternative versions.

Video 1. Repetitions of wall throws followed by high skips and backpedals.

Sound developmental practice traditionally calls for implementing extensive, low-intensity work to precede high-intensity phases. I’m certainly not advocating running miles at a slow pace here; rather, I’m suggesting that applying sprint and power exercises in an extensive manner will provide a segue to repeat sprint/explosive ability without trading risk for reward.

I’m suggesting that applying sprint and power exercises in an extensive manner will provide a segue to repeat sprint/explosive ability without trading risk for reward. Share on X

Two tools that can give you this “bang for your buck” are tempo running and extensive medicine ball throws—the marriage of which was seen in the work of a legendary coach who was conspicuously ignored in The Last Dance documentary (please excuse my public rant but someone must do it). Coach Al Vermeil used the med ball tempo (MBT) to develop work capacity, one of six components of his Hierarchy of Athletic Development pyramid and one that lies at its foundation.¹

In its purest form, MBT combines tempo running with extensive med ball throwing.

A Variation on a Classic Theme

I’ll digress here a bit as I reminisce about my early years of training. I distinctly recall a harrowing experience doing MBT for the first time back in 2000 or so, when I undertook a one-month athletic training course. I registered for the course to learn how to formally perform and teach the weight lifts, but it also introduced me to other facets of training I had never done before.

One day, the coach in the course had me perform various throws against a wall followed by running the length of the training hall (maybe 20 yards down and back). After about four of these repetitions, I damn near collapsed! It was then that the coach, Lance Vermeil, said to me, “Dude, you’ve got to get into shape!” Years later I can now answer the question of where he got this from—Al’s damn med ball tempo!

Little did I know then that a version of this would become a staple in my programs for both competitive athletes and general fitness enthusiasts alike.

Sometimes space availability, orthopedic health, and athletic needs can become constraints for some athletes to optimally execute the running portion of the classic med ball tempo. Share on X

The classic med ball tempo combines submaximal throws with straight-ahead running to encompass the systemic development that should be part of every sound GPP modality. This combination allows for the systemic development of the cardiopulmonary system, multiplanar force absorption, and soft/connective tissue development of the lower limbs. Simple and effective enough, but sometimes space availability, orthopedic health, and athletic needs can become constraints for some athletes to optimally execute the running portion.

Video 2. Medicine ball twist throws paired with a carioca run.

My variation on this theme comes in the form of substituting inefficient running patterns in place of straight-ahead running—which may be more effective in developmental phases for two reasons:

1. These patterns allow for a low-impact, high-intensity option that trains the oft-neglected muscles of the lateral chain. The stabilizer muscles of the groin are trained with these atypical patterns such as shuffling, carioca, and crossover styles of running.² For my athletes, the submaximal nature of these runs allows a safer introduction to faster, more intense cutting and change-of-direction drills. For our fitness enthusiasts, this option places less overall impact on the connective tissues while in turn training them for resiliency using undertrained patterns.
2. These patterns are less efficient compared to regular running. For students of Dan John, inefficient exercise is “doing something that takes a lot of movement and heavy breathing but doesn’t get you far.” John also adds that this can be a weapon in improving body composition (along with dietary changes), as inefficient exercise will spike the heart rate given it is working harder to get from point A to point B.

Injury reduction combined with a proxy to better body composition seems like a winning combo for all types in my book!

What It Looks Like

I have affectionately dubbed this workout “Funky Throws”—and if you apply it with swimmers, like I do, you may see some funky things going on with the running too (but hey, they do business in the water). We rotate through six throws preceding three different running patterns.

Here is what the base template looks like on paper:

1. Chest pass-high skip/back pedal (see video 1)
2. OH throw-lateral shuffle
3. Twist throw-carioca (see video 2)
4. Scoop throw-high skip back pedal (see video 3)
5. Front slam-lateral shuffle
6. Hurricane slam-carioca

The throws are performed in extensive fashion against the wall, then the athletes take a trip 20 meters down and back. The high skip and back pedal combine opposing patterns, with the former going 20 meters down before returning with the back pedal. Make sure the shuffle and carioca are done facing the same direction to train both sides. We instruct athletes to complete each throw and run in successive fashion, continuously without any rest other than the transition time from ball to track and back. A “round” is the completion of six of the throw and corresponding run combos.

Programming and Variables

Progressions for this modality can have a short- or long-term scope. If you have some time to get in a solid aerobic block, a nine-week plot broken up into three-week phases will have you performing 10 throws for the first three weeks, 15 throws from weeks four to six, and 20 throws in the final three weeks. The shorter version will ramp up the throws from 10 reps on week one to 15 on week two and 20 on week three.

This is not to say you should scrap the program after three weeks, but rather manipulate other variables to increase the intensity. Initially, time the entirety of a round without letting your athlete know that you are timing them—let them dictate the pace and have them rest for approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of the work time. This work-to-rest ratio happens to fit within the parameter of aerobic dominance; more specifically, with work intervals of 3-5 minutes, leaving rest periods ranging from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 minutes.³ This just so happens to fit the ranges I’ve timed my athletes for in their bout with “Funky Throws.”

If you decide to use the shorter plan, here are some variables you can manipulate to apply stress differently.

• Subtract 15-30 seconds from the rest time. On a 1:1/2 ratio, a five-minute set would normally rest for 2 1/2 minutes; just rest 2-2 1/4.
• Manipulate the load. A lighter ball will increase the power output by forcing the athlete to throw it faster, and a heavier ball will increase the force absorption coming back at them, probably a good option for contact athletes.
• Combine the metabolic runs with straight-ahead running. Follow each of the first three throws with the high skip/back pedal, shuffle, and carioca combo. Then follow the last three throws with straight-ahead tempo running—for longer, if possible. This will increase the overall distance within the same amount of work time: i.e., 240-360 meters per round.

1. Chest pass-high skip/back pedal (20 meters down/20 meters back)
2. OH throw-lateral shuffle (20 meters down/20 meters back)
3. Twist throw-carioca (20 meters down/20 meters back)
4. Scoop throw-run (40 meters down/40 meters back)
5. Front slam-lateral shuffle (40 meters down/40 meters back)
6. Hurricane slam-carioca (40 meters down/40 meters back)

Another option is to replace the runs altogether with a 100- to 200-meter distance on a row machine, if you are fortunate enough to have one. This has quickly become a favorite with my swimmers, as they sometimes don’t want to do road work.

Video 3. Medicine ball scoop throws paired with high skips and backpedals.

If the weather isn’t cooperative, you can still maintain the integrity of the modality via an interval clock. Simply space out the throws and “runs” for a 30- to 45-second work period, resting the remainder of the minute. You can execute the inefficient runs with as little as a 5-yard space or instead employ a treadmill or a row machine. This will inevitably extend the total working time, but the difference in the intra-exercise work-to-rest ratio (between 30 on and 30 off and 45 on and 15 off) will maintain the aerobic energy system dominance.

The emphasis on work capacity—especially in the early stages of a career and a season—fits sound practice and is prevalent in Vermeil’s approach. The establishment and redevelopment of a work capacity reserve develops intra-session/contest and inter-session/contest recovery, effectively making the aerobic system omnipresent where the “work capacity reserve” becomes an essential weapon over the course of long seasons, overtime play, and maniacal sport coaching practices.⁵ The latter situation may be something fall sport athletes will have to contend with given sport coaches will be pressured to get their teams game ready.

These variations of the classic med ball tempo have served my athletes well and have allowed us to adapt to any logistical situation that comes our way. Share on X

The double whammy of resilience and fat loss makes the marriage of these concepts an ideal means to meet our athletes where they are and get them going to where they need to be. These variations of the classic med ball tempo have served my athletes well and have allowed us to adapt to any logistical situation that comes our way. The versatility of the med ball tempo and the “Funky Throws” has helped my clientele get in shape quickly, keep them in shape during competitive seasons, and provide unloading during more intense periods of training.

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. Twitter posted by @rugbystrengthcoach.

2. Van Dyke, Matt and Dietz, Cal. “Triphasic Training Metabolic Injury Prevention Running.”

3. John, Dan. “Fat Loss: The Hardest Thing to Do…And That’s All People Want to Do.” p. 40.

4. Fox, Edward L. and Mathews, Donald K. Interval Training: Conditioning for Sports and General Fitness. Saunders Co. 1974. Chart on p. 40.

5. Panariello, Robert. “Designing a Program Using Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development.”

Velocity-based training has been increasing in popularity in recent years. You can use VBT for many different means, from the incorporation of zones (probably what I am most known for) to load-velocity profiling and from force-velocity-power profiling to velocity loss. While how you use it is, of course, up to you, there are some major factors that come into play.

Since there are so many different types of systems now (camera-based, accelerometer, linear position transducer, LED, etc.), the use of one set of values may not be the best idea, especially as the validity and reliability of some units outside of a Smith rack have yet to be well tested.

However, velocity loss is one area that you can implement well with set numbers, regardless of the device, as it relates back to the device’s own measurement strategy.

What Is Velocity Loss?

Simply put, velocity loss is the percentage of decrement that occurs over the course of a set. This is a predetermined number and most commonly presented in the research as intervals of 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%. For many individuals, 40% is approaching failure, and this is why there is no research into further velocity decrements.

Work by Pareja-Blanco¹ is the most popular on this topic, and that popularity is well deserved. His study in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports illustrated two key findings: the affect on speed, strength, and jumping ability of a lower velocity loss and the differences in hypertrophy. I have included figure 1 from the paper below.

In a world where more is often considered better, this does not seem to be the case. The subjects in the 40% velocity loss group performed twice as many repetitions as the 20% velocity loss group. People would think that the biggest strength gains would come from the group that performed twice as many repetitions. This was not found to be the case, as you can see in figure 1: The increase in strength was about 19 kg for the VL20 group as opposed to about 14 kg for the VL40 group. Both groups achieved improvements in strength, with no statistical difference between the two (but the edge going to the VL20 group).

In a world where more is often considered better, this doesn’t seem to be the case: The subjects in the 40% velocity loss group performed 2x as many repetitions as the 20% velocity loss group. Share on X

When investigating the countermovement jump, the VL20 group improved 3.7 cm compared to 1.5 cm for the VL40 group. This difference was found to be statistically significant, in favor of the VL20 group’s improvement. There was no statistical difference in the sprint times. This may simply be due to the large standard deviations. I would be interested to see what would happen with different populations of subjects such as untrained individuals or highly trained athletes as opposed to physically active sports science students.

Regardless of these facts, we can see that athletes can achieve the same results from sprinting and 1RM with half of the volume. Greater improvements in jumping ability were actually achieved with half of the volume. So much for “more is better.”

The outcome of strength, sprints, and jumps were not all they examined in this study. They also performed biopsies, as seen below in figure 2.

What we can glean from figure 2 is that with 40% velocity loss, we did see a greater overall cross-sectional area, (CSA) with just over 500 for VL40 and 417 for VL20. All of the fibers grew with both of the training protocols, but just looking at the size of the fibers, we can see that the CSA of the type 1 fibers grew the most in the VL40 group. When we examine the VL20, we can see that it was the type II fibers that increased in size the most.

This reminds me of the paper on the World Champion Swiss shot putter who exhibited an extraordinarily low number of type II fibers², yet his training allowed him to win a world championship. Although he only had 40% of his fibers categorized as type II when considered with the actual number of fibers, they occupied 67% of the area. While it is true that type II fibers are larger in comparison to type I and thus will occupy a larger space, this is usually somewhere in the neighborhood of a 7% difference (i.e., if you possess 30% type II fibers, they occupy 37% of total space). This was not the case for this athlete, as there was a 27% difference, indicating that his training allowed for specific hypertrophy. His training was something that S&C coaches around the world enjoyed watching, with him bounding up stairs, over barriers, and onto and over boxes, with everything performed explosively. The training he did allowed him to maximize his potential over the course of his career.

When examining the sections below, it may be important to examine the hybrids (IIC and IIAX), as their shift may tell an important story. In the VL40 group, we see a slight decrease in IIA fibers and IIX fibers and an increase in IIAX fibers. The story this tells me is that we are shifting away from the most explosive fibers toward type I fibers to cope with the increased metabolic demand seen from training to near failure. In the VL20 group, we see a decrease in percentage of type I, IIX, and IIAX fibers and an increase in the IIC and IIA. This indicates a shift toward the IIA from the type IIX and I fibers.

As a quick aside, some athletes and coaches may see the shift away from the IIX fibers and become concerned. They may look at this and think, “all of my explosive fibers are going away from either sort of training. This is not good.” I know I would have thought that before. What we have to understand is that type IIX only show up in great frequency in elite-level speed and power athletes^3,4 and for the general population are seen in the obese and inactive. As somebody in the general population begins to train, there is a shift toward IIA, so this shift away from IIX makes sense.

However, there is no indication of what is going on inside the body during training, which is where a paper by Weakley, et al.⁵ (myself included) comes in. In our paper, we looked at velocity with lactate, perceived measures, and countermovement jump within the session. The participants did each protocol twice over the course of eight weeks, and they rotated between the different protocols.

Basically, this indicates that the reliability of the individual is consistent over longer time periods. Those who utilized velocity in training their athletes already understood this. Share on X

An interesting finding from this (at least to me) came from the reliability portion of the study. Most studies performed the same session two weeks in a row, but in our study the protocol was done every fourth week. Even with this condition, the magnitudes of the standard deviations were the same as the previous studies that performed the sessions in subsequent weeks. Basically, what this indicates is that the reliability of the individual is consistent over longer time periods. Those who utilized velocity in training their athletes already understood this, but it had never actually been demonstrated in peer-reviewed research for a multitude of reasons.

What we can see from this graph is that the lower the velocity loss, the lower the levels of lactate, and they actually tend to slightly decline through the first five sets and increase in the sixth. This trend seems to hold true for all of the velocity loss conditions. This may be a result of the “last sprint phenomenon” where, somehow, all of the athletes are able to run markedly faster on the last sprint of the session even though they have been unable to stand up on their own due to fatigue for the last several repetitions.

The RPE for the lower velocity losses was lower across all sets, of course. There was less work done, so athletes should not feel as fatigued. The relative power and peak concentric velocity were higher across all sets in the lower velocity losses, which is to be expected as there was not as much fatigue.

Statistically, magnitude-based inference was utilized to examine how likely it was that the protocols elicited a different response. Figure 4 below shows that there are “likely moderate” to “most likely large” differences in RPE-L across the five sets between the three protocols, with small to moderate changes occurring between the 10% and 20% and likely large between the 10% and 30% loss groups for RPE-B. This isn’t surprising, as more work will lead to greater fatigue.

When I first glanced at figure 4, I thought to myself, “Wow, there wasn’t a difference between the jump conditions.” However, that’s not what this says. Essentially, all the protocols found a level of fatigue that stayed through the rest of the protocol.

The level of fatigue stayed consistent across all sets. This most likely occurs because as fatigue accrues, you will achieve the velocity loss sooner and not accumulate increasing fatigue. Share on X

It is interesting that the level of fatigue stayed consistent across all the sets. This most likely occurs because as fatigue accrues, you will achieve the velocity loss sooner and not accumulate increasing fatigue. In contrast, if you were to do a set prescription, as the fatigue accumulated, and the volume stayed consistent, greater and greater decreases of the jumping metrics would be seen. This could impact subsequent training sessions due to the accrued fatigue, not just the current training session.

Now to get to the “why does this matter” portion of the article. These two studies quantify the adaptations with different velocity losses. There is no “single best” protocol; it is all dependent on what you’re looking for. If someone needs indiscriminate hypertrophy, say an undersized offensive lineman, going with closer to a 40% velocity loss may aid them in becoming a better athlete. Even though it’s not ideal, they need a greater mass to lead to a greater inertia to better perform their job.

If the same lineman is moving in-season, and you prefer to have set loads, you may want to go with a 10% velocity loss to control for fatigue. Conversely, if I have a sprinter and additional muscle mass would slow them down and lower their strength-to-mass ratio, then the utilization of 10% velocity loss would be ideal year-round. For greater tissue tolerance to fatigue, a higher velocity loss would also be in order.

When you understand what occurs with changes in power, lactate, and, as a chronic effect, hypertrophy, you can make the best decisions possible when training your athletes, says @jbryanmann. Share on X

There is no one way to train athletes. Each decision in the training of athletes requires context to make a decision. Hopefully, this article provides you with some insight into what the different adaptations are with the different velocity losses. When you understand what occurs with changes in power, lactate, and, as a chronic effect, hypertrophy, you can make the best decisions possible when training your athletes. I feel like I should end this article the way they would end the GI Joe cartoons from when I was a kid, where they wrapped up each episode with, “and now you know, and knowing is half of the battle.”

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. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L, et al. “Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. 2017; 27: 724-735.

2. Billeter R, Jostarndt-Fogen K, Gunthor W, and Hoppeler H. “Fiber type characteristics and myosin light chain expression in a world champion shot putter.” International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2003; 24: 203-207.

3. Serrano N, Colenso-Semple LM, Lazauskus KK, et al. “Extraordinary fast-twitch fiber abundance in elite weightlifters.” PloS One. 2019; 14(3): e0207975.

4. Trappe S, Luden N, Minchev K, Raue U, Jemiolo B, and Trappe TA. “Skeletal muscle signature of a champion sprint runner.” Journal of Applied Physiology (1985). 2015; 118(12): 1460-1466.

5. Weakley J, McLaren S, Ramirez-Lopez C, et al. “Application of velocity loss thresholds during free-weight resistance training: Responses and reproducibility of perceptual, metabolic, and neuromuscular outcomes.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2019; 1-9.

“Do you guys ever, like…deadlift?”

An intern once randomly asked me that question. In classic strength coach fashion, my answer was, of course, “It depends.”

We do. Kind of.

The single leg Romanian deadlift (SLRDL) has become a “main” lift within the program we run at PACE Fitness Academy. Is it the classic 1RM deadlift that goes on the big PR record board in the weight room? Nope. But it gives us what we need.

Plus, we don’t even have a record board.

What Is a ‘Main Lift’ Anyway?

I hear this question a lot. What is a main lift? What makes it so important? In some cases, these lifts are prioritized simply based on tradition. In other scenarios, the “main lifts” are standardized more for convenience. Many times, main lifts are the ones athletes are tested on. I always think of the “big 3”: bench, squat, and deadlift. These are the “A1’s” of the training session.

I see this through a bit of a different lens. KPIs (key performance indicators) are a hot topic or buzzword right now. This concept represents a new school version of “main lifts,” but expands beyond lifts and sometimes lifting in general. A KPI can be a lift, a sprint, a heart rate, whatever coaches decide works best for their athlete—but at their core, KPIs are quantifiable or manageable and used to track the performance of an individual.

The SLRDL transfers to other things that we track and manage much more closely, such as speed and unilateral power, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

For us, a main lift (or a KPI) is simply something that is a pillar of our program and pays dividends in other areas that we may be quantifying or testing. That’s where the single leg Romanian deadlift comes in. It’s quantifiable (if we want it to be). It can be managed. But most of all, it transfers to other things that we do track and manage much more closely, such as speed and unilateral power.

Single Leg Strength

I don’t want to reignite the whole bilateral versus unilateral debate—the great part about that discussion is that you don’t have to choose sides. Use one or the other where you see fit. In terms of the Romanian deadlift, we program both the bilateral and unilateral variations, but ultimately choose to favor the latter.

In my own training—and based on feedback from our athletes—the single leg version is a fan favorite. This response was initially what sparked us to explore if it can be considered a main lift; something worth prioritizing in a program just as coaches do with the trap bar deadlift, back squat, clean, or bench press.

The answer we’ve found so far is…yes. The lift is worth prioritizing.

In terms of the debate between unilateral and bilateral exercises, much of my thinking comes back to the concept of bilateral limb deficit (BLD). Here is an excerpt from a 2011 study in the European Journal of Applied Physiology by Kuranganti, et al:

“The bilateral limb deficit (BLD) phenomenon is the difference in maximal or near maximal force generating capacity of muscles when they are contracted alone or in combination with the contralateral muscles. A deficit occurs when the summed unilateral force is greater than the bilateral force. The BLD has been observed by a number of researchers in both upper and lower limbs, in isometric and in dynamic contractions. The underlying cause of the deficit remains unknown. One possible explanation is that the deficit occurs due to differences in antagonist muscle coactivation between unilateral and bilateral contractions.”

I first read Mike Boyle’s writing about this around 2015-16, and his blogs sparked my interest. At that time, I was struggling with some really bad long-term injuries and pain. Even as a strength coach, I had my fair share of rough years in my early 20s, where I blatantly ignored my own advice and just tried to lift as much as humanly possible—mostly on bilateral “main lifts.”

This was the first a-ha! moment for me.

It makes so much sense. If an athlete can split squat 350 pounds on each leg, an equal stimulus would be a 700-pound two-legged squat. First off, most athletes simply cannot do that. Secondly, most athletes simply do not want to even try to do that. And finally, the risk of 350 pounds versus 700 pounds is a lot lower and more manageable. When we’re talking about non-barbell sports, there is just a better bang for your buck to go with the unilateral choice.

Even without the science, I’m a big common-sense guy. This concept just really makes a ton of sense, so I adapted it from Mike Boyle and started to add my own flavor on a lot of unilateral work.

Another major a-ha! for me, ironically, was the common pushback I got when I shared this idea and some of my new methods with colleagues. I heard a lot of feedback from people afraid to let go of tradition, and I heard a lot of people who were incapable of opening their mind to new concepts (despite claiming to be “lifelong learners”). I heard a lot of “but we always used to just do this…” and “I was always taught that…”

Frankly, hearing that made me love going against the grain even more. For some reason, I took that as a sign to keep going toward the single leg, single arm work. I think tradition in S&C is great in a lot of ways, but those traditions can also hold us back by failing to adapt to the evolution of methods, education, and our athletes.

The third and final a-ha! came when I learned about Reflexive Performance Reset (RPR) in 2018. This is what connected all the dots for me. The basis of RPR practice is to learn to get better control of your nervous system so you can manage physical or mental stress to move and feel your best.

You do this through their “resets,” which are simple and effective drills athletes can do to optimize the neurological firing pattern of any chosen muscle group(s). It’s not a muscular release; it’s not trigger points; it’s not mechanical in any sense. It’s completely neurological. This was a huge paradigm shift for me.

I was honored to speak at the 2020 Arnold Sports Expo right before COVID-19 shut the country down, and I spoke on RPR and how coaches can use it.

One of the RPR founders, JL Holdsworth, helped me prepare for the presentation by giving me some gems and great ways to communicate these concepts. One of the best analogies I stole from him is that the nervous system is the electricity of the body. When you walk into a dark room, you don’t immediately go changing the light bulbs or lighting fixtures in order to illuminate it. You flip the light switch. You give the light bulbs a source of electricity.

This is what RPR does. Electricity is the nervous system. Light bulbs are your muscles. Lighting fixtures are the skeletal structures. RPR helps you flip the switch, so then you can determine when or if you even need to mess with the bulb or fixtures.

What I’ve learned while doing RPR on myself and with every single one of our athletes is that our brain is not the biggest fan of bilateral movements.

Video 1. This example illustrates how a bilateral movement can instantly alter stability and movement.

These three a-ha! moments collectively brought it home for me: The journey from thinking I knew it all, to realizing I didn’t really know anything, to learning more, and then to realizing I know maybe a little more now but not that much…and then it continued to experimenting and seeing real-life examples of a concept give incredible results.

We still do plenty of bilateral work, especially for athletes with a younger training age. But for the most part, all of our KPIs are unilateral movements, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

As I mentioned earlier, these are the reasons why we turned to a single leg RDL and determined it completely worth our athletes’ time to prioritize in a program. We still do plenty of bilateral work, especially for athletes with a younger training age. But for the most part, all of our KPIs are unilateral movements.

What Makes the SLRDL Special?

So, what is a Romanian deadlift anyway? I like to simplify it to this: An RDL is a loaded hip hinge that does not involve a pull from the floor. You unrack the bar at waist height and begin your rep with the eccentric phase, rather than pulling a bar from the floor.

The RDL, in general, can have a great effect on posterior chain strength, most specifically hamstrings and lower back integrity. Of course, you’ll get a lot of lat engagement as well as glute activity, but most would consider it a hamstring exercise in terms of primary movers.

The RDL is not just a training tool, but a diagnostic tool too. This is helpful for teaching athletes how to hinge at the hips, load the posterior chain, and gain access to these sorts of hip-dominant positions. Not that knee-dominant movements need to be avoided, but there are definitely clear times to use one or the other in a lifting environment.

In general, those are some of the things we see in a classic RDL, but here are three specific reasons why I love the single leg version so much.

1. Grip Is Not a Limiter

Part of the bilateral limb deficit (BLD) theory that doesn’t get talked about enough is how grip-based exercises work into the concept. In an RDL, grip is often a limiting factor. This means athletes will often fail reps due to grip failure before the hamstrings, glutes, and back are even close to their limits.

The beauty of the SLRDL is that it kills two birds with one stone in terms of the BLD. The sum of the unilateral work exceeds the limit of the bilateral work, but also the grip never changes. A barbell SLRDL still allows athletes to use both hands to hold onto the bar, making grip much less of a limitation compared to the bilateral version.

An example of this would be an athlete who can SLRDL 250 pounds but can’t RDL 500 pounds because their grip gives out. Sure, you could make grip training more of a priority in training, but then you’d have to possibly sacrifice training other attributes that are much more important to the athlete’s performance.

2. Movement Assessment

Another benefit of the SLRDL—which I touched on earlier—is its value as a movement assessment. You can learn a lot about an athlete just by watching them performing an SLRDL, including things you would not be able to see in a standard RDL. One example would be an athlete’s pelvic or hip positioning. No one is symmetrical, nor should we expect them to be, but knowing where these asymmetries are and how they alter function is a powerful tool for coaches.

You can learn a lot about an athlete just by watching them performing an SLRDL, including things you would not be able to see in a standard RDL, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Video 2. Hip opening: Shows a common difference you may see in a left-legged versus right-legged SLRDL.

Compensations like this could be due to a range of causes, but at least it gives coaches a start in helping resolve the issue. It could be as simple as uneven hips that a chiropractor could adjust or simply teaching an athlete how to shift into their hip during the movement. On the contrary, it could be more complex, such as a muscular imbalance that forces the athlete into this position. Or it could be some sort of protective mechanism the brain has forced the athlete into to cover up a deeper issue.

Every situation is different, but the diagnostic features of a simple SLRDL allow you to see these things, whereas in a standard RDL they could easily be hidden, since it’s a two-legged exercise.

3. Build Adductor Strength

Lastly, I think my favorite benefit of the SLRDL is the amount of adductor strength you can build up in a very functional way. Most adduction exercises isolate the movement and neglect the collaborative nature of the involvement of the hamstrings and glutes.

I think my favorite benefit of the SLRDL is the amount of adductor strength you can build up in a very functional way, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

You’re probably picturing the classic commercial gym seated adduction machine that almost always makes for some fantastically awkward eye contact from across the gym. The adductors (or “groins”) themselves are a cluster that tends to get grouped together under this blanket term, but they also play such a large role in athletic movements that it’s valuable to train them along with those muscles they often work with synergistically.

Using the hinge pattern—which is predominately hamstrings, glutes, and lats working with the adductors—will not only let the athlete strengthen their adductor complex, but it will do so in a way that effectively translates to their sport. In sprinting, for example, those muscles are vital in every stride. In lateral shuffling, those same muscles emphasize the adductors even more to produce force.

Progression

The single leg RDL is definitely not a beginner’s lift. Although it looks smooth and simple when flawlessly executed, it is a skill that must be learned and refined over many months of training.

A great place to start is with a simple bilateral hip hinge, such as a barbell RDL or a KB deadlift. I believe showcasing sound mechanics in this lift is an important detail for this progression. Even though it’s the furthest lift away from an SLRDL, it still sets a good foundation for figuring out the hinge pattern.

Video 3. This is an example of a reactive neuromuscular training (RNT) barbell RDL, using a band to pull the bar away from the body so the athlete must focus on keeping their lats engaged and their hinge motion smooth.

As we continue to move toward an SLRDL, the bilateral options are still very key. Not just from a movement standpoint, but also from a strength and resilience point of view. If the movement pattern looks great, but we can’t load it much, it may not be the right time to progress forward. When the coach and athlete both feel comfortable and experienced with the bilateral variations, moving to a unique stance called “the kickstand” is a game changer.

A DB or KB loaded kickstand RDL features a staggered stance that allows athletes to emphasize one leg without completely relying on that leg for stability. This is a great bridge from bilateral to unilateral work. You can also progress the kickstand RDL to a barbell to load it up heavier.

Athletes love these kickstand variations. A huge advantage of this stance is that it gives the athlete a little bit more ownership of their lifting positions. I am a big believer that there are certain things coaches DO NOT want to see in a lift, but beyond those obvious major red flags, the rest is very much left to the athlete’s individual preference.

The kickstand RDL gives the athlete more flexibility to find their perfect stance, not the perfect stance. And as long as the standard principles of the RDL remain intact, everyone wins.

The kickstand RDL gives the athlete more flexibility to find THEIR perfect stance, not THE perfect stance, says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

Once an athlete gets comfortable with the kickstand RDL, you can begin to move into true single leg work with either a dumbbell or kettlebell. You could even introduce single leg RDL isometric holds before moving to loaded variations. I am a huge fan of isometric holds not only for their help with new movements, but also for their huge benefits for tendon health.

Video 4. Tempo single leg RDL with KB or DB.

The end goal is to get to a clean barbell single leg RDL like the one in Video 5. Some athletes may skip certain steps, others may start at different points of the progression model, but this is just an outline of some options we can use to help achieve the end goal.

I should note that I am not as particular as other coaches when it comes to the back leg of an SLRDL. I personally prefer it to have some knee flexion—the bent back leg helps the athlete balance better because keeping that leg in closer to their center of mass helps them stay tight rather than reaching out and away from the body. I am not a fan of the straight, locked-out back leg. Some athletes end up somewhere in between, which is just fine, but we coach it with more bend in the back leg than typically seen.

Video 5. A 165-pound high school junior with a 225-pound barbell SLRDL.

Above all, if the working leg looks and feels good, I’m not going to overly obsess about the non-working leg if the athlete is comfortable. Sometimes, less coaching is more. Again, we want the athlete to find their perfect stance, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Here are a handful of my favorite accessory lifts that may also serve as useful lifts in the progression toward a single leg RDL:

• Oscillatory RDL
• Eccentric overload tempo RDL
• Bent over straight arm lat pulldown
• SB hamstring curl (one or two legs)
• Hip airplanes
• SLRDL iso hold
• Copenhagen plank
• Unstable single leg RDL (Video 6)

Video 6. Athlete performs single leg RDL with earthquake bar.

From Performance Indicators to Performance Outcomes

Since putting more emphasis on single leg RDLs, we’ve witnessed a huge increase in our athletes’ single leg strength and jumping ability, which is to be expected. We’ve also seen a drastic improvement in balance and stability, both in the weight room and in sport, without ever doing anything that could be categorized as “balance training.”

Kind of an odd “feat of strength,” we challenge our athletes with is the five-minute single leg balance iso. It’s simple. Take your shoes off and balance on one leg for an unbroken five minutes. Stable and balanced, not hopping around or wobbling the entire time.

This is a great way to train proprioception and really teach athletes how to use their feet to communicate with the ground and the rest of their body. Everything starts with the feet, so we can’t forget to train them like we would any other muscle group. Believe it or not, after about two minutes, this turns into a full-body exercise.

Since putting more emphasis on SLRDLs, we’ve seen a drastic improvement in balance and stability, both in the weight room and in sport, without doing any “balance training,” says @JustinOchoa317. Share on X

The SLRDL and this particular iso hold challenge have helped each other back and forth nicely. Almost every athlete we have who is older than 15 is able to hold this for five minutes. We also have several athletes who can SLRDL their body weight or more for 1-3 reps, which is pretty impressive.

Although we’re relatively new to the 1080 Sprint, we’re also assessing data in sprints and jumps and noticing that our athletes who have been with us for multiple off-seasons (and therefore done a lot of SLRDLs) have much more symmetrical unilateral data in sprints and jumps compared to our newer athletes.

Although I have absolutely nothing against the Olympic lifts, barbell conventional/sumo deadlifts or barbell back squats, these are three extremely common lifts that we rarely utilize in our programming. I would say less than half a percent in the last five years. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that those are necessary or more beneficial to a program than some of the alternatives, including the SLRDL.

Aside from the 1080 Sprint, we use PUSH for our VBT training systems and also use it for some of our jump training and testing. I really like to see single leg broad jumps and single leg lateral jumps with the PUSH data to look into whether an athlete is favoring either side, and if so, which one. Again, we can’t expect anyone to be perfectly symmetrical, but having high-quality athleticism on either side of the body is essential for performance and health.

Video 7. Single leg lateral jumps performed with PUSH data.

A very drastic example (video 7) is the case of a pro basketball player who was coming off ACL surgery and completely cleared to play. He had finished rehab and was back active on the court. His lateral broad jump speed was .30 m/s apart between his surgically repaired leg and the healthy leg. After a 10-week strength and conditioning block with a heavy focus on unilateral work, he was able to improve his scores as a whole and also bring them within 0.01 m/s of each other.

This athlete was working up to a daily 1RM, testing out heavy singles until he reached an average set velocity of around .35 m/s or an RPE 8/10 (assuming his form looks solid).

Another benefit of having the VBT data is that you can see what movement speed and power look like from week to week, or even within a given amount of sets in a single training session. Of course, nothing is going to replace verbal coaching and feedback from athletes, but having technology point out something awry can lead the coach to inquire deeper and find an issue that may need to be addressed.

Overall, if you are equipped with the facility space and freedom to upgrade the SLRDL to a main lift, it’s well worth it for your athletes.

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

How do you train your athletes in season? It’s a question that most, if not all, coaches have been asked many times. It’s one that most of us will answer with our own twist on exactly how we go about it.

There are many factors that go into how we plan that aspect of our programming. When I’ve been asked this question in the past, I’ve answered that we use a very common protocol. We begin with moderate volume and load, and as we progress toward the post-season, we gradually decrease volume while simultaneously increasing load.

As our plan was laid out, we would actually hit near maximal and, if possible, above maximal loads from our preseason testing. Without a doubt, you can attain positive results using this type of programming. The dynamic can change, however, when you work with large groups of athletes. In my years of programming this way with team sports, the problem was that what we programmed and what athletes actually did too often varied. No matter how much we, as coaches, urged or demanded that our athletes do heavy (85%+) singles and doubles on the back squat or trap deadlift during the 14th week of the season, we still had trouble getting that accomplished across the board with all athletes.

The bumps and bruises and fatigue athletes feel can lead them to choose which aspects of training they “believe” they can accomplish and which ones they can’t, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

The bumps and bruises and fatigue athletes feel can lead them to make choices about which aspects of training they “believe” they can accomplish and which ones they can’t. Often, it’s hard for athletes to understand that you have programmed their in-season workouts to work with practices and increasing sport volume. In my experience, the movements for which I would hear, “I can’t do that much right now” (when we knew that physically they could—they should have said “I don’t feel like doing that”) were back squats and trap deadlifts. Bench press, on the other hand, was no problem. I rarely, if ever, had to get on one of our football athletes for not loading sufficient weight on the bar to bench. In fact, usually it was quite the opposite.

Sure, we could “force” them to do it by standing over them and demanding it. Would they get anything out of that in the mental state that moment would lead them to? Probably not. There had to be a better way to get full participation. The problem had me searching for answers. If the athletes don’t follow the programming, the results will obviously not be maximized. How can we get our athletes to use the proper loads, without standing over them and counting the plates as they load the bar? How can we ensure that they not only stay strong as a season moves ahead, but that we also get maximum transfer from training to field?

Yes, many high school athletes will do exactly as you coach them to do. We also know that the majority of them will do what they believe they should do in that moment.

I set out to come up with a way to maximize our in-season program. What we came up with ended up changing my way of thinking. It kept our athletes strong and explosive across the board, producing post-season testing results that, while just a one-year sample, made us never want to look back. It’s something that I quickly began looking forward to writing about and sharing.

Our process was not revolutionary in any way. However, if you’re a high school coach with similar issues, I’m writing in the hopes of giving you insight into how we not only improved, but took our in-season training program to new heights.

Max Speed

I’ve written in the past about what a great tool velocity-based training (VBT) is for athletic performance. My initial thought process was to use VBT as our way to program in-season. There is no doubt that training with maximal intent transfers to athletic performance. Research has concluded that training with max intent was “a fundamental component of training (for athletic transfer) as the velocity of the loads lifted largely determines the resulting training effect and causes significant increases in both strength and power.”

Using a VBT device will obviously help the athlete to train with max intent. It can also allow you to do away with percentages and use the much more reliable metric of speed in m/s. I’m a huge advocate of VBT. In fact, with a small group, I’d still lean very heavily on it. But what if VBT is not an option? Not everyone has access or time for it.

In this particular situation (a varsity football team), it wasn’t an option for me. The group was simply too large and the time we had to train too short to utilize VBT as a training modality. How can we train athletes to move the loads sufficiently to lead to the adaptation we, as strength coaches, look for, but with maximum intent that will transfer without VBT? The answer was very simple, and it was right in front of me.

Velocity Without an Accelerometer

Sitting down to figure out this problem, I remembered a conversation about VBT I had with Coach Johnny Parker. He told me that they’d been using VBT for a long time—even before the widespread use of a “fancy monitor.” They used a monitor, he said: “it was called a stopwatch.” After all, what’s velocity? It’s timing how fast something moves.

If we get athletes to move increasingly heavy weights at the same speed or with faster times, we utilize the positive aspects of VBT. I decided that was where I wanted to start. I began to formulate a plan to execute this in programming. I understood that hand-timing sets would not be the exact science that VBT is, but I also understand what adding a timer does to anything we do with athletes. It leads to max intent, which is what we wanted to get out of our in-season program.

I understood that hand-timing sets wouldn’t be the exact science that VBT is, but I also knew that adding a timer would lead to maximum intent from athletes, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

I was further encouraged after a second conversation I had in June at the NHSSCA National Conference. I ran my ideas by David Abernathy. He not only approved of them, he said he had found himself in similar situations in the past and had experienced great results from training this way.

Empowered by the research and my conversations with two highly respected strength coaches on the topic, I sat down to formulate a plan to maximize our athletes’ in-season experience.

The Plan

What we came up with was a mix of the traditional way we had trained in-season and maximal intent training. I still am a believer in decreasing volume and increasing intensity as the season moves forward. I knew I wanted to keep aspects of heavier training in the program.

We kept bench press, as we had always trained it. That never has an issue of load being too light with American football players. On the other hand, we would adjust our pulls and squats. If we could find a way to get stronger using lighter loads with those movements, we would be ahead of how we had trained in the past. There is no other way to put it: As athletes get further into the season, it gets tougher to get them to move appropriate loads on those two movements. This could eliminate that issue while rendering the athletes even more able to develop power.

If we could find a way to get stronger using lighter loads with pulls and squats, we would be ahead of how we had trained in the past, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

For each of our three days, we programmed one speed-based movement with a lighter intensity and one heavier movement. We met the athletes where they were instead of where we hoped they would go. For movements we felt that athletes would naturally push themselves on, we programmed higher intensities. For others, we used moderate loads at higher velocities to force strength adaptations.

Our sets and reps programming stayed fairly consistent with past seasons. With our timed movements, we started with four sets of five reps. With our higher intensity movements, we began with an APRE6 protocol. We worked our way down with volume, until we were using six sets of two for timed movements and six sets of one for higher intensity in the final week of the season.

The way we programmed intensity was something brand-new to me this year. For our timed movements, we put our athletes into groups of four based strictly on the 1RM of each athlete. I then loaded the bars on week 1 with the average of the four athletes’ 55% of 1RM. I selected this weight because it was low enough to ensure proper movement at top speed in the higher rep ranges that we’d started with. It also allowed our athletes to really experience max intent. They were able to make that load “hop,” and this taught them what top speed felt like.

This weight allowed our athletes to really experience max intent. They were able to make that load “hop,” and this taught them what top speed felt like, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

From that point on, each week I loaded the bar for each group and added five more pounds to it. Every time we dropped volume (example from 4’s to 3’s), I added 10 more pounds from the previous week. I did this after I counted back from week 15 to week 2 with an “average” of 75% of 1RM per group. This allowed us to move from (+/-) 55% to 75% over that time.

I kept the speed per rep goal (stopwatch-timed) the same from start to finish. I knew they’d be able to move faster than the goal at the start of the program at 55%. Our goal was to keep the approximate velocity of the movement the same as our load increased up to +/- 75%. If we could achieve that, we knew the power output would increase and transfer those reps to the field even more effectively.

Our third timed movement was elevated power shrugs. We used blocks to get the trap bar 12–18 inches off the floor. The athlete basically did a loaded jump type movement without leaving the floor. Load-wise, we used 50% of the weight used for trap deadlift that week.

Pre-loading the bars was a new thing this year, and it was a lot of work for me because we have 15 stations. But the benefits were well worth it. Our athletes were able to come in, warm up, and get started. It saved a lot of time. The less the athlete has to think, the better it is. This took thinking out of the exercise.

Pre-loading the bars was a new thing this year. Our athletes were able to come in, warm up, and get started. It saved a lot of time, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

I loaded the bar with a base weight that they would use for the first set. I set the rest of the plates on the floor. After that first set, I told them to load the plates I laid out for them. If a group didn’t load the correct weight, our coaches easily spotted it. This added efficiency to the process. The time we used per rep ended up as follows:

With our auxiliary and dynamic movements, we used a more athlete-controlled protocol. Using an APRE-like program, we had them climb to the weight they did the previous week for their next to last set. They were able to adjust their load for the last set based on that set’s outcome and how they felt.

From a set timing standpoint, we began at a point where we were almost going too fast. I ended up extending rest time so that each athlete went off a 30-second whistle. The athlete would finish his set in 2–10 seconds. At the 20-second mark I’d yell out “next man up…,” at 25 seconds I’d say “ready,” and at 30 seconds I’d blow the whistle. This got us through our six-set exercises in 12–13 minutes whistle to whistle.

Max intent with efficiency was a direct result of our programming. It was also very high energy, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Max intent with efficiency was a direct result of our programming. It was also very high energy. There was no time to lose focus. As a coach, I was very involved. It allowed me to set the tone for every set. It also allowed me to adjust set and rest times based on the team lifting that day.

Developmental Athletes

Initially, we had to make one main adjustment to our protocol. This was with our “developmental” group. In most sessions we have at least a few sub-varsity athletes training at the same time. These players were all sophomores. They were a year into the program, but they were not where we wanted them to be yet. That presented a problem.

For one, those players didn’t all back squat or do hang cleans yet. Another factor is that, many times, those athletes are further from what we call their “strong enough” level. As I’ve written about in my article series on blocking our athletes, we have frame/bodyweight goals for each athlete to reach that we consider “strong enough” for what they need to be able to do on the field. Our approach to strength training with these athletes is different than with our younger groups.

We needed to find an adjustment that allowed those developmental athletes we had working with the varsity athletes to be on a more traditional path to strength. First, we tried to have them work as a separate group, but this didn’t work out for us. We wanted them to be part of the high-energy program we had developed.

What we ended up doing was keeping that whole group on sets of five reps. We did not time that group; however, they did stay within the timed rest parameters, and they did start on the whistle. They just had a consistent rep assignment while still increasing intensity each week. As we got toward the end of the season, we even extended the rest time because of this group. The extra rest time was a good thing as we approached our higher intensity goals with the varsity players.

We let the sub-varsity players have more freedom in adjusting weight as well. Our goal for them was get to five reps with “one left in the tank.” We still had a bar-speed focus with this group. However, with sub-varsity level athletes, we feel closing that “strong enough” gap was more important than max speed. Also, younger athletes tend to get less from the types of speed we use with our varsity group because they are not as technically sound with the movements. Velocity without technique is kind of chasing your own tail.

End Results: An Encouraging Protocol

Although not a study to a scientific standard, the data I collected from pre and post testing our varsity football class is highly encouraging and leads me to want to continue this protocol. We tested pre-season and retested the week directly following the end of the football season. None of the athletes included in this data were from our developmental group. The data group were all athletes we identify as “Block 3” or “Block 4”—seniors, juniors, and a small handful of advanced sophomores. Each of these was at least within 86% of the “strong enough” frame/weight threshold I mentioned earlier. Each of these athletes also had a proficiency in the movements tested in order to earn promotion to either Block 3 or 4.

Our bench press numbers showed a slight increase, and our squat and trap deadlift numbers far exceeded 2018 testing and the goals I’d hoped to reach, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Table 4 below shows the final data gathered from that testing. As you can see, we were able to achieve a high level of strength increase from both individual and team standpoints. Going in, I really hoped for a 5–7% team average with 75% of our athletes increasing in back squat and trap deadlift. Those were numbers I selected because, looking at last year’s testing, those would have been improvements. Our bench press numbers showed a slight increase from 2018 in team average and athletes increased. Our squat and trap deadlift numbers far exceeded 2018 testing and the goals I had hoped to reach.

In addition to increases in testing data, we saw a significant increase in total player training days. In 2018, we rarely, if ever, had the entire team training any single day. Many factors led to this. We were basically free of soft-tissue injuries in 2019, with just one athlete missing game time with any type of soft tissue issue. We only lost two games due to varsity football players with concussion symptoms. We also had a change in head coaches and an ensuing change in culture, with a focus on in-season training being a non-negotiable issue. In the weight room, we had zero injuries.

This new protocol played a role in giving our younger, less-experienced 2019 squad a chance to maximize their potential, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

From a completely anecdotal standpoint, it was also clear by watching our players on Friday nights that they moved more explosively than they had at points in the previous season. I should also note that these results came at a point in our football program where we were in the first year of a total program rebuild. Our 2018 squad was much more experienced and talented athletically. This protocol played a role in giving our younger, less-experienced 2019 squad a chance to maximize their potential and set themselves up for a 2020 off-season that sees our program lose a small handful of players and return a large number of starters.

The Takeaway: Speed and Strength

I’m hoping my experience in problem-solving an issue in our sports performance program will, at the very least, give you options if you face similar problems in your program. As I’ve grown in the field, I’ve become a proponent of the idea that the goal of training for athletics is to be faster, not necessarily stronger. Speed is what transfers to sport. However, we all know that strength is a major component of allowing athletes to maximize athletic performance.

The combination of the two produced results for our athletes. Movement velocity seems to be of great importance for inducing strength adaptations directed toward improving athletic performance. Although this was understood in our program previously, it’s clear that placing a focus on speed with submaximal loads in order to produce concentric movements at peak velocity is highly effective, not just in-season, but as part of a yearly plan.

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