Blog

Since the country’s infection and identification of the COVID-19 virus, several distinct restrictions and recommendations have been placed on the public in an attempt to control the spread of this disease. For athletics, these constraints have raised concerns for the sustained performance enhancement training of athletes and the future anticipation for the return of organized sports at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels of competition. Numerous news reports, internet blogs, ZOOM meetings, and podcasts have conveyed concern about the return to play (RTP) of “healthy” athletes who have had to modify, at best, their required training due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A noteworthy unknown is how athletes will fair physically at the time of the approval and initiation of formal, organized sport team practice sessions and eventual game day competition.

A training topic that has not had as much deliberation is the effect of the COVID-19 restrictions upon the injured and post-surgical athlete’s rehabilitation and their level of physical condition when they also return to sport team practice. As the pandemic has resulted in many athletes returning to their homes, the present circumstances have affected the athlete’s capability to continue with appropriate and effective rehabilitative care. Although physical therapy is classified as an essential business of the health care continuum, many private outpatient health care facilities, as with other various businesses, have either closed or suspended their operations. The restrictions in accessibility raise additional concerns of how the injured or postoperative athlete will fair in their physical preparedness for daily sport team practice and game day competition.

How will injured or postoperative athletes fair in their physical preparedness for team practice & game day when COVID restrictions lift? Share on X

Competitive athletics transpire in a physical and, at times, hostile environment. It’s a setting where many unfortunate sport injuries, some requiring surgical intervention, may plague an athlete for an extended time. Once they complete their sports rehabilitation, they’re required to participate in a battery of tests to assess their physical prowess for a possible return to sport participation. The content of this post emphasizes our alternative perspective for the athlete’s post-rehabilitation RTP testing, and more specifically, the RTP testing of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured and ACL reconstructed (ACLR) knee athlete. We’ve used this RTP testing program successfully and progressively modified it periodically over the past few years for the athlete’s safe and optimal return to athletic competition.

Present-day athletes are stronger, more powerful, and faster than the athletes of decades past. Training philosophies, programming, equipment, nutrition, sports science, and sports medicine services and techniques have evolved specifically to enhance the physical standards of athletic performance. Unfortunately, participation in athletic competition comes with the potential for athletic injuries. Sports medicine professionals and scientists have investigated the cause and effect of numerous sport injuries over the past decades in an attempt to improve both the prevention (reduction) and care of these injuries. One highlight has been the efforts to improve the surgical intervention, rehabilitation, and RTP testing of the ACL injured and ACLR knee athlete.

The RTP outcomes of these athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic remain relatively unknown due to the unfamiliarity of the current circumstances. The environment that confines the athlete’s ability to train compounded by the uncertainty for appropriate sports rehabilitative care makes for a valid concern for the athlete’s RTP outcomes. Also, some individuals may have some degree of hesitation for attending “face-to-face” rehabilitation sessions due to the pandemic.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there were more than 300,000 ACL reconstructions performed in the United States annually, according to reports. Of these, 20% to 50% will not return to the same sport they participated in after surgery, and 10% to 70% of those who return will do so at a substandard performance level.^{1, 2} Investigators who performed an in-depth meta-analysis on this subject found only a 47% return to previous levels of sport participation several years after primary ACLR.³

RTP ACLR athletes often have deficits in the physical qualities required for optimal athletic performance, leaving them at risk for a later ACL injury. Share on X

Unfortunately, the RTP ACLR athlete often presents with deficits in the physical qualities required for optimal athletic performance, leaving them at risk for a later ACL injury.^{4, 5}Subsequent ACL injuries approach 49%,⁶ suggesting there are shortcomings in the current RTP ACLR testing criteria. Due to the COVID-19 alterations and limitations commenced in recent months, one may inquire whether the ACLR RTP outcomes will remain as reported or worsen when sport team practice and game day competition start.

Younger athletes (less than 20 years of age) who experience a second ACL injury also had lower “psychological readiness” 12 months after ACLR.⁷ This reduced psychological readiness is termed kinesiophobia, which may not be familiar to many strength and conditioning (S&C) and sport coaches. Kinesiophobia is an additional limiting factor in an athlete’s ability to return to optimal levels of athletic performance safely. Kinesiophobia is the fear of inducing pain or re-injury to the injured or postoperative anatomy and, explicitly for this discussion, the ACLR extremity. It results in a compromised physical performance that we may observe during physical rehabilitation, athletic performance enhancement training, team practice sessions, and game day competition. The fear of re-injury diminishes the athlete’s confidence and ability to distribute and receive substantial forces that are necessary for ideal levels of athletic performance. The kinesiophobia phenomenon in association with the physical deficits that may exhibit during ACLR RTP testing will result in a poor test score and prohibit the athlete’s return to sport.

Due to the causes previously noted, at the time of RTP testing, the ACLR athlete may present with a lack of strength. Strength is important for both force application and absorption, muscle and joint stiffness, joint stability, and injury prevention (reduction) and is the physical quality from where all other physical qualities evolve. The lack of ideal strength levels places the athlete at athletic performance and RTP testing disadvantage.

A deficiency in relative strength values may result in muscle and mechanical damage⁸ as well as decreased performance in sprinting, jumping, deceleration, and change of direction.⁹Weaker athletes also tend to rely more on their ligaments for joint stability in high-intensity situations, a phenomenon known as ligament dominance.¹⁰ Ligament dominance places the athlete at risk of re-injury by emphasizing knee joint stability upon the joint ligament structures, including the injured or reconstructed ACL as an alternative to the supporting knee joint musculature. Also, collegiate male and female athletes lacking relative back squat strength values of 2.2 and 1.6, respectively, may be susceptible to lower extremity injury throughout a sport season.¹¹ Strength is a physical quality we should not undervalue.

Our program design for the performance enhancement training and sports rehabilitation of our athletes is founded upon Hall of Fame (HOF) S&C coach Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development (see Image 1). For many reasons confirmed in scientific literature, including noted published statements regarding the “shortcoming in the current RTP ACLR testing criteria,” we modified and adapted this hierarchy model for our ACL injury and ACLR RTP testing.^{12, 13}

Traditional ACLR Return-to-Play Testing

Traditional ACLR RTP testing commonly involves a limb symmetry index (LSI) strategy, where the athlete’s documented RTP test scores of the ACLR lower extremity are compared to those of the non-involved (non-surgical) lower extremity. The RTP test score is expressed as a percentage of the non-surgical limb test scores, i.e., 90%, 95%, etc. The athlete’s RTP “clearance” is based on achieving a test score that meets or exceeds the standards established by the physician and rehabilitation team. Activities commonly prescribed in the RTP testing model include, but are not limited, to:

• Manual ACL ligament integrity testing
• Knee ligament arthrometer testing (if available)
• Isokinetic testing (if available)
• Neuromuscular testing
• Various bilateral and single-leg strength tests
• Various bilateral and single-leg jump tests
• Various bilateral and single-leg hop tests
• Various running and change of direction (COD) tests
• Various agility tests

A concern with the LSI test strategy is that the non-involved extremity has also experienced a period of deconditioning from the time of ACL injury, surgery, and the initial periods of rehabilitation. Also, the required postoperative “healing continuum” of soft tissue and bone results in medically prescribed limitations in the athlete’s level of physical activity over an extended period. These physical activity limitations not only result in deficits of the physical qualities in the ACLR extremity but also the non-involved extremity.¹⁴ The addition of COVID-19 precautions and environmental (training and rehabilitation) restrictions likely compound the deconditioning of both lower extremities as well as the athlete’s overall physical deconditioning. Therefore, the question arises whether we should consider the non-operative extremity the sole physical “gold standard” when deciding the athlete’s safe and optimal RTP.

LSI scores frequently overestimate knee function after ACLR and may be related to a subsequent risk for ACL injury. Share on X

Wellsandt¹⁵ reviewed 70 ACLR athletes for LSIs compared to their estimated pre-injury capacity (EPIC), meaning the non-involved lower extremity estimated physical qualities before the ACL injury. Of the 70 athletes, 40 (57.1%) achieved a 90% LSI score, while only 20 athletes (28.6%) met a 90% EPIC score. Twenty-four athletes (34.3%) who obtained a 90% LSI score did not achieve a 90% EPIC score. The authors concluded that LSI scores frequently overestimate knee function after ACLR and may be related to a subsequent risk for ACL injury.

The Physical Quality Standards of Sport

Although LSIs have been recognized as a method to help determine the athlete’s physical ability for RTP, our opinion is that they are only part of the equation. There are required physical quality standards associated with optimal athletic performance, which include the specific sport as well as the position played or event. If this was not true, why do professional sport combines exist to help determine not only the draft selection but also the round of each selection? Why are there running distance and sprinting times, throwing distance, and jumping distance and height qualifications for track and field events? Why are there total weight achievement performance qualifications for weightlifting events?

We should not disregard the physical standards of sport. As an example, let’s review the RTP of a major league baseball (MLB) pitcher who sustained a throwing arm injury (and possible surgery).
At the time of their progressive rehabilitation throwing program, the basic throwing sequence would likely be similar to the following:

• Short toss
• Long toss
• Pitching from flat ground
• Pitching from a pitcher’s mound (with mound height progressions)

These types of throwing programs produce outcomes that are not limited to improvement in arm strength, enhanced arm velocity, improvement in the neuromuscular timing of the shoulder complex, and total body unit as well as enhanced pitching mechanics. All are essential for the throwing athlete’s optimal RTP. However, if the athlete’s most effective pitch is a fastball, and the MLB standard for fastball velocity is 90-90+ miles per hour (mph), wouldn’t the athlete need to attain this pitching velocity standard for their RTP performance to be effective? If the rehabilitated MLB pitcher demonstrates a top RTP fastball velocity of 80 mph, they likely would not be assigned to pitch in an MLB game. Thus, if MLB has a position (pitcher) and physical standard (velocity) for that position, why would it be any different for any physical quality necessary for success in any sport, position, or event? Why would this RTP perspective be any different for any other various injured athlete anatomy?

The performance enhancement training, nutrition, and sports science of athletes are evolving to result in stronger, more powerful, and faster athletes. These advancements also result in the proverbial “raising of the bar” concerning the physical qualities and performance standards of sport. Acknowledging these innovations and physical quality enhancements, why would the RTP standard for the ACLR athlete be limited to an LSI comparison of the non-involved extremity? Why would the RTP testing not include the physical quality standards of the sport, position, or event in addition to the athlete’s LSI?

LSI test scores don't ensure that an ACL reconstructed athlete exhibits the physical quality standards necessary for their sport. Share on X

The LSI test scores do not ensure that the ACLR athlete exhibits the physical quality standards necessary for their particular sport. Our rationale for incorporating these standards as part of our RTP testing initiative is this: these physical standards are presented daily by the athlete’s peers during sport practice sessions and by the athlete’s opponent(s) on the high-intensity day of competition. Image 2 provides an example of the physical quality standards for college and high school football athletes.

Reviewing Image 2, if a returning Division I football ACLR athlete demonstrates an LSI of 90% or greater yet executes a squat of 300 pounds, they would qualify below the 30^thpercentile for the squat exercise performance. With their football peers demonstrating significant strength advantages (i.e., the 90^th percentile equates to a 500-pound squat), would this not place the ACLR athlete at a disadvantage regarding their on-the-field performance, as well as a possible increased risk of acute injury or ACLR re-injury?

LSI testing alone doesn't offer a complete representation of an athlete's potential for on-the-field performance or risk of acute or ACLR re-injury. Share on X

The RTP testing may also expose additional deficiencies of the remaining physical qualities in Vermeil’s hierarchy as related to the standards of sport. Therefore, in our opinion, LSI testing alone does not disclose a complete representation of the athlete’s potential on-the-field performance or potential risk of acute or ACLR re-injury.

ACL Injury and ACLR Return-to-Play Testing

As each physical quality in coach Vermeil’s hierarchy depends on the optimal development of its physical quality predecessor, enhancing each quality begins with strength. This is not to imply that we can’t address each quality simultaneously. However, we should emphasize the physical quality presenting with the greatest deficit, depending upon the athlete’s needs, in their performance enhancement training and rehabilitation. In our ongoing ACLR RTP study with over 300 high school and college athletes to date, we’ve found that RTP success depends not only on their time from surgery, as documented in the scientific literature, but also restoring their physical qualities based on the standards of sport for a safe return to optimal athletic performance.

Presently, the two most significant physical findings observed in our RTP testing are (1) deficits in the physical quality of strength, and (2) poor reactivity to the ground surface area, meaning propulsion, deceleration, and COD in vertical and deviating linear directions. We’re not insinuating that additional physical deficiencies are not exposed; however, due to these particular physical deficiencies, compensatory body postures are noted during the testing.The inability to apply appropriate levels of force as well as tolerate ground reaction forces result in extended time spent on the ground. This extended time places consequences on the overall RTP testing performance. Compensatory adjustments in body postures also put excessive and unaccustomed stresses on various anatomical structures. As these repetitive stresses accumulate over time, they may set the stage for possible acute injury or future ACLR re-injury. It’s also important to note that, when the discrepancy in strength is resolved, other physical qualities, ground reaction times, and body postures frequently improve as well.

Our RTP model, as in other reported post-rehabilitation lower extremity RTP testing, includes a variety of tests to assist in determining the athlete’s safe and ideal return to sport. Image 3 depicts the specific components of our RTP testing, as influenced by Vermeil’s hierarchy, where our experiences differ from “traditional” ACLR RTP testing.¹²

Active Knee Range of Motion

One of the immediate objectives during rehabilitation is to address knee range of motion (ROM) and, more specifically, active knee range of motion (AROM). After ACLR surgery, an urgent priority is to achieve full active knee extension as soon as possible. Full AROM knee extension is imperative during the normal ambulatory gait cycle, as full knee extension is the required joint position at heel strike. A lack of full knee extension will exacerbate the ACLR knee condition via the repetitive and accumulative joint stresses of each heel strike upon a flexed knee.

Comparatively, full AROM knee flexion is not usually stressed very early in the rehabilitation process. The emphasis placed on initial knee flexion is typically passive (PROM). PROM knee flexion can be attained safely and progressively over an appropriately prescribed time period. Full PROM knee flexion establishes the soft tissue compliance necessary to eventually achieve the active and efficient backside mechanics required for optimal running velocities.

At the ACLR RTP testing, we evaluate the athlete’s knee AROM before assessing their physical qualities. We’ve observed that full AROM is usually achieved for the athlete’s knee extension abilities but does not typically transpire for knee flexion. Full active knee flexion is required to attain an appropriate foot placement at the gluteal fold during the backside mechanics of the running gait cycle (see Image 4). Achieving the athlete’s AROM knee flexion during the rehabilitation process was a lesson presented to me over 30 years ago by my good friend Dr. Donald Chu. As running is a cyclical activity, poor backside mechanics will likely result in poor front side mechanics, and a poor single-leg running cycle will result in a poor overall running cycle.

AROM activities such as butt kicks and Mach series running drills prescribed in a safe and appropriate progression are two of the various activities that help achieve the desired active knee flexion. This active knee motion is significant and is a requirement for the athlete to return to their pre-injury efficient running velocities. Attaining full active knee flexion during rehabilitation will avoid the time necessary to accomplish this task when the athlete returns to athletic performance training.

Achieving full active knee flexion during rehab avoids taking time to accomplish this task when the athlete returns to athletic performance training. Share on X

ACLR RTP Testing of the Physical Qualities for Athletic Performance

At the time of the athlete’s ACLR RTP testing, we acknowledge the advantageous contribution of genetics in both the healing continuum as well as the athlete’s ability to execute optimally during RTP testing. We also recognize there are physical qualities that need to be reestablished for the athlete to RTP safely and allow for optimal athletic performance. When testing for a particular physical quality, it’s important to select an activity that appropriately measures the quality without any ensuing consequences from incompetent exercise execution. For example, consider the squat exercise designated as a strength test. If the athlete has never performed or is incapable of doing a technically proficient squat exercise, the consequences of a poorly executed squat will contribute to lower test score vs. a pure deficiency in strength qualities. Circumstances may arise, therefore, where an alternative exercise requiring less technical proficiency may be more suited for an athlete’s strength or other physical quality testing. During the testing process, it’s important to distinguish between the deficiencies in technical skill performance vs. an actual deficiency in the particular physical quality.

In our ACLR RTP algorithm (see Image 3), we assess each physical quality in the order depicted in coach Vermeil’s hierarchy. Strength is the first physical quality, and if the athlete passes the strength testing, they continue to the next quality of explosive strength. If the athlete passes this test, they test their elastic/reactive strength qualities, and so on. If the athlete fails a particular category, the testing stops, and they receive a training program designed to enhance the quality that failed. Once they complete the training program, the athlete returns for their scheduled retesting.

We don’t find it beneficial to continue an athlete’s ACLR RTP testing once they fail a physical quality category. In our experience, if an athlete fails a particular physical quality, they will likely perform poorly in the next physical quality test(s) in the hierarchy. For example, because strength is defined as the ability to produce force—and explosive strength incorporates a velocity component for force production—if an athlete is unable to produce adequate levels of applied force, how could they possibly exert adequate levels of applied force rapidly? When the athlete passes the entire ACLR RTP examination, we decide whether they should return to performance enhancement training, team practice, or sport competition. To make this decision, we have a collaborative discussion among the physician, rehabilitation team, S&C staff, and sport coaches.

Summary

The ACLR RTP testing is an integral component of our post-injury and post-surgical ACL knee rehabilitation program. Customary ACLR RTP testing uses LSIs to compare the involved lower extremity to the non-involved lower extremity, which is recorded as a percentage. In our opinion, LSI testing does not encompass the entire ACLR RTP criteria. This is especially a concern with the current training and rehabilitation constraints placed on athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing specific physical qualities necessary for optimal athletic performance should be a consideration for the athlete’s ACLR RTP testing. And we should interpret these test results based on the physical standards of the athlete’s sport of participation as well as their particular position or sport event. Restoring the athlete’s physical qualities to equal the physical standards of sport will also instill confidence in their ability to apply and accept the forces placed upon them and their ACLR extremity in various athletic settings (i.e., team training, team practice, team competition). It also will help reduce, if not disregard, concerns of kinesiophobia. When we discount the physical standards recognized and exhibited by both the athlete’s peers during daily team sport practice and their opponents during the high-intensity game day competition, we may place the ACLR athlete at a physical disadvantage for athletic performance and present a possible risk for additional acute injury or ACLR re-injury.

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. Kvist J, Ek A, Sporrstedt K, Good L, “Fear of Re-Injury: A Hindrance for Returning to Sports After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction,” Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2005; 13(5): 393-397.

2. Chmielewski, TL, et al., “The Association of Pain and Fear of Movement/Reinjury with Function During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Rehabilitation,” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2008; 38(12): 746-753.

3. Arden CL, et al., “Return to Sport Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the State Of Play,” Br J Sports Med, 2011; 45(7): 596-606.

4. Hunnicutt JL, et al., “Quadriceps Neuromuscular and Physical Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.” J Athl Train, 2020; 55(3): 238-245.

5. Webster KE, Feller JA, “A Research Update on the State of Play for Return After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction,” J Orthop Traumatol, 2019; 20(1):10.

6. Read PJ, et al., “Lower Limb Kinetic Asymmetries in Professional Soccer Players With and Without Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Nine Months Is Not Enough Time to Restore ‘Functional’ Symmetry or Return to Performance,” Am J Sports Med, 2020; 48(6): 1365-1373.

7. McPherson AL, et al., “Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Is Associated With Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries,” Am J Sports Med, 2019; 47(4): 857-862.

8. Newton M, et al., “Comparison of Responses to Strenuous Eccentric Exercise of the Elbow Flexors Between Resistance-Trained and Untrained Men,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2008; 22(2): 597-607.

9. Watts D, “A Brief Review on the Role of Maximal Strength in Change of Direction Speed,”J Aust Strength Cond, 2015; 23(2): 100-108.

10. Hewitt T, et al., “Understanding and Preventing ACL Injuries: Current Biomechanical and Epidemiologic Considerations–Update,” North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2010; 5(4): 234-251.

11. Case M, Knudson DV, Downey DL, “Barbell Squat Relative Strength as an Identifier for Lower Extremity Injury in Collegiate Athletes,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2020; 34(5): 1249-1253.

12. Panariello, RA, Stump TJ, and Maddalone D, “Postoperative Rehabilitation and Return to Play after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction,” Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine, 2016; 24(1): 35-44.

13. Panariello, RA, et al., “The Lower Extremity Athlete: Post-Rehabilitation Performance and Injury Prevention Training,” Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine, 2017; 25(3): 231-240.

14. Webster KE, Hewett TE, “Return-to-sport Testing Following ACL Reconstruction Revisited,” Brit J Sports Med, 2020; 54(1): 2-3.

15. Wellsandt E, Failla MJ, Snyder-Mackler, L, “Limb Symmetry Indexes Can Overestimate Knee Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury,” J Orthop Sport Phys Ther, 2017; 47(5): 334-338.

16. Hoffman J, Norms for Fitness, Performance, and Health, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2006.

In the short hurdle events, all athletes perform a similar step pattern. The athlete who covers these steps the quickest will always win. Oversimplified, yes, but this concept reinforces the need for technical proficiency and proper race modeling. Along with quick coverage of the predetermined step patterns, accomplished hurdlers minimize airtime to the lowest acceptable duration for efficient hurdle clearance.

As I progressed in coaching and researching the short hurdles, a short list of “must-haves” quickly surfaced that allowed the best chance of a successful hurdle race. Note that these are not my own findings—I made this list from the wealth of existing hurdle research and based it off the work of great coaches and athletes, both past and present.

As I progressed in coaching and researching the short hurdles, a short list of “must-haves” quickly surfaced that allowed the best chance of a successful hurdle race, says @ChrisParno. Share on X

My five must-haves in building the technical model for short hurdlers are:

1. Proper accelerative rhythm to manage step pattern to the first hurdle.
2. Achievement of intended take-off (TO) distance from the first hurdle (and all subsequent hurdles).
3. Displacement of the hips at takeoff to set up the ideal parabolic path over the hurdle.
4. Active technique over the top of the hurdle (imposing back to the track).
5. Upright body position/front-side stride movement.

The must-haves making up the technical model are only a piece of the puzzle to becoming a successful hurdler. I’d be remiss if I didn’t include the need for psychological/competitive drive, proper training/strength levels, and balanced biomotor abilities. I will break down the must-haves for a technical model throughout the article and the subsequent drilling options needed to achieve these desired traits.

Breaking Down the Hurdle Must-Haves

The concept of “hurdle drills” looks different depending on who is asked. The need for a common definition will help frame the future points of this article. A drill is an exercise or planned movement with the desired goal of improving any single aspect of the hurdle movement for the betterment of the technical model. This doesn’t mean that all athletes hurdle the same or need the same drills—there will always be individualization.

Ultimately, the hurdle coach must have a large toolbox and an understanding of the goal of each drill in order to address any issue within their athlete. Each coach will have their own “everyday” drill sequence within the warm-up and, hopefully, another set to help diagnose and fix issues as they arise.

Proper Accelerative Rhythm

The hurdle start covers a predetermined number of steps at high velocity striving for a proper takeoff into hurdle 1. This must be talked about, rehearsed, and stabilized over time. Most male hurdlers at the high school and college levels take eight steps to the first hurdle. When the velocity being created overcomes the ability to productively use an eight-step approach, the athlete may move to a seven-step approach.

Seven steps affords more space to create (push) the highest velocity possible, although the rhythm will change drastically. Taller athletes, or athletes with a longer trochanter length (TL), may also find the seven-step approach more beneficial. No matter the selected starting step pattern, athletes and coaches need to rehearse both the seven- and eight-step approach patterns and observe which one allows for the highest velocity and optimal takeoff at hurdle 1.

Women generally utilize an eight-step approach, with a very limited group of elite female athletes working to successfully manage seven steps. These patterns within the female population may vary, with shorter or less-proficient athletes taking nine steps. A premium must be put on a rhythm pattern that allows the highest velocity and optimal take-off distance from the hurdle regardless of the number of steps an athlete uses.

A premium must be put on a rhythm pattern that allows the highest velocity and optimal take-off distance from the hurdle regardless of the number of steps an athlete uses, says @ChrisParno. Share on X

The concept of rhythm within the short hurdle races was brought to my attention by Marc Mangiacotti of Harvard Track and Field. He presented charts mapping out per step distances to the first hurdle takeoff. These numbers created a visual roadmap for the athletes and coaches to manage throughout the start.

Generally, by the fourth step of an eight-step pattern, both male and female athletes will be somewhere between 4.52 and 4.71 meters from the start line. If the athlete can reach these four-step checkmarks, the likelihood of proper takeoff (distance) into the hurdle increases. These charts gave me an understanding that the hurdle start is not just mindless pushing (although that may work for some), but similar to a jumper’s approach with the goal of hitting a predetermined mark.

Races can be won and lost at the first hurdle; the foundation of a successful hurdle race is an explosive but calculated start that allows for proper positions for an aggressive takeoff.

Proper Take-Off Distance from the First Hurdle

During hurdle races, the correct TO distance will allow for successful hurdle clearance and lay the foundation for all further rhythms and hurdle clearances. Not reaching the proper take-off mark may cause stuttering at the first hurdle, jumping airborne to clear the hurdle, lead leg mix-ups, etc. These athletes likely will not recover and will rarely be in the race after these anomalies occur. The first hurdle TO is as important as the takeoff in horizontal jumps, a strong plant in pole vault, and proper release in throwing events. The chance of a successful performance in any of these events without adequate completion of sequenced technical components is small.

The first hurdle takeoff is as important as the takeoff in horizontal jumps, a strong plant in pole vault, and proper release in throwing events, says @ChrisParno. Share on X

Grounding the last step slightly in front of the center of mass (COM) at TO allows for stabilization. This stabilization allows for hip displacement as the COM (hips) passes over the grounded step toward the hurdle. Accurate displacements allow for the desired parabolic curve of the COM and the best chance to spend as little time airborne as possible. If this step casts out in front of COM, vertical forces will take the athlete off the ground at too high of an angle/parabolic curve. If this step is directly underneath (or slightly in front of) the COM, the likelihood of hurdle contact or low projection angles increases.

The first 6-7 steps are tied directly to the success of the last step taking off into the hurdle. A coach must often observe how the athletes manage these steps and if these athletes attain proper TO position (bandwidth for individuality). Conversely, great reaction to the gun, powerful block clearance, and/or ferocity of the first 3-4 steps won’t matter if they botch the TO (i.e., reaching, excessive vertical force, etc.).

Specific drills allow athletes to rehearse desired TO positions. Once they learn and stabilize these TO movements, the TO at higher velocities should be more consistently correct.

Displacement at Takeoff

When the TO step is grounded, the hips will move past the foot toward the hurdles, and the athlete with “feel the foot behind them.” Based on the height of the hurdle (dependent on gender and TL), the hips will create a parabolic curve over the hurdle. Vertical force at takeoff will cause a high parabolic curve; conversely, a low parabola at takeoff could be a byproduct of too much horizontal force or taking off behind the desired TO mark. Proper TO positioning and hip displacement will set up an optimal parabola.

Any time the athlete leaves the ground, there will be some type of displacement in the hip, setting up a subsequent parabolic path back down to the ground. We look for the displaced parabola to hit the apex just before the top of the hurdle (displayed below), allowing the athlete to get back to the ground as fast as possible (barring outside technical influence).

Along with proper parabolic creation, proper displacement allows the muscles within the hip flexors and groin to stretch, resulting in a stretch reflex that helps the athlete actively pull the trail leg through after toe-off.

Active Technique over the Hurdle

Humans can’t get faster in the air (without outside influence). If hurdlers take the same (or similar) number of steps over the duration of the race, then logic will point to maneuvering these steps the quickest to get the best results. If hurdlers take off, displace the hips, then hold the hurdle position (trail leg straight out to the side) until making contact back to the track, they will most likely overshoot their touchdown (TD) and delay the reacceleration into the next hurdle.

At toe-off, hurdlers should be cued to actively pull (snap) their lead leg down once the ankle has cleared the hurdle and use the stretch reflex in the hip flexors to accelerate the trail leg up and through. This active movement coupled with proper timing/sequencing will allow for a quick and efficient clearance. Coaches should cue “active hurdling” or “active trail” to prevent stalling or hanging in the air. This active understanding is also tied to correct sequencing of previous acceleration patterns, proper TO, and displacement.

Coaches can break the drill into partial hurdle movements. During these “half hurdling” drills, a premium will be put on active movement of individual limbs through snapping hurdle movements.

Body Position and Front-Side Mechanics

All previous must-have movements lead into upright positions between hurdles and front-side mechanics. Hips that sink into TO will likely cause sunken hips at TD off the hurdle. The resulting sunken position will lower the hips (COM) and force the athlete to “over push” and use backside accelerative mechanics to get to the next hurdle.

Conversely, seamless TO with tall hips, correct displacement, and active clearance will allow the athlete to manage the distance between the hurdles upright while attacking with front-side mechanics. This is especially true in above-average and elite men, for whom there is a need to manage (shorten) three high-velocity strides between 9.14 meters (including take-off and touchdown distance).

Adding Meaning to Drills

The must-haves will provide structure and meaning to all “drills” selected. Coaches need to understand the parameters and elements that bring about success within the hurdle events and ensure selected drills continually develop these proficiencies. There will always be blanket warm-up-style drills that prepare the athlete for practice, but as coaches learn deficiencies within their athletes, specific drills will allow for rehearsal and an environment of learning to better future movement.

Coaches need to understand the parameters and elements that bring about success within the hurdle events and ensure selected drills continually develop these proficiencies, says @ChrisParno. Share on X

The bandwidth of drills can stretch from something as rudimentary as a lead leg wall drill to understand the attack sequence to more-advanced three-step drills at reduced spacing to quicken inter-hurdle turnover. The following five drills encompass the ideals of the five must-haves. I break each one of these drills into a beginner and advanced subcategory to help provide clarity on the depth of each drill depending on ability level.

1. Guided Trail Slides

All large lower-body movements within hurdling work proximal to distal, meaning the movements originate in the hip and work down toward the foot. The path of the trail leg (initiated directly after toe-off) starts when external rotation and flexion of the hip joint begin. This movement assists the knee up toward the elbow of the lead arm as the athlete maneuvers the hurdle. Keeping this relationship in mind, the knee stays higher than the ankle to allow the entire trail leg to come up and through before attacking back to the ground.

If the ankle is higher than the knee during hurdle clearance, there will be an outward “whiplash” motion in the trail leg, causing other rotations and imbalance while maneuvering the hurdle. Poor hip displacement at takeoff resulting in a vertical “jumping” hurdle motion, impatience in allowing the ankle to fully clear the hurdle before finishing the movement, and the athlete not fully understanding the feeling of the correct positions are all potential causes of this improper trail leg sequence.

Beginners: The goal of this drill is to slide the inside of the ankle along the hurdle plank to feel external rotation of the hip (after toe-off). The athlete will also feel the path of the knee as the hip joint flexes, bringing the knee to the elbow of the lead arm. If done correctly, the knee stays above the ankle the entire movement. Beginning athletes can slide the ankle back and forth on both sides as they learn coordination of the hurdle movement.

Advanced: This drill is more beginner in nature, but advanced athletes can place the trail hurdle further back and do quick slide-throughs, bringing the trail leg all the way through and back down to the track. The athlete will then reset, slide through, and attack the ground again. You can utilize this in the beginning of a hurdle warm-up as the advanced hurdler progresses into later drills.

Video 1. Guided trail slides.

2. Wall Attacks

Wall attacks are a stationary drill for athletes to feel hip displacement at takeoff in a controlled environment. As discussed, hip displacement sets up proper parabolic paths over the hurdles and, once slowed down in a controlled environment, can be practiced multiple times in succession.

Beginner: Athlete uses a 1- to 2-step approach as they initiate body lean toward the wall. The COM passes over the grounded take-off foot, and the hips begin to move forward. As the hands of the athlete contact the padded wall or post, the lead leg knee is parallel to the ground as if the athlete were attacking a hurdle.

Advanced: Athlete begins with take-off foot (right foot of this example) staggered in front, 10-12 feet back from the wall. As the athlete proceeds toward the wall, they step down the left (to mimic the lead leg coming off the hurdle) and then step R-L-R, with the last right being the takeoff into the wall attack. This version is more specific to the hurdle rhythm and can gradually increase speed over time.

Video 2. Wall attack drills.

3. Trail Chase

At takeoff, hurdlers initiate a stretch reflex within the hip flexor/groin as their hips are displaced. This elastic energy within the muscle assists the leg as it initiates the trail leg pull-through. Hurdlers should actively work to pull the trail leg through after takeoff. Without this active pull-through of the trail leg, the motion will be delayed and could cause future issues coming off the hurdle and will also increase time spent in the air.

Conversely, pulling through too quickly will disrupt the sequenced rhythm of the hurdle clearance. These movements must be rehearsed in a drill environment to increase the likelihood of success when velocity is added.

Beginner: Starting with the hurdle at 28 inches or lower, the athlete sets up by stepping their lead leg over the hurdle and hanging it with 90-degree angles in both the hip and the knee. Once balanced, the athlete jumps off the grounded leg and cycles that leg (trail leg) around the hurdle. The landing will be nearly synchronized, with both feet stepping back down to the ground after hurdle clearance.

Advanced: This drill will morph into what is called the “drop and pop” drill. The athlete starts on a 6- to 12-inch box and steps off directly into the last two steps before the hurdle (cut step/take-off step). Limbs are kept tight and quick as the athlete hurdles and lands, similar to the synchronized landing in the beginner example.

Video 3. Trail chase.

In both versions of the drill, you can use lower hurdle heights and even scissor hurdles, as the intent is to work a quick trail leg cycle.

4. One-Step Drill

The one-step drill addresses both the take-off and touchdown rhythms, the coordinative needs within hurdle technique, and the relationship of varying forces (both horizontal and vertical) based on spacing. This drill tends to be for a more advanced hurdler, but you can make modifications to allow any hurdler to gain proficiencies. You can split this drill into “half hurdle” leads and trails to adjust to the one-step rhythm, and the spacing can stretch anywhere from 5-10 steps from the front of one hurdle to the back of the next hurdle.

Beginner: The rhythmic pattern is the main emphasis of the one-step drill, but coaches can ease the difficulty of the drill by lowering heights and discounting spacing. The TO and TD rhythm (ba-dum, ba-dum, both in and off hurdle) is the goal, with the addition of efficient and tight hurdle technique. With this in mind, athletes can start with wicket or scissor hurdles to take out the height component and focus solely on the rhythmic pattern. Athletes should aim for an optimal airtime to effectively clear the hurdle but not spend excess time in the air. Starting with lowered heights (discounted spacing) begins to engrain the pattern that hurdlers seek to achieve both on and off the hurdle.

Advanced: The spacing and the height of the hurdles dictate how advanced this drill can become. It’s important to diagnose issues that your hurdler needs to address in both their technique and race model. Early in the fall general prep, 5-7 steps (from front of hurdle to back of next hurdle) allows for a comfortable distance for athletes to TO, land, and push to the next TO. The horizontal velocity needed to effectively execute this drill at 5- to 7-step spacing isn’t extensive, so the focus can be on the technical model.

Advancing with 7- to 10-step spacing (front of the hurdle to the back of the next hurdle), will require more horizontal velocity and force the athlete to displace the hips at a higher amplitude into the next hurdle. After athletes initially understand the rhythm of the drill at closer spacing, you can stretch the hurdles to a longer spacing. This way they will need to bring more intent to the drill to accomplish the same efficient and tight hurdle positions throughout. You can raise the height of the hurdle as athletes gain proficiency, but the height should never detract from proper hurdle mechanics.

Video 4. One-Step drill.

5. Three-Step Drill

The three-step drill emphasizes the TO and TD requirements of the one-step drill and incorporates the inner hurdle three-step rhythm. Spacing, height, and velocity dictate how advanced this drill will become, based on the needs of the individual hurdler. The general setup will have hurdles distanced from 12-28 steps (a wider range based on the needs of the hurdlers), and the athlete can split this into “half hurdling” that can isolate one side of the hurdle motion. Repeated takeoffs as well as the three-step inner hurdle rhythm will provide the athlete with many reps to lock in the rhythm of the hurdle race while focusing on the technical hurdle model.

Beginner: Similar to the one-step pattern, closer spacing and lowered hurdle heights allow beginners to start understanding and improving the efficiency of their inner hurdle rhythm. These discounted distances and heights allow the athlete to focus solely on the rhythm and clearance of the hurdles and not fear potential contact with the hurdles. Twelve to 15-step spacing (from the front of one hurdle to the back of the next) and lowered hurdle heights (12-24 inches), paired with the overall lowered velocities of the compressed spacing, allow a beginner hurdler to work on technical proficiency. 

Advanced: As horizontal velocity is increased and the spacing of hurdles is extended closer to the actual race distance, the hurdler’s level of proficiency needs to increase. An upright body position and front-side mechanics are a necessity, especially at higher velocities, as the max stride lengths of hurdlers are shorter than the top-end stride lengths of a sprinter. This means the hurdler must “shuffle” or “dribble” to manage the inner hurdle SL patterns at high intensities/speeds. Advanced hurdlers can use 18- to 25-step spacing, which requires higher horizontal velocity. These higher velocities allow for rehearsal of the “shuffle/dribble” front-side bias that all advanced hurdlers will possess.

Video 5. Three-Step drill.

A Helpful Ingredient for Success

Any coach worth their salt, whether they identify as no-drill or driller, will diagnose issues within their athletes and utilize movement patterns that allow for repeated rehearsal of the desired movement. In any event or sport, the movements that most mimic the actual event will almost always be the best way to improve. Hurdlers should hurdle and sprinters should sprint, but at times these movements will need to be broken down with the goal of gaining proficiency.

If a hurdler has an issue with casting out and braking at takeoff, instead of mindlessly hurdling over and over, cueing to cut the last step, a better solution may be allowing rehearsal in a controlled environment with a movement pattern that addresses the diagnosed issue. This will, at worst, allow a reference point for the athlete to bring to the full-movement pattern of the event.

The word “drill” falls under a large umbrella of intent and purpose. Purpose-driven coaches will become great at diagnosing issues and assigning subsequent drill sequences, says @ChrisParno. Share on X

The word “drill” falls under a large umbrella of intent and purpose. Purpose-driven coaches will become great at diagnosing issues and assigning subsequent drill sequences. Drills won’t replace the importance of the full hurdle motion, but think of them as ingredients to a PR hurdle race.

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

Mangiacotti, M. (2014). “Rhythmic Hurdling: The Search for the Holy Grail.”

Lindeman, R. (2015). “100 / 110m HURDLE TRAINING with respect to the Contemporary Technical Model.”

To initiate our GPP phase, we first had to ask the simple question: “Where do we start ’em?“ Following that, we’ve got them right where we want them—leaner, stronger, and more robust movers with a set of lungs to boot! Now it’s time for that undulated, conjugate, supramaximal plyometric program, right? Not quite yet, coach (or better yet, mom and dad)!  Given the age of our developmental athletes, we have two major assets in time and plasticity—and the nature of both can easily be abused.

For those developmental athletes who have progressed through the foundational program, the question becomes, “How do we keep our foot off the gas pedal while moving the proverbial needle forward?” In our programs, we apply a scope of progression: slow-fast, extensive-intensive, force-explosive, internal-external, and so on. Our initial programs have used the basic bodyweight/centralized external load strength movements as well as carries, crawls, and sled work. While the strength exercises have provided general movement skill, connective tissue strength, and global muscular endurance, the crawls, carries, and drags have allowed my athletes to move forcefully through the horizontal vector in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes.

In a way, this provided the base for faster, more explosive movements like cutting, sprinting, backpedaling, and certain jumps. The resistance of the sled forces athletes to find a position of optimal strength and slows the movement down, which I find helps with the connection to the brain. The crawls force them to maintain posture about the spine and load the shoulders in a dexterous manner, driving a coordination connection (cross crawl patterns and such). My guess is the carries add difficulty and asymmetry while in gait, which develop a more robust stumble reflex. But now we can speed things up a little.

Jumps, Throws, and Running Patterns

Jumps

I must add a word on how to implement jumps initially, and I’ll say the approach of teaching them to land and load will serve you well. In the progression section of his “Shock Method” presentation, Matt Thome describes a six-point jumps progression leading up to the shock method. This path encompasses the extensive-intensive approach further categorized by long-short coupling, multi effort-single effort (or rhythmic-output), as well as unloaded-loaded, with the latter terms hallmarking intensification. Thome goes on to explain level 0 jumps where you emphasize landing technique in single efforts with lesser qualified (beginning, developmental) athletes to learn the skill of absorbing and withstanding force quickly.¹

Taking off is another element layered in landing ability. In this case, we best serve our athletes by teaching them to assume the athletic position quickly. Sport coaches spew about this all the time, commanding their athletes to get low, stay low, and explode low. Most readers know that this is easier said than done and tremendously tough to teach young athletes who most likely have poor movement bases to begin with. The Rip Down series is one way to teach athletes how to load aggressively and serves as a precursor to deceleration training.²

• • The rip down technique helps young athletes learn the pace and timing of the stretch reflex as well as timing with the upper limbs.

 

• • You can use a rip down technique to drop into bilateral and unilateral positions, preceding jumping both vertically and horizontally. A simple example is performing a rip down to the athletic stance (1/2 squat position) to a box jump. A few sets of three to five intermittent reps serve as a good starting point.

 

• • Cue them to rip their butts to their heels and land like a ninja, silent but deadly!

 

• • Usual progressions start with double-leg landings, moving to single-leg landings.

 

• • Implement horizontal jumps over time.

 

• • Place the rep down techniques in the pre-strength portion of your session to allow time for explosive training qualities when your athletes are at their freshest, and their minds are usually more focused.

 

Throws

We can use the same philosophy for medicine ball throws to train explosive abilities of the trunk and upper body. In this case, single-effort throws using a paused catch help train the ability to withstand contact of an oncoming body or object. This is most applicable in American football and rugby upon tackling and blocking. But it’s also prevalent in ball handling sports like basketball when the speed of an oncoming ball can register large forces that require both local and total body absorption. The fingers, hands, elbows, and shoulders need to be able to withstand the ball’s force with help from the trunk, hips, and lower limbs. You can employ as many different patterns here as you like, and do them as a part of the pre-strength circuit that can serve as a stimulatory warm-up.

Running Patterns

As for running in this phase, it’s wise to hammer sprinting on the technical side and employ various running patterns for these late entry developmental athletes. Wicket runs are in high order, along with various skipping and slower bounding drills. We can break down cutting into the 3- and 5-step forward-to-backward and side-to-side patterns, beginning with walking pace and learning how to stick the foot in the ground. Stick! Sink!! Separate! Then, gradually speed up the approach. From here, we can implement oval, circular, and parabolic patterns, as real-life running in sport is never like the sharp forty-five and ninety-degree “Tecmo-Bowl” characters.

So Now Where Can We Take ‘Em?

Here is a program model we use to help our developmental athletes transition down the slow-fast, extensive-intensive, forceful-explosive spectrums (more on this later). In this program, we can transition the technical jumping into a more extensive style of jump training that emphasizes timing and rhythm in the session’s strength portion. The derivatives of the jumps and throws will take place where the crawls, carries, and drags were in our foundation program. This allows a controlled volume of the extensive jump training, and I find it affects motor learning in two ways.

Our program model helps developmental athletes transition from baseline skills to the slow-fast, extensive-intensive, & forceful-explosive spectrums. Share on X

A contrast of learning occurs when the skill exercise is followed by a strength exercise.³ I must note a context here, as the jumping and strength exercises are general in nature at this stage, but we can revert to the slow-fast spectrum. Here, athletes can get a feel by practicing the neural pathway slowly before engaging in faster activity. Slowing things down lets the athlete attain the position and posture of the body so they can move powerfully. An example would be performing the knee drive exercise to help an athlete achieve the feel of knee drive in the sprint. In this instance, the squat exercise can prepare for a vertical type jump, and a horizontal push exercise (pushup/bench press) may aid a chest pass throw.

If we continue to implement the 1×20 method here (possibly into the 14s at this stage), you better believe there will be some fatigue in the local musculature. This is not necessarily a bad thing—especially if we’re trying to stress the system further and improve motor learning. Conditions of fatigue can create a “sensorimotor chaos” that forces the organism to respond to the fatigued muscles by producing an output not previously registered by the brain.⁴

The key word here is fatigue and not exhaustion. Note that fatigue should be generated locally as opposed to globally. Think about a squat exercise fatiguing the legs as opposed to programming an Olympic lift variation. Using a strength exercise in this manner provides a fatigue overload that develops motor control resilience when in fatigued conditions (learning to deal with conditions of fatigue). It also allows a mechanical overload without having to add an external load. I’ll explain the significance of this practice when we discuss the relationship between higher intensity and neural rigidity. Effectively, we can stretch out our adaptive response without having to use exhaustive means.

Sample Progressions

Block I is the lower body emphasis of the session where we work three of the basic five movement patterns (squat, hinge, single-leg). Feel free to employ the single-leg squat exercises (with your bilateral version) in different planes as in a lateral lunge or a rotational lateral lunge. We’ll also add some ankle strengthening before jumps that emphasize the action about the ankle. You can keep these on the clock as well (EMOM protocol), and you’ll find your young trainees huffing and puffing once again—a practical way to use fatigue as an overload stimulus.

Block I: Lower Body Emphasis with Extensive Jumps

• A1) Squat: variation based on progression

A2) Box jump

A3) Hinge: variation based on progression

A4) Hurdle hop

A5) Single-leg variation: left

A6) Split jump on same leg/single-leg hopping/skater jumps

A7) Single-leg variation: right

A8) Split jump on same leg/single-leg hopping/skater jumps

A9) Calf raise

A10) Ankle jumps (may lighten the load by holding onto a stationary object or hanging overhead bands) or low box jump with minimal knee bend

Block II is the upper body dominant portion of the session. In this program, we continue to apply one multi-joint push and pull movement along with trunk strengthening exercises. With overhead throwing athletes, sometimes we do strengthening exercises for the posterior shoulder (YTW patterns) before some introductory “rebound” work with a light dumbbell or medicine ball.⁵  I must state that I first learned about rebound drills in a brief two-day clinic with Jay Schroeder in 2004.

Block II (general athletic development):

• A1) Horizontal/vertical push

A2) Med ball chest pass or “wall ball” throw

A3) Trunk flexion

A4) Med ball sit-up throw

A5) Horizontal/vertical pull

A6) Med ball slam or overhead throw vs. wall

A7) Trunk rotation

A8) Med ball twist throw

A9) Trunk extension

A10) Med ball scoop throw vs. wall

Block II (for a throwing athlete):

A1) Horizontal/vertical push

A2) Med ball chest pass or shot put throw

A3) Lateral raise

A4) Lateral raise rebound

A5) Horizontal/vertical pull

A6) Med ball slam or overhead throw vs. wall

A7) Posterior lateral raise

A8) Posterior lateral raise rebound

A9) Y raise or external rotation

A10) Y raise rebound or external rotation throw (extensive)

We’re not ignoring the trunk—we can put it in a separate set:

• A1) Trunk flexion

A2) Med ball sit-up throw

A3) Trunk rotation

A4) Med ball twist throw

A5) Trunk extension

A6) Med ball scoop throw vs. wall

This also offers a great opportunity to partner groups of athletes. And they can play catch with each other, which seems to coral their accuracy a bit as they are less apt to throw the ball too hard. Just be wary of doing this with swimmers because some lack hand-eye skills, and I’ve seen a few broken fingers over the years.

To continue to get aerobic benefits, keeping this program on the clock is a good idea. You may have to expand the interval in the early going to coach the newer exercises; E90O90 will work well here, eventually getting to an EMOM pace. You can expand or retract this into parts of a full session or plug and play parts of each if you run into time constraints. No matter the scenario, this bridge program can help keep the foot off the gas pedal while moving the needle forward without blowing a gasket.

The Why: The Laws of Time and Maturation

Skill, strength, speed, endurance, and flexibility are the major trainable qualities every athlete needs. Each of these qualities has optimal windows of trainability that can distinguish between early- and late-entry sports. Early entry sports are your non-contact, non-stick-and-ball sports like gymnastics, diving, and figure skating that require a high degree of skill and flexibility. Optimally, these are trained in early development (4-10 years old).

The development of the other three qualities exists inherently during skill training.⁶ For example, in gymnastics, the skills of the P-bars, rings, and handstands will sufficiently develop strength in the upper body. At the same time, the jumping, landing, and explosive running (vault and floor exercises) will aid in improving speed qualities. The need for formal or targeted strength, speed, and endurance training is a low priority (if a priority at all), as the cumulative stress on the system is enough to fundamentally cover all three.

For late-entry sports (field, court, contact), we typically introduce the qualities of strength, speed, and endurance (we’ll also refer to these as the output qualities) in early to mid-teenage years with the foresight of more aggressive, targeted training down the road. For coaches, parents, and young athletes in this boat, it’s easy to fall prey to solely working on one of these qualities in the absence of others. For example, although the optimal window of trainability for flexibility and skill has passed, this does not erase their place. Though their new existence may be planned informally at this juncture, they act as a security system, computer virus control, or a protective medication of sorts. In this way, skill and flexibility are constantly present but also adapting to the athlete’s growing body and mental maturation.⁶

As stated above, the beginning of the trainability window for the output qualities will typically occur during this period. The key word here is initiation, which would include a fundamental approach that covers a broad spectrum of these abilities and their subsets versus a specialized and aggressive approach. In other words, getting put through your paces with the basics can give us a larger bang for our training buck while leaving plenty of room to take advantage of more advanced methods later.

This phenomenon revolves around the stiffening of the plasticity of the nervous system with high-intensity work.⁷ If coaches rush athletes with high-intensity strength, plyometric, and endurance work, they can only improve with even higher intensity or more volume. Most readers would agree this approach is a ticking time bomb of physical and psychological injury, given that maturity levels of both have not yet reached their peak.

Even though the sub-abilities of speed, strength, and endurance are needed during competition and training in late-entry sports, their general application will provide the necessary blend of these specialized qualities. Furthermore, each ability has a similar trend of peak opportunity among both genders. For both young women and men, peak trainability occurs:

• • First with endurance in the high school years (F: 12-14; M: 16-18)

 

• • Second with speed in mid-HS to collegiate (F: 16-18; M:19-21)

 

• • Third with strength in late/post-collegiate (F: 19-21; M: 24-26)¹

 

Applying high-intensity specialized methods is a recipe for disaster regarding the athlete’s long term and acute health and will retard future progress. Let us also understand that these windows do not represent independent training silos, as these three qualities will contain blends of each other—strength endurance, speed endurance, speed-strength, and strength-speed, etc.

We need to know *when* to use *what* for our developmental athletes. As coaches (and parents) of our junior high and high school athletes, we must understand that the slow cooker is still on. Share on X

We need to know when to use what for our athletes in this age range. As coaches (and parents) of our junior high and high school athletes, we must understand that the slow cooker is still on.  Now there may be cases for the outliers where scholarship money or potential professional careers may be on the line, and then a brief time in the microwave may be called for.

“I tried to tell you time and time again
You know you’ll have to pay the consequence
Now you’re obsessed with such a pace
But slow and steady wins the race!”

—”Slow Down” by Ozzy Osbourne

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. Matt Thome, The Shock Method.

2. Zach Dechant, Movement Over Maxes: Developing the Foundation for Baseball Performance, (Zach Dechant, 2018).

3. Jeff Moyer, “Minimalist Approach to Building Better Athletes,” TFC 6.

4. Frans Bosch, Strength Training & Coordination: An Integrative Approach, (2010Publishers, 2016).

5. Tommy John, Minimize Injury, Maximize Performance: A Sports Parent’s Guide Survival Guide, (De Capo Press, 2018).

6. Derek Evely, “Putting It All Together-Abilities & Maturation Rates,” Understanding Youth Training for Parents Course, (com, 2020).

7. Joel Smith, “Jeff Moyer Q & A,” Just Fly Sports (blog), August 2, 2016.

As a Brit, the run-up to the 2000 Olympic Games was all about whether (now Sir) Steve Redgrave would prove successful in his pursuit of a record fifth rowing Gold Medal. Redgrave and his team received a lot of attention as the games approached, but Great Britain had several other rowing teams competing with the chance to win a medal. One team not necessarily expected to medal—let alone win—were the men’s coxed eight (men’s eight).

At the 1992 Olympics, when Redgrave won his third Olympic Gold Medal, the men’s eight came 6^th. In 1996, they finished 8^th. Before the 1999 World Championships, they had come in 5^th, 8^th, 6^th, 5^th, and 7^th (in chronological order) in their World Championships campaigns. Clearly, they were not a bad team—two Olympic top-8 finishes can hardly be sniffed at—but, relative to the results of the GB rowing program, they were significant underachievers. For Ben Hunt-Davis, ever-present in the men’s eight during this period, every year ended with disappointment.

And yet this team, slowly but surely, managed to turn things around. In 1999, they won a silver medal at the World Championships, and at the 2000 Olympic Games, the day after Redgrave’s triumph, they stormed away to win the Gold Medal—Great Britain’s first in this event since 1912.

Off the back of this success, Hunt-Davis wrote a book, Will it Make the Boat Go Faster?, which explores some of the tools and techniques this crew used to turn themselves from also-rans into Olympic Champions. The book has eleven chapters, and each chapter is split into Hunt-Davis’s autobiographical account of key steps in the journey, followed up by an analysis (along with his co-author) of the key themes. The book is typical in high-level content of many business and sports psychology books with the importance of goals, motivation, etc., but the information is highly applicable. Hunt-Davis’s accounts bring the book to life with key phrases that manage to impart the core messages of the story, and we can use these as valuable mental shortcuts. Here are some of the most notable ideas from the book.

Goals

“Will it make the boat go faster?”

Hunt-Davis and his teammates had a single goal, which could only happen at a set time on a set date: 10:30 am on September 24, 2000. During about five and a half minutes, they would have to outperform their competitors to win an Olympic Gold medal. To do this, they developed a layered approach:

1. The Crazy Layer—this is the all-important end goal. For Hunt-Davis, it was an Olympic Gold medal. For your athlete, it might be making a national final. As pointed out in the book, the problem is that we can’t put these high-level goals on a to-do list (April 24: do food shopping, win Olympic Gold medal). Instead, they have to be comprised of steppingstones, namely…
2. The Concrete Layer—This is the measurement underpinning the crazy layer performance. For the rowers, it was to row 2000m in five minutes eighteen seconds, a time they believed would win the Gold Medal. For an athlete aspiring to make the national championship final, it would be the time required to qualify. Hypothetically, we might analyze the last 10 national championships and note that a 100m time of 10.38s qualifies for the final more often than not. In this case, the concrete layer is to be capable of running 10.38s at the national championships.
3. The Control Layer—This is the constituent parts of the concrete layer. To run 10.38s, what should your 30m from blocks and flying 30m times look like? What other key tests are important in letting you know whether you’re adequately taking care of each constituent of performance?
4. The Everyday Layer—What you do daily to deliver your control layer. This is, essentially, what the athlete does in training and daily life, meaning that there is a clear link between Tuesday’s training session and the athlete qualifying for the national championships final next August.

This process led the team to their mantra, “Will it make the boat go faster?” A clear, shared goal allowed the team to set and analyze their control and everyday layer goals, determine whether they were on track, and make the necessary adjustments to keep them on the path to success.

Beliefs

“There were some things we could control and some things we couldn’t.”

On the way home from a competition, the team’s boat got severely damaged in a road accident so they couldn’t use it for training in the all-important run-up to the Olympics. This was obviously a source of anxiety to the team, but the coach reminded them of two key things: 1) if they wanted to win, they had to learn to deal with any problem that came along, and 2) eight years prior, the same thing happened to another team, and they still won. Instead of dwelling on the problem at hand—which they couldn’t solve—the team resolved to focus on what mattered in their preparation for the next race.

Instead of dwelling on the problem at hand—which they couldn't solve—the team focused on what mattered to prepare for the next race, says @craig100m. Share on X

The crew also used three key sources for their beliefs, which we can copy and paste into our own contexts:

1. Personal memories—What have you done in the past that makes you confident you can succeed? Before any big race, I used to remind myself that I’d been here before and dealt with the pressure well, so I would this time too.
2. Role models—Who else has achieved what you want to? Are they that different than you? When I was doing bobsleigh, I was terrified of my first run down; what if we crashed? But I looked at everyone else—athletes from other countries—and decided, if they could do it, so could I.
3. Metaphors and analogies—I think a common story among team members is crucial. Hunt-Davis’s crew used the analogy of a stone gaining momentum; others have used the story of Shackleton’s voyage.

Motivation

“I raced Doran, the Romanian stroke, countless times… He must have thought I was there to make up the numbers, because I’d never beaten him… I wanted to beat them so badly, to settle the score, to make sure that they finally woke up and took notice of me.”

Hunt-Davis had a problem with the everyday layer; he wanted to win so badly, but the daily monotony of training often wore on him. The same was true for the rest of the squad, so together, they had eight strategies for maintaining motivation:

1. Believe (outlined above).
2. Make the journey entertaining—How can you foster fun around the seriousness of your goal? The composition of the training group is crucial here, as is the coach making the environment a fun and enjoyable place to be.
3. Get competitive—Use the thought of your competitors to get you through.
4. Make yourself hungry—Allow yourself a reward for when you become successful.
5. Daydream—What will it feel like to achieve your goal?
6. Flick the switch—Once you arrive at training or competition, how do you switch on to ensure you never waste an effort? When I competed in bobsleigh, our team had a rule of “never waste a hit,” which meant that whenever we pushed the bobsleigh, we did it with maximal effort.
7. Create measurable milestones and rewards—How do you keep motivated when the main event is months or even years away? Focus on closer goals, such as testing or less important competitions as a way of getting you through.
8. Use the 10-minute rule—Some days, I get to the gym and I don’t feel like being there. By committing to doing 10 minutes, I almost always complete the full session. Anyone can do 10-minutes of work.

Bullsh*t Filters

“Don’t talk bollocks to Basil.”

In the run-up to the Olympics, the crew was at a competition. After winning their heat in style, they got carried away and started believing the hype, and flopped in the final as a result. Buying into positive comments and attention around your performance is all well and good—until the moment you start believing it and take your foot off the gas. The team developed a system, which they termed bullsh*t filters, in which they only took praise and criticism from the people who mattered and whom they trusted. Everything else was noise. In building their bullsh*t filters, the team had four key themes:

1. Don’t talk bollocks to Basil—this is a very British phrase, but “chatting bollocks” means talking about things that are irrelevant (and Basil is a posh person’s name). This means you don’t spend time talking about irrelevant things to irrelevant people; the only exception is mandated press conferences.
2. Accept the facts, but challenge the negative interpretation—Before any major race, I was terrible in training a couple of days beforehand. I wanted to be good—to have a great session to build my confidence—but I tended to be much slower. The fact is that my times were down; the negative interpretation is that it meant I was out of shape. But flipping it around, perhaps it meant I was saving myself for the race itself.
3. Find a better interpretation—At the European Under-20 Championships in 2005, I was expected to win, but I lost my semi-final to my main rival. My interpretation of this was that it was the perfect scenario: it was a wakeup call for me, causing me to focus my efforts. And it increased my rival’s confidence that he would win, potentially distracting him. I won the final, but it would have been so easy to interpret my semi-final defeat as highly negative.
4. Use bullsh*t as emotional fuel—Embrace the negativity of other people, and use it to fuel yourself to prove them wrong! Hunt-Davis was motivated by anger, which drove him on. Those of you who have ever seen me race will know I’m the same—sometimes, I used to print negative comments people had made about me to read pre-race!

Process Driven

“If you want to win, you need to forget about winning.”

Hunt-Davis and his crew decided that, if they were to be successful, they had to focus on the processes that supported success—much like the everyday and control layers discussed in the goal-setting example. They did this three ways:

1. Getting curious about the recipe—What are the key constituents of success in your event? Are you improving on all of these? How?
2. Focusing their attention—What specifically will you work on in the next training phase? How will you know if you’ve been successful?
3. Changing how they measured success—We often measure success by whether we win or not. This can be misleading: you can win but perform poorly, and you can lose but perform well. Across the course of a competitive season, by focusing on how well you completed the process, you’ll be better set up for performance when it matters. If you focus on whether you’ve won or lost your tune-up races, on the other hand, you might get misled.

Change

“Get the crocodiles before they get you.”

In the book, Hunt-Davis recalls how the Great Britain 8+ lost to Australia in the heats of the Olympic Games, meaning they would have to take a circuitous route to the final via the repechage. They had to make some small adjustments to improve their performance over the coming days. We can use their principles to support the change and evolution that constantly must happen in sport to keep us at our peak.

First, we need to know when to instigate change. Can we spot upcoming issues (the crocodile) before they become problematic? In sport, this might be a gradual improvement (or reduction) in performance levels, major championships held in more extreme environments (e.g., heat or altitude), or a rule change. Being able to spot these opportunities and plan and react accordingly is crucial to seizing the initiative and staying on the front foot. Once the necessary change has been made, all involved must expect discomfort and commit to spending a set period of time on the change to see it through. This is an especially salient point given the current situation with COVID-19, in which we’re in an ever-changing and uncertain world.

Bouncebackability

“What’s the gift I haven’t noticed yet?”

Bouncebackability is a word popularized by Iain Dowie when he was the manager of Crystal Palace football club. Essentially, it refers to resilience: the ability to bounce back from disappointment. If you spend enough time in sport and push yourself to perform at the highest level, you’ll experience a lot of disappointments and setbacks. Hunt-Davis and crew experienced this in the Olympic heats, and I experienced it numerous times in my career, including at the 2008 Olympic Games. When it came to responding to adversity, the crew had three main strategy pillars:

1. Prepare before a setback happens—”What if?” conversations are useful for sketching out what might go wrong at a given place and time and allow you to consider how you might respond.
2. Accept the setback when it comes—Strengthen your beliefs (people have likely bounced back from similar—if not worse—situations before); understand the root causes of the adversity; remember that the negative feelings will pass, and attempt to turn it to your advantage by using it as an opportunity for learning and growth.
3. Do what you need to respond—Get on with it by putting it out of your mind initially. Control the controllable in the short term; reflect and learn.

Caveats

Of course, there are some important caveats to keep in mind when digesting the content of this book. Before I met my wife, Hunt-Davis delivered a speech based on his book to my wife’s mum’s workplace. Her reflections on the talk were that it was very good, interesting, and impactful, but that it’s possible to answer the question (“Will it make the boat go faster?”) in whichever way you feel you need to meet your motivations at the time.

For example, let’s say your team has the opportunity to go drinking at the pub. Will it make the boat go faster? You could argue no. The consumption of alcohol plus the late night and poor sleep you will doubtless have as a result will likely negatively affect your training quality over the coming days, making the boat slower. But you could also argue yes. The team bonding that you’d gain from a night spent drinking together would outweigh the slight reduction in training quality. Alternatively, imagine it’s a cold, dark, winter morning, and you’re in bed, procrastinating over your first training session of the day. Should you skip it? Will it make the boat go faster? Yes—you’ve been training hard recently, so some extra recovery will reinvigorate your training quality. No—you have to accumulate training load and fitness to improve. You can see how this has the potential to be a slippery slope.

A second caveat is that to best answer, “Will it make the boat go faster?” you actually have to know the constituents of performance very well and then make subjective judgment calls based on ever-updating information. This is obviously a very hard task, requiring high levels of experience and expertise.

Finally, I’m always concerned about the concept of working harder. In general, I find that athletes train very hard, so the solution to improving their performance is not making them work harder (the “grind”), but smarter. It’s easy to conflate, “Will it make the boat go faster?” with “I just need to outwork my opposition, as hard work and single-minded focus are what’s important.” That isn’t necessarily Hunt-Davis’s message, but I think it’s crucial to be explicit about the dangers of this approach.

Final Thoughts

As a concept, the question of “Will it make the boat go faster?” is an important prompt to stimulate our thinking, and it’s effective in its simplicity. Through their success, the men’s eight demonstrated the importance of collective buy-in toward a common goal and a key theme that had to underpin all their decisions. Furthermore, the idea that we have to focus on what it takes to perform well, with everything else being—to use Hunt-Davis’s own words “bullsh*t”—is crucial.

This mental model shows how to drill down to what delivers results & avoid spending time & energy on what prevents our success, says @craig100m. Share on X

How can we, as coaches and athletes, drill down to what actually delivers results and avoid spending time and energy on that which does not enable us to be successful? This mental model or story alone makes it worth the time to read the book.

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

Teachers are searching for ways to enhance their students’ learning experience, and coaches are looking for ways to improve their student-athletes’ development. The common denominator is the student. Both the teacher and the coach have resources they can pull from to benefit the student.

One of society’s common languages is “sport.” Regardless of background or geographic location, odds are in favor of sport being a part of your life. In most high school settings, student-athletes make up a large part of the student body. It is not uncommon to have more than 75% of the students participating in sport.

As a high school coach, it is likely you operate in a far from “optimal” environment, your coach-to-athlete ratio is well beyond “recommended practices,” and your budget is at the mercy of many moving parts. Having these challenges forces creativity. Creating a sport science program may seem like a luxury you can’t afford. Forging meaningful relationships with the larger school community, area universities, and sport science-related companies can lead to the development of an influential strength and conditioning and sport science program.

One of the most important relationships high school coaches can form is with the teachers, and each academic subject area has the potential to assist you in building your sports program. Share on X

However, some of the most important relationships are formed in school hallways—with the teachers. The saying goes, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” When twisting the words, you can think of it as: “One man’s problem is another man’s solution.” Each academic subject area has the potential to assist in building your program. The purpose of this article is to present opportunities to build a sport science program in the high school setting through cross-curricular collaboration.

Mathematics

Student A is a 16-year-old sophomore, and math is her toughest subject. As a student-athlete, sport holds a significant place in her life, and it is all she thinks about. Math is challenging, and she finds little value in learning “things I will never use again.”

Student B is completely engaged with the study of numbers. He enjoys solving mathematical equations and constantly looks for new problems. Math has become his passion.

If you are a high school teacher, you know both of these students. How do we engage them so they can learn the important concepts being taught to them? Sport science can be a tool that meets the attentional demands of both student A and student B. Student A now has something of interest she can use for context in her math class. The teacher can create sport-related concepts to engage her and create scenarios to help her understand how to apply the curriculum being taught.

Student B may have never found a place in sport, yet he has a desire to be involved. Introducing sport science to him may trigger a passion he otherwise would not have discovered. He has problems to solve and can find a place to belong. The incredible math teachers just down the hall are looking for ways to engage both of these students. By utilizing sport science, you can help cement the concepts they are teaching.

The incredible math teachers just down the hall are looking for ways to engage all types of students. By utilizing sport science, you can help cement the concepts they teach, says @WeeksJeremy. Share on X

Some anecdotal experience with integrating the math department in sport science has centered around statistics and algebra. From a statistical perspective, sports are full of data. Who helps you analyze the data? Chances are that you are training multiple teams over several class periods each day, perhaps coaching a sport and teaching. Where can you find the time to analyze the data you have collected?

For example, one of the most useful stats, beyond the traditional t-test, is utilizing the linear equation. When plotting data, a regression line can be very useful. Analyzing the slope of a line, and how far certain metrics deviate from this line, can be valuable information when training the adolescent athlete. Again, this creates context for a student who might not understand the value of math. The math teacher gains a powerful teaching resource, and you gain deeper insight through statistical analysis.

The Sciences

Science is naturally the proverbial “low-hanging fruit” and a great place to start cross-curricular collaboration. Two key concepts come to mind when integrating sport science into the classroom: The first is the utilization of the Scientific Method. What problem are you trying to solve and how can you use the scientific process to do so? The second is student education. Introducing training concepts as a science to your student-athletes is a great avenue to clearly describe the goals of your training program and how you plan, along with their involvement, to prepare them for sport.

Integrating your weight room into the science program can open many doors. As a former high school coach, I understand some of the budget constraints. You may not have the financial luxury to purchase equipment and technology; however, there are other avenues to increase your resources. Collaboration opens the door for purchasing power. When you join budgets, you have the ability to purchase mutually beneficial equipment. First-hand experience has led to shared purchases.

From a sport science perspective, we now have ways to objectively measure performance metrics; from an academic point of view, the science department is developing a working laboratory for them to run experiments and the ability for practical application of the concepts they teach. Some examples of areas to connect include Physics (Newton’s laws, classes of levers, and mechanical advantage/disadvantage), Biology (cell functions and adaptation), and Anatomy (muscle function, fiber types, energy systems, and nervous system), to name just a few. The two limiting factors to expanding into the sciences are relationship building and creativity. Fortunately, you can control both. Volunteer your time in the science wing of the school, and opportunities for collaboration with naturally rise.

The creation of a “student sport scientist” opportunity can help build relationships and satisfy the needs of both the coach and student, says @WeeksJeremy. Share on X

A last area of emphasis in relation to science is the potential for a student assistant. Utilize the term “sport scientist,” which can be intriguing to a young person. The creation of a “student sport scientist” opportunity can help build relationships and satisfy the needs of both the coach and student. Students volunteer time as sport managers and film crews—why not follow the same model for a sport scientist?

History and Social Studies

The direct relationship between sport science and particular subjects may not be recognizable on the surface. A lesson I learned during the process of developing a program is the value of indirect growth opportunities. These indirect relationships can be very powerful in developing a program of any kind.

Administrators view the school as a collaborative effort in the development of young people. Cross-curricular collaboration in areas not directly related to sport demonstrates your utility as an employee and, more importantly, shows your willingness to be involved. And—dare I say it?—maybe you will find an interest in something you didn’t know existed by simply learning and trying something new.

History is a great example of an indirect opportunity. A personal interest led to my integration of sport science into the History classroom. Collaboration with the History Department opened the eyes of school administrators. Falling back on creativity, engaging the History Department demonstrated our commitment to the larger school outside of the Athletic wing.

There are several areas where a sport scientist can integrate into the social sciences. The first is on the History of Sport, which can easily be customized to a specific history course. A few examples are “History of Sport in the United States” and “The Evolution of Ball Sports.” A simple search and a little reading can provide more than enough information for a coach to develop a lesson, not to mention the education you gain as a practitioner. The more you understand where you have been, the more you can plan where you are going.

The second area of sport science with a historical tone is the “Muscular Christianity Movement.” Early education centered on Christian principles, and it was once thought that a relationship existed between physical fitness and faith.

Lastly, you can make a clear connection by introducing the history of the fitness movement and strength and conditioning with the spark of physical fitness integration into schools stemming from the German turnen programs, an early form of gymnastics. Once you start down this path, you may be surprised by what you find.

Physical Education

Physical Education varies per state, with each having different requirements. Certain states require four years of P.E., while others, unfortunately, require none. It is common for schools to utilize athletics to fulfill state P.E. requirements, providing both pros and cons for the larger student population.

In larger schools, many programs are forced to hold tryouts to limit roster size. From a competitive perspective, the benefits are obvious; the adolescent athletes with the higher level of skill, or perhaps a faster path to maturation, will make the team. However, from a developmental point of view, not so much. Late bloomers get left behind and have their sport careers end early.

The pitfalls of cutting in youth sports is an important topic and warrants further examination by state athletic governing bodies. If your school is required to have a P.E. program and utilizes the athletic model, these students are filtered into a P.E. class designed as a “catch-all” of students, either those with no sport interest or those unable to make the teams. What a great spot to look for students with sport interest who simply want a place to belong!

Having the P.E. programs involved in the weight room allows for them to continue to develop. Our program used the P.E. program as a source to fill the powerlifting team roster, building one of the top programs in the region. Many of these students became state qualifiers and regional champions simply because we provided a place for them to belong. They needed someone to give them a chance, and then they did the rest.

We used the P.E. program as a source to fill the powerlifting team roster, building one of the top programs in the region by providing students with a place to belong, says @WeeksJeremy. Share on X

The P.E. students not involved with athletics often become your academic leaders, overseeing many aspects of the other subject areas listed in this article. Who do you think your biggest advocate for cross-curricular involvement can be? You guessed it—these students. Keeping them engaged allows for you to boost their experience, and, in turn, they can be the connectors for you on campus.

English and the Language Arts

Language Arts is possibly the most difficult subject area to integrate into sport science. Looking back at the previous statement of indirect subject areas, English was under this umbrella for me. There may be specifics to your school impacting the direction of collaboration, and each situation is different. Potential areas of mutual benefit can be found in school newspaper publications. Having your program featured in the school newspaper can bring awareness to your program and provide an avenue of exposure to your school’s wider community.

The article may potentially find its way into the hands of a parent passionate about the crossroads of sport and academics. Simply making internal and external constituents aware of your program can have tremendous return. Another potential benefit of collaborating with your Language Arts program is to assist in grant writing. If you are not seeking grant funding, you are missing a great opportunity to fund your program while improving your student-athletes’ experience. Having a skilled wordsmith examine your application prior to submission may be the difference between receiving the award and being passed over.

One of the best ways to create internal credibility with your school’s leadership team is for your department to emphasize external credibility. A great example is being recognized by the NSCA through their “Strength of America” program—recognition gained by demonstrating certain competencies outlined by the NSCA. Schools look for ways to highlight the achievements of the faculty, which are often used to attract potential parents and students to the school.

If you are employed by a private school, you likely understand the competitive nature of education as a business. As difficult as it may be to believe, education IS a business, and we would all be better equipped if we understand and accept this. Businesses thrive on marketing and recognition, so providing yourself and your department with the appropriate recognition can be influential when developing a program.

With approval from your school’s leadership, you can highlight the great accomplishments of your student-athletes through various forms of media—such as writing for forward-thinking websites like SimpliFaster.com. Working with your Language Arts program can help you to express your program in words to be shared with your fellow colleagues, as well as highlight your program and the great accomplishments of your student-athletes. Chances are that you didn’t choose the coaching profession because you are a great writer, and being able to put your program into words can increase the exposure of your hard work.

Fine and Performing Arts

On the surface level, Fine and Performing Arts may seem difficult to integrate into sport science. When working in the high school setting, you understand the dynamic interactions you have each day. A regular day may involve interacting with a group of 14-year-olds for an hour, followed by an administrative meeting, and then getting called in by the Athletic Director for a parent meeting. Being able to switch your level of interaction is a skill.

As a coach, if you cannot effectively make these switches, it can influence your job performance. This skill set includes aspects of speech, improvisation, acting, and debate: in a nutshell, the art of communication. Seeking assistance in these areas can start the conversation for collaboration. Fortunately, this is a skill set you can improve upon if you seek and utilize the resources.

It is becoming more common for Fine and Performing Arts programs to include Filmmaking. The technology associated with Filmmaking can be incredibly beneficial for a sport science program. Technology in Filmmaking includes high-speed cameras and equipment, advanced video editing software, and green screens, to name a few. Cameras used during filmmaking are incredibly advanced; even the common smartphone has a camera that Hollywood only dreamt of a decade ago. Imagine the power of the latest cameras designed for filmmaking. Logistically organizing and operating the cameras is something your Filmmaking team can do, leaving you able to give your full attention to the training at hand.

Providing your athletes with movement analysis is possible by integrating camera technology into your training program, even at the most basic level of video feedback. A simple video replay doesn’t require you to be there if you give the student operating the camera the autonomy to show the student-athlete a quick video replay of a movement. With short filmmaking becoming a growing area of interest among high school students, a coach is likely to find a willing volunteer to film and edit a few short clips. Giving students the experience in filming and editing allows them to perfect their craft while creating extensive video options for sport science involvement.

Add Sport Science to Your High School

Becoming a high school coach allows for an incredible learning experience not afforded in other settings. If strategically utilized, the resources available can allow you to develop a sport science program those in the college ranks can only dream of. As a coach, you must identify your ultimate goal. For me, it is simply creating avenues to connect with my student-athletes, which leads to the sharing of information to better inform our decisions in the training process.

If strategically utilized, the resources available in high school can allow you to develop a sport science program those in the college ranks can only dream of, says @WeeksJeremy. Share on X

Sport science allows for me to integrate the scientific process into the sport setting, but it is only one means of solving a problem. I cannot think of a better means than having a conversation with my athletes. Being present in the classroom allows you, as the coach, to be seen in a different environment—their environment. Students appreciate a willingness to be vulnerable. Investing in your relationships with the students, administration, teachers, and parents can yield incredible results. As stated before, “One man’s problem is another man’s solution.”

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

“Simply put, for the last 200 years, advisers have worked on the principle of information asymmetry, where they have better information than their clients. Today, we are at the point where machine intelligence is gaining information asymmetry over advisers, and that’s only going to get more acute and asymmetrical as time goes on. The only possible hope for human advisers is that they co-opt machine intelligence into their process.” – Brett King (Augmented)

For better or worse, we are living in a rapidly changing time. Only 20 years ago, as I moved from Australia to the U.S. and made my first trip to Disney World, I vividly remember the view into the future provided by the ride “Spaceship Earth.” As it spiraled upward through history, it culminated with a view into the living room of the distant future with a family engaged in various “futuristic” pursuits, ranging from kids video chatting face to face with their grandmother who lived across the country to these strange virtual reality headsets that enhanced the video gaming experience. Of course, they had to quickly change the ride only a few short years after my visit for one simple reason—time moves very fast and the future was already here!

Coaching hasn’t escaped these changes. In the world of endurance coaching, technology has facilitated the rise of “remote” coaching. Much, perhaps the bulk, of endurance coaching nowadays is done with the assistance of software platforms such as Training Peaks, which enable athletes to have access to quality coaches beyond their local area. Only 25 years ago, if an athlete wanted to work with a coach outside of their town, they would have had to move to that coach’s area or communicate their training back and forth via email. In the late ’90s, Joe Friel, Dirk Friel, and Gear Fisher saw a unique opportunity for a product that more easily facilitated this and, in doing so, remarkably changed the face of endurance coaching.

Current Applications of ‘AI’ in Sport

With the current influx of artificial intelligence (AI) into coaching, we are on the precipice of another change—a change that will be both another step into an unimagined future and, in some ways, a return to times past. So, what can we expect as artificial intelligence invades our world of coaching over the next decade? Let’s start by taking a quick look at where things stand currently.

1. Rules-Based Systems

Artificial intelligence is a broad concept with an equally broad range of definitions. Considering we have a hard time pinpointing exactly what human intelligence is, it should come as no surprise that we have an equally hard time defining the artificial variant. To some, a simple “rules-based” system where a human expert encodes part of their knowledge into a machine is sufficient to classify as artificial intelligence.

Considering we have a hard time pinpointing exactly what human intelligence is, it shouldn’t be a surprise that we have an equally hard time defining the artificial variant, says @alan_couzens. Share on X

If this definition is accepted, we are already there! There are a number of software packages on the market that attempt to do this for various sporting contexts. In triathlon this began with the “PC Coach” coaching software in the 1990s.

Your “PC Coach” asked a few “getting to know you” questions and then generated a basic training plan. Similar rules-based platforms exist to this very day. In fact, the majority of current commercial packages that use the term “AI” have little more than a bunch of “If-Then” statements under the hood. A simple pseudo-code example for the logic process of such a system might look like the following…

If weeks_to_event < 12:

intensity = intensity * 1.1

In other words, as the event comes closer, crank up the intensity of the program by a given amount.

The majority of current commercial packages that use the term “AI” have little more than a bunch of “If-Then” statements under the hood, says @alan_couzens. Share on X

Clearly, covering all possible variations and decisions that a “real life” coach may encounter/consider over the course of a season is challenging, to say the least! What if the athlete is sick at week 12; would we still bump up the intensity? That logic would demand that we are: a) recording sickness/wellness information and b) covering all possibilities within the code. For example:

If weeks_to_event < 12 and sick==False:

intensity = intensity * 1.1

elif weeks_to_event <12 and sick ==True:

intensity = intensity * 0.9

What if the athlete is not sick but tired? We would have to write additional code covering each and every variant for each and every piece of data that we collect. This quickly becomes prohibitive, because with each new piece of data that must be factored in, the code grows exponentially.

This approach to AI was actually trialed in the field of medical diagnostics in the 1970s with a program called MYCIN. MYCIN was an artificial intelligence system that attempted to use encoded rules to identify which antibiotic should be prescribed on the basis of (a very long) series of Yes-No questions. While the accuracy of the completed engine was relatively good (comparable to human doctors) in this narrow domain, in the process of building MYCIN, the researchers identified a big problem with expert systems in general: “the knowledge acquisition bottleneck”—i.e., how do we transfer all of the knowledge of all possible variations that a human expert could possibly encounter into a long list of rules?

While the concept is easy enough to imagine, the actual process of covering all possible combinations of variables into sets of rules becomes impossible. In fact, this realization led to the first “AI winter” in the 1970s, when the Lighthill Report culled AI research in one fell swoop by rightly concluding that, due to the realities of “combinatorial explosion”—that is, stuff getting messy at the level of complexity found in real-world problems—expert systems were really only applicable to “toy problems.”

In the world of AI coaching, this reality of “combinatorial explosion” has led to expert systems falling under the “recreational athlete” category, with most serious athletes and coaches considering them significantly inferior to the abilities of a real-life coach to synthesize significantly more data and make better decisions on that basis.

2. Descriptive Analytics

On the more serious side of sports, the current definitions of “AI” and machine learning (ML) in sports have centered more around data acquisition and handling. We are currently in the age of descriptive analytics; an age characterized by a plethora of different wearables/hardware coupled with “apps” that allow the coach/athlete to visualize the various channels of the hardware data stream over time. This ranges from daily health data such as heart rate variability, wellness questionnaires, and sleep trackers to the training data and game data recorded by heart rate monitors, accelerometers, and GPS units. Most of the current sports training software is focused on simply collating and presenting this information in one or more “dashboards” in a way that describes the current state of the athlete so that the coach can have as much information as possible in front of them prior to making a decision.

On the more serious side of sports, the current definitions of “AI” and machine learning (ML) in sports have centered more around data acquisition and handling, says @alan_couzens. Share on X

However, as the number of data streams grows with every new piece of hardware, making sense of all of these inputs in a way that truly informs decision-making is no small feat! In fact, some may legitimately argue that they add tasks to an already busy coach’s plate. Even with the best athlete monitoring systems (AMS) around, there is still a huge time investment to analyzing individual player responses on a daily basis and making individualized tweaks to the daily plan. To be completely frank, it is my position that this process is so labor-intensive that it is only done well at the highest levels of sport, in organizations that can afford to employ full-time data scientists.

A good analogy for the current state of affairs is to picture a Tesla driving down the road with all of its various data acquisition systems but no CPU to process them. You, the driver, are responsible for keeping tabs on the input from the eight cameras and various sensors on all sides of the vehicle and using that input stream to make better split-second decisions. Of course, a CPU takes in all of the data, weighs it appropriately, and combines it to automatically create an accurate model of the environment, resulting in a lot of stress taken off the driver. This process of using data to build representative models of athletes that coaches can utilize to predict the impact of different strategies represents the next phase in artificial intelligence in sport.

3. Predictive Analytics

Predictive analytics takes us one important step further in using the data to build models that can enable the coach to project ahead to what is likely to happen given a course of action. Currently, this is more the domain of research scientists who have used this approach to effectively predict things like injury risk and response from a given dose of training. For example, Jurgen Edelmann-Nusser et al.¹ applied a neural network approach to modeling performance in elite swimmers based on training time in zone inputs and was able to achieve a prediction of within .05 seconds of the actual result! A similarly powerful example in the injury prediction sphere is a 2018 study by Rossi et al.² that used a random forest model to predict injury to professional soccer players from training load and wellness data with an 87% accuracy!

By implementing this predictive modeling approach, we move away from the “driver keeping an eye on eight cameras” approach for the coach, where they have to independently monitor everything and determine “is the planned load appropriate for today?” by considering things like:

 

• • How much high-intensity running is planned for today?

 

• • Where is the chronic training load?

 

• • Where is the acute training load?

 

• • How well did the athlete sleep last night?

 

• • What was the athlete’s HRV this morning?

 

• • Has this athlete been injured recently?

 

Instead, we can feed all of the above inputs into one machine and it can spit out…

<br.<
• “Athletes chance of injury based on today’s inputs = 20%”

or

 

• “Athletes predicted fatigue based on today’s volume and intensity = 8/10”

or, just as importantly,

 

• • “Athletes predicted VO2 max improvement from today’s session = 0.03 ml/kg/min.”

 

Real-time assessment of the risk/reward of planned strategies for individual athletes will add a powerful tool to the coach’s toolbox as these systems make their way into production. Share on X

The power of the decision-assisting insights provided as ML moves from research into application should be evident. Real-time assessment of the risk/reward of planned strategies for individual athletes will add a powerful tool to the coach’s toolbox as these systems make their way into production. However, there is a logical follow-up step that will be even more transformative and will truly be a “game-changer” when it comes to our job as coaches.

The Near Future: Prescriptive Analytics

While the move from description to prediction increases the real-world utility of data by a large margin, there is still a significant time investment running the various “what-if” scenarios. If I have my “fortune teller” app where I can plug in the plan for today’s training for an athlete and it can spit out predicted improvement along with fatigue and injury risk, and it tells me “That volume and intensity that you plugged in is a BAD plan,” the question remains—what’s a good plan? Given the data that I have, what would an optimal prescription be?

Consider, just for a second, what will happen when an algorithm comes along that is able to act as a data scientist for each individual athlete and communicate the insights into a simple actionable recommendation for the coach. Consider a machine that can digest (and remember) years and years of various input streams (training files, competition files, heart rate variability data, sleep data, wellness measures) for a given athlete and is then able to use this information to run thousands of simulations of different potential actions in its “brain” in a split second of what would happen if you chose a particular training session for that day and then is able to finally return a simple answer for “This is the optimal action for this athlete today.” This process represents the new world of prescriptive analytics.

Prescriptive analytics takes the data, identifies important features, creates a model of these important features to predict likely occurrences for different actions, and then runs the gamut of possible actions to decide the optimal prescriptive action to take on the basis of the model forecasts. In other words, it takes much of the “heavy lifting” that is limiting the widespread adoption of AI in sports out of the picture. Prescriptive analytics most closely adheres to my preferred definition of AI:

“The study of ‘intelligent agents’: any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of successfully achieving its goals.”

–Poole Mackworth Goebel, 1998

The move from prediction to prescription is not a technically easy one. Doing it effectively demands that we create an independent, intelligent agent that is able to perceive and learn from its environment and recommend actions that will maximize its chance of achieving its goals. However, if we accomplish it, prescriptive analytics moves us to a position where the data load on the coach is significantly reduced by creating an artificial assistant coach.

If we accomplish it, prescriptive analytics moves us to a position where the data load on the coach is significantly reduced by creating an artificial assistant coach, says @alan_couzens. Share on X

Importantly, especially in the beginning, the coach remains in complete control. We are merely providing an “assistant coach” that can serve an important advising role, offering the recommended range of prescription based on the data. We could think of our AI assistant similar to a golf caddy giving club advice. While useful, it’s ultimately up to the player to make the shot.

While the above technology of “artificial agents” might sound like the science fiction scene that greeted me at the top of Spaceship Earth all those years ago, I assure you, the technology to create these intelligent agents is already here.

In 2015, a computer program called AlphaGo rocked the world of AI when it beat the world champion in the challenging board game Go. More impressive than the victory, however, was the way in which it was achieved. Rather than the old methods of “hand programming” instructions to the computer about how experts play Go, the bulk of the knowledge accumulated by AlphaGo came from the process of optimization through learning that I outline above: Running simulation after simulation of possible actions and, from the data, learning what strategy leads to the highest reward.

In the world of AI, this process is called “reinforcement learning” (RL): The machine is given a goal—in the case of AlphaGo, to win the match; in the case of coaching, to achieve the highest fitness without exceeding a given fatigue or injury risk—and from there it’s left to the machine to determine the optimal strategy. It does this by rolling out hundreds of thousands of simulations, initially with random actions, but over time it learns and refines the actions to those that get the agent/athlete closer to its goal.

Because it trials random actions, the agent can show surprising levels of creativity in the solutions that it comes up with. In the case of AlphaGo, it created new strategies that were previously unthought of despite Go’s 2,000-year history. In our domain, it can prescribe sessions and sequences of sessions that may not fall within the dogma of any conventional heuristic or periodization scheme. Frankly, with its ability to “remember” huge amounts of historical data, coupled with its openness to possibility, it can come up with better solutions than any human could.

While clearly cutting-edge, the level of technology displayed by this decision-making agent is widely available to the point that it has been popping up more and more in commercial “real world” fields. Already companies like Google utilize the technology to optimize the energy usage of its server plants. RL is also being used in dynamically optimizing business recommender systems³, autonomous driving⁴, and traffic signal optimization⁵. Basically, in any field that involves optimizing individual decisions based on large amounts of data, RL is generally the superior approach.

You could argue that high-performance sports, a field where athletes can win or lose gold medals by hundredths of a second, represent the ultimate optimization task! Selecting the best possible action, day after day, over a long period of time, is what it’s all about! It follows that those who embrace the advantage of this new breed of artificial intelligence will have a decisive advantage over those who don’t.

My own work is currently focused on that end—bringing the power of deep reinforcement learning approaches to optimize the decision-making processes of coaches in sport. Through my work with HumanGo, we employ machine learning to the mass of athlete data out there in order to create RL agents that can learn to make better decisions than a human alone.

So, where is this all leading?

A Decade from Today

Picture, for a moment, just what a day in the life of a coach might look like 10 years from now…

You wake up in the morning to a message from your “assistant coach”:

“Good morning, Coach. I have received morning data from 19 of the 20 members of your squad this morning. I am still waiting on data from Maggie. Three athletes—John, Wendy, and Sue—were flagged as requiring a closer look this morning:

Wendy didn’t sleep well last night for the third night in a row. I have noticed a strong relationship between her sleep quality and her response to high-intensity training. Would you like to select a lower-intensity action item for Wendy for today?

John looks to be adapting really well to the training at the moment. All wellness metrics have been in the optimal range for the past four weeks. My calculations suggest that John may benefit from an increased intensity of 5% this block. Would you like to increase the planned intensity by 0, 5, or 10% for this block?

Sue has been consistently ranking her stress levels at higher than normal this week and has been showing some signs of maladaptation. I would recommend that we plan an unload week for Sue this week. Would you like me to go ahead and do that?

Thank you, Coach. Have a wonderful day.”

….

You then jump into your autonomous car to drive you to the pool, but instead of spending the time writing the training plan for today (after a quick review, it has already been sent to the swimmers’ waterproof iPads with lane assignments for the day), you jump on a private video call with Sue about why she’s been stressed out lately.

Everyone arrives at the pool, and the AI assistant coach has sent you a summary for each lane with key focus points for each athlete. Rather than spending the pre-swim time hurriedly writing on multiple whiteboards, you spend your time explaining these focus points to the athletes—demonstrating and connecting.

A few 100s into the warm-up, you get a notification that Jenny’s heart rate is unusually high for this set, and her stroke count is higher than average. You point your smart phone at Jenny to see if there is anything biomechanically amiss, and you get an instant diagnosis. Her range of motion on the right shoulder is 10 degrees lower than her norm. You couldn’t see this with your naked eye in the split-second period of max amplitude each stroke, but your machine friend can instantly go through it frame-by-frame and compare to her norm in a split second, without any high-end computer power, all within your smart phone’s browser.

You stop Jenny on the next length and ask her if her shoulder hurts. Reluctantly, she admits that it is a little sore, and so you update her program (in one click). This one click changes her program to emphasize kick sets for today, sends a note to her physio with a message and screen shot of her range of motion discrepancy, and updates her dose-response model with an injury occurrence for that day so that the ML algorithm can adjust and moderate the load to minimize the risk of future occurrences.

As you roll into the main set, you get another notification from your AI assistant coach that Brian’s heart rate is lower than intended for the prescribed set, and you may wish to increase the load. You stop Brian on the next rep and ask him how it’s feeling, and he says “easy,” so you instruct him to move up a lane to swim with the big boys. You check your app that has live heart rate data for each swimmer, and sure enough, that does the trick.

###

Delegating a large chunk of the planning to a machine might run counter to what you consider “coaches do best,” but you would be wrong. Simply put, machines run optimization calculations at levels that no human can. On the flip side, humans do human things (conversation, understanding and influencing fellow humans, seeing how things fit into “the big picture” that we call life) in a way that no machine can.

As machines take over much of the number crunching, I predict that our obsession with the data side of coaching will diminish & there will be a return to the golden age of humanistic coaching. Share on X

As we move out of the “Big Data” phase and into the “Big Understanding” phase, and the machines take over much of the “number crunching,” I predict that, paradoxically, our obsession with the data side of coaching will diminish and there will be a return to the golden age of humanistic coaching. After all, if we all have access to equally powerful data analysis and decision-making tools, and the difference between coaches is no longer one of “information asymmetry,” what will separate the best coaches from the rest? Perhaps the ability to positively influence, mentor, connect—to guide athletes along that perilous journey from the optimal plan “on paper” to the real-life manifestation of that plan.

As an old coach who has wound his way through his own Spaceship Earth—from the “good old days” of pen-and-paper, face-to-face coaching through the computer age of remote coaching and “data-driven” coaching, I’m more than ready for the next phase of machines and humans truly working together and using their respective strengths in the best possible way.

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. Edelmann-Nusser, J. and Hohmann, A. “Modeling and prediction of competitive performance in swimming upon neural networks.” European Journal of Sports Science. 2002;2(2).

2. Rossi, A., Pappalardo, L., Cintia, P., Iaia, F.M., Fernàndez, J. and Medina, D. “Effective injury forecasting in soccer with GPS training data and machine learning.” PLOS One. 2018;13(7).

3. Zhao, et al., “ATRank: An Attention-Based User Behavior Modeling Framework for Recommendation.” Presented at the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18), 2018.

4. O’Kelly, M., Sinha, A., Namkoong, H., Duchi, J. and Tedrake, R. “Scalable End-to-End Autonomous Vehicle Testing via Rare-event Simulation.” Stanford University paper.

5. El-Tantawy, S., Abdulhai, B., and Abdelgawad, H. “Design of Reinforcement Learning Parameters for Seamless Application of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control.” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2014;18(3):227-245.

Coaches use many metrics to analyze swimming performance, both for competitive swimming and for training to become a faster swimmer. Most common among the metrics—besides time—are swim velocity, stroke count, stroke rate, and stroke length.

There have been numerous studies measuring force development of the swimmer’s body using tethered swims, where the swimmer is strapped onto a wire or line that is connected to a strain gauge on land that measures the force the swimmer produces while swimming. Santos et al.¹ showed that asymmetries between propulsive forces generated by each side of the body can be detected using tethered swim measurements, but being able to measure the propulsive force and its proportion of total force development in each individual stroke is relatively new—and provides another way to measure and analyze a swimmer’s performance, as well as monitor training progression.

Force data provides another objective way to look at swimming technique, specifically efficiency—if a swimmer can learn to swim faster, but still use less force in each stroke, then their efficiency of moving through the water has improved.

Moreover, measuring force for tethered swims is not necessarily convenient or easy to do during everyday practice, but a smart new sport technology that every coach can use is capable of adding further insight into swimmers’ potential for improvement. Force measurements are another piece of the swimming technique puzzle, and it is a new and exciting piece to dive into: being able to optimize training both in the water and on land.

Force measurements are another piece of the swimming technique puzzle, and it is a new & exciting piece to dive into: being able to optimize training in the water & on land. Share on X

Does Strength on Land Automatically Convert to More Force in the Water and to Faster Swimming?

As a collegiate swimmer at the University of Cincinnati, I often wondered why some of my teammates could outperform me during dryland and strength training, yet I would swim faster than them. Since we were all Division 1 swimmers swimming at a high level, one could argue that all of us should have good technique and swim with similar, relatively low, resistance. What, then, was the differentiating factor?

Many years later, as a coach, I have seen several swimmers who are strong on land but not able to use that strength properly in the water. My background in research and analytics—coupled with my curiosity—led me to want to find out if force development on land corresponds to force development in the water. Being able to measure force development on land, and in the water for each arm stroke, offers the possibility of finding asymmetries between the right and left arm, and provides the ability to tailor and monitor a training plan to improve both force development and symmetry of the stroke technique.

 

Force Development in the Water—Does It Matter?

Force exerted by a moving object equals its mass times its acceleration; in swimming, however, this equation becomes a little bit more complex. Water density, resistance, and drag are among the factors that need to be considered when calculating force in the water. However, if these factors remain constant between swims, then increasing force should result in an increase in swim velocity.

High-level swimmers all have low resistance in the water, meaning that focusing on improving force generation (while maintaining the same low resistance) will improve swimming velocity. For more inexperienced swimmers, lowering resistance—by improving body position in the water through improved technique—will allow them to increase swim velocity while maintaining the same level of force generation. Being able to measure force in swimming is beneficial to both highly skilled swimmers and less-experienced swimmers and is a great objective way to look at swimming technique.

The ability to measure force in swimming is beneficial to both highly skilled swimmers and less-experienced swimmers and is a great objective way to look at swimming technique. Share on X

Can We Compare Force Development in the Water and on Land in a Swimming-Specific Manner?

I set out to find the answer to this question, together with coach Jack Fabian (Ph.D.) at Keene State College in New Hampshire, as combined we have several years of experience working with sport tech and equipment that helps improve swim performance.

I have been working with stroke technique analysis for several years, and in the past two years with a novel piece of sport tech called SmartPaddle, created by the Finnish company Trainesense. The SmartPaddle measures force development in the water during regular free swimming (untethered) and provides insight into the stroke technique for each arm individually. Connecting the data with video analysis provides a powerful combination to get a larger picture of the swimmer’s stroke and where and why it falls apart at fatigue. Being able to address any asymmetries between right arm stroke and left arm stroke is especially powerful, as this is data that has not been this readily available to coaches until now.

Force data is measured in three directions by the SmartPaddle: lateral sideways force, vertical force, and lateral propulsive force. The propulsive force is the force that generates the swimming speed forward, and hence the force that we want to see optimized and maximized for increased swim velocity. Force data is presented in graphs that provide a valuable overview of how the overall force is being used in each stroke—what proportion of the force generated is used for propulsive movement and how it changes from entry to pull phase to push phase to exit—and therefore where the stroke mechanics can be improved to make swimming more efficient. SmartPaddle also provides metrics like stroke count, stroke rate, impulse, splits, and hand velocity, which provide a comprehensive picture of the stroke together with traditional video analysis.

Coach Jack Fabian is an expert on using the VASA SwimErgometer and is therefore a great match in this endeavor to look at force development on land and in the water. The VASA SwimErg provides dryland training that is very specific for swimming in that it mimics swimming’s push and pull phase. It can be used to train proper swim mechanics at the fatigued state and to improve force development in the swim once the swimmer becomes fatigued.

Real-time data was provided with the ANT+ Wireless Power Meter, which, in this study, was connected to a training program (in this case, TrainerRoad) to record and monitor data during sessions, and to store, compare, and analyze over time. Metrics include power (in watts), distance, splits, stroke count, and stroke rate; for our purposes, we monitored and recorded stroke rate, time, and power.

This study was a first look at force and power in the water and on land, and we wanted to make the measurements as similar as possible between land (VASA SwimErg) and water (SmartPaddle). Protocols for land and water both consisted of a step test in six steps where stroke rate was increased, according to 40 – 43 – 46 – 49 – 52 – 55 strokes per minute (SPM) respectively.

This study was a first look at force & power in the water & on land, and we wanted to make the measurements as similar as possible between land (VASA SwimErg) and water (SmartPaddle. Share on X

On the VASA SwimErg, swimmers were to maintain the stroke rates for 90 seconds for each effort, and in the water the swims were 150 yards for each effort, which roughly corresponded to 90 seconds of swimming for the swimmers tested. Furthermore, they swam with a pull buoy and ankle strap to take out the effect of kicking as best possible, for better comparison to the measurements on land which isolate the upper body movements. Stroke rate was set and monitored by using FINIS Tempo Trainers in the water, and by the TrainerRoad program for the efforts on the SwimErgometer.

A SmartPaddle measures force (Newtons) and the VASA SwimErg power (watts), but since power equals propulsive force times velocity, there is a correlation between propulsive force and power. In this study, we looked at the relative change in force and how it correlates to the relative change in power once the swimmers fatigue. This indicates where the swimmer has potential to improve.

Findings of This Initial Look at Force Development in the Water vs. on Land

Question #1: Is there a correlation between being able to generate a lot of force or power on land and the ability to produce force or power in the water?

Yes, for the swimmers tested there was a linear relationship between the relative change in force in the water and the relative change in power on land that indicates a correlation between being able to develop power (or force) on land and being able to generate force in the water.

Question #2: Does higher force development correlate to faster swimming velocity? 


Yes—for these swimmers, the ability to generate a lot of power on land meant being able to generate faster swim velocity. However, the swimmer with the highest force development on land was not the fastest in the water once fatigue set in. The swimmer who reached the highest swim velocity was the one who needed the least amount of force to increase swim velocity—i.e., the swimmer with the more efficient swim technique.

Question #3: Is a decrease in velocity due to a decrease in force development or to an increase in resistance (surface area)? If it is due to an increase in resistance, then the same drop in force/power should not be seen on land. 


Force development decreased as the stroke rate increased and the swimmer fatigued, seen both in the VASA SwimErg measurements and with the SmartPaddle measurements. This indicates that the decrease in force in the water is not only due to an increase in resistance; there is a fatigue component that can be trained and improved on land, that can be carried over into swimming.

The SmartPaddle provides great insight to any asymmetries in the stroke mechanics that might not be visible to the coach, in terms of force generation and efficiency. Share on X

Furthermore, the asymmetries in force development between right arm and left arm when swimming were seen in the measurements on land on the VASA SwimErg, which means there is potential in improving the efficiency within the overall stroke mechanics by making the sides more symmetrical and similar in force development. This asymmetry can easily be addressed, improved, and monitored on the VASA SwimErg, as the data is in real time, and a coach can adjust technique instantaneously during the training.

This study found a linear relationship between propulsive force and velocity, and, once the swimmer fatigues, there was a significant drop in force and velocity when swimming at maximum speed. The strength of each stroke can be measured as impulse per stroke, as impulse equals propulsive force times the time interval of the propulsive part of the stroke. As stroke rate increases, the stroke length decreases, which means a shorter time interval for the propulsive part of the stroke. This in turn leads to less time to generate force, and hence impulse (strength) per stroke decreases. Focusing on maintaining stroke length and force generation per stroke when fatigue sets in will improve the impulse per stroke, and hence improve the ability to maintain a higher swim velocity for a longer time during a race performance.

Question #4: Will improving power on land automatically mean an improvement in the water? 


Improving strength on land that is relevant to the movements of swimming can lead to improved force development in the water, both in terms of overall strength and in a more symmetrical stroke technique and force development, but of course the swimmer needs to use the proper mechanics both on land and in the water to see this gain. Although proper stroke mechanics can differ depending on the coach you ask, from a subjective standpoint there are objective measures that indicate whether the stroke mechanics are more efficient or not.

Measuring force as a means of improving stroke technique is valuable in terms of being able to assess if the large swimmers’ muscles (e.g., latissimus dorsi) are being activated, as proper activation means higher force generation. Once proper muscle activation is achieved, the next step is to maximize the amount of propulsive force: the SmartPaddle’s measurements provide insights into the efficiency of the stroke by showing what proportion of the total force developed is propulsive force. Pinpointing where the pull can be improved is easily done with force curves, and specific parts of the pull can become more efficient in terms of the proportion of propulsive force.

 

Application of Force Measurements on Land and in the Water—Why It Matters

Dryland programs can be designed with more specificity to swimming movements, and that targets a specific need of the athlete. Besides the obvious gains in strength of the swim stroke, a training plan where dryland training and swim training work in conjunction to maximize the potential of the athlete can reduce the occurrence of injuries due to overuse during hours of swimming, as stroke technique can be improved on land. Being able to target the specific areas of improvement on land allows for less time in the pool and more focus on building speed and endurance with efficient force development while swimming.

Being able to target the specific areas of improvement on land allows for less time in the pool and more focus on building speed and endurance with efficient force development while swimming. Share on X

The SmartPaddle allows for a way to monitor that the dryland program provides the desired effect. In addition, the SmartPaddle also provides great insight to any asymmetries in the stroke mechanics that might not be visible to the coach, in terms of force generation and efficiency.

Of course, there are other aspects of efficient swimming technique, but force measurements are one important piece of the puzzle that is now available to coaches and athletes. Force measurements in conjunction with video analysis and standard metrics like stroke rate and swim velocity provide a very powerful insight into how to become a more efficient and faster swimmer.

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. K.B. dos Santos, G. Pereira, M. Papoti, P.C.B. Bento, and A. Rodacki. “Propulsive Force Asymmetry during Tethered-Swimming.” International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013; 34: 606-611.

“Welcome to the most important class you will ever take in high school.”

Every year, this is my standard introduction for new students in my high school weight training class. My statement is generally met with a few smiles or laughs from the students. It has been ingrained in them that math, science, and English are the cornerstones of their high school education. After all, those are the subjects that make up their standardized testing, and those are the subjects whose scores colleges will look at to determine if the student is an attractive applicant.

While it has been ingrained in students that math, science, and English are the cornerstones of their high school education, I believe weight training class is the most important class. Share on X

I follow my initial statement with, “I do not mean to devalue any course you are taking, and all your courses are extremely important. However, the things that you learn in weight training class are skills that will propel you to conquer challenges in any area of life now and for the next 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years. In this class, you will learn how to overcome obstacles, conquer fear and failure, set lofty goals, work together, encourage those around you, and, last but not least, embrace the process of becoming the best at getting better. On top of that, this class will help in reducing obesity rates in youth and adults and improve your cognitive abilities and mental health.”

We are in unprecedented times. Almost every school around the world is trying to figure out how to operate in this coming year. Just recently, a school district outside of Boston announced an agenda that will cut their entire K-12 music, arts, and physical education curriculum and staff. The COVID-19 pandemic has many schools considering cancelling sports and either eliminating or moving physical education (PE) and PE elective classes (like weight training class) to an online format. This is very disturbing, as some evidence has shown that healthier people recover from coronavirus at a much faster and higher rate.

In this article, I want to highlight four reasons why I believe that this is absolutely the wrong decision, and why weight training class is the most important high school class students can take.

1. Improved Mental Health and Reduced Anxiety

Most of us realize the physical benefits of exercise and a properly designed strength program, but the benefits go above and beyond getting stronger and faster, reducing injuries, adding muscle, or losing fat. One of the reasons I am so passionate about my job and profession is because of all of the additional benefits of exercise.

It has been proven that daily exercise reduces the risks of major depression, stress, and anxiety. Since the body and mind are so very closely linked, when your body feels better so does your mind. Today’s youth, including all of Generation Z, is the most anxious generation ever studied. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Generation Z participants reported they were nervous or anxious almost twice as much per month as Generation X participants reported they were.

During the coronavirus pandemic, our youth are under even more risk of increased anxiety and depression. A recent survey of adolescent athletes in Wisconsin showed that 65% of respondents said they have had anxiety during this pandemic. Reported physical activity was down 50% and those who reported being in good psychosocial health and good overall health decreased from 90.4% to 76.2% and from 90.9% to 78.4%, respectively.

Daily exercise combats daily anxiety. A 2014 study¹ found that individuals “[who] had the highest level of activity had the highest levels of well-being and the lowest levels of depression and anxiety.”

The benefits of exercise go well beyond obvious improved athleticism. If schools remove physical activity, physical education, and weight training classes from curriculums, they will put today’s youth at a major disadvantage and the risk of additional health issues. Sitting inside all day in a classroom can result in depression and higher anxiety rates. The benefits of being outside, getting sunlight and vitamin D, play a big role in improving mental health. If these classes are taken away or moved online, the time that students have available to be outside is also diminished.

2. Improved Learning and Cognitive Abilities

There is overwhelming evidence confirming that physical activity improves brain function, including a profound positive impact on mental health. Research shows that students perform better in the classes immediately following their strength, conditioning, and fitness classes.² Attending weight training class decreases stress and improves students’ ability to learn. In a 2007 study, German researchers found that students learn vocabulary words 20% faster following exercise. Participation in physical activity classes during the school day improves student test scores.

There is overwhelming evidence confirming that physical activity improves brain function, including a profound positive impact on mental health, says @KurtzM3. Share on X

Studies have also shown that children with high fitness levels have greater brain volume in the hippocampus. This is the region of the brain that is associated with memory, and the children with greater brain volume showed signs of enhanced long-term retention.³

Another study showed that students memorized new places on a map equally well, regardless of their fitness levels. However, when they were tested on their retention the following day, the student with the higher fitness level performed better.⁴

Another study⁵ made it extremely clear that physical activity and exercise are needed during a child’s academic school day. This 2015 study randomly assigned 56 school kids to one of three morning school sessions:

 

1. 1. Sitting all morning.

 

1. 1. One 20-minute workout of physical activity after 90 minutes of classroom learning.

 

1. 1. Two 20-minute physical activity workouts, one at the start of the class and one after 90 minutes of classroom learning.

 

The study found that the kids who had two workouts in the morning performed better on a test of attention, and this was true even after the researchers adjusted for the student’s baseline differences in attention.

Finally, what happens when previously inactive students begin a program of daily physical exercise?

A 2007 randomized, controlled study of inactive, overweight students found that 40 minutes a day of exercise improved their executive functioning.⁶ The executive function skill is responsible for paying attention, organizing, planning, prioritizing, starting tasks, staying focused on tasks to completion, understanding different points of view, and regulating emotions. Do you think those skills might be important in today’s uncertain world?

Another experiment replicated these results and found that 13 weeks of exercise was also linked to improved math skills and increased activity in the bilateral prefrontal cortex. This is the region of the brain associated with executive function.⁷

In conclusion, there is tremendous evidence that working out during the school day will improve a student’s cognitive abilities. Cutting physical education classes, electives, and after-school strength programs will do more harm in the long run than what it is supposedly protecting kids from in the short term.

3. Focus on What You Can Control

Strength training encourages students to set big goals, but it also teaches them to only focus on what they can control. This is extremely important in today’s uncertain world. The information we receive about the potential health risks of coronavirus changes daily, and sometimes hourly. We need to educate and empower today’s youth with the ability to recognize and focus on what they can control. With 24-hour news networks and endless information being shared on social media, our students can start to feel overwhelmed and helpless.

Strength training encourages students to set big goals, but it also teaches them to only focus on what they can control. This is extremely important in today’s uncertain world, says @KurtzM3. Share on X

In our strength training programs, we operate on the philosophy of “span of control.” This allows the individual to focus all of their energy on what they can control and not waste it on things that are out of their control. The destination is a continuous by-product of the work they put in daily.

Span of control during a pandemic like COVID-19 is critical for students. Qualified strength and conditioning coaches are extremely detail-oriented individuals. They meticulously plan every workout or class down to the minute. Sets, reps, and recovery times are thoughtfully planned well in advance. Key safety attention and planning considerations are part of the leadership in a strength program, and a fitness environment can be achieved in a measurably safe way that may be even healthier than the necessary challenges of a classroom setting. Practicing and monitoring the safe wipe-down of equipment and the willingness to protect themselves and others are part of the standard mindset in a fitness setting.

By the nature of fitness training, students are surrounded by other disciplined individuals eager to keep each other safe and healthy. These key factors provide an opportunity to create a healthy environment for students that goes far beyond the classroom setting.

As a result, instead of focusing on goals that compare them to their competition, high achievers focus on their own work ethic and attitude and how they treat themselves and others. This skill can be taught in a properly designed high school strength and conditioning program. Taking away these classes rob students of the opportunity to develop this invaluable trait.

4. Embrace Discomfort and Difficult Challenges

This is extremely important during this pandemic as well. While it is important to focus energy on what we can control, we should also be ready to embrace discomfort, sudden changes, and challenges. The weight room teaches students to overcome fears and persevere to achieve goals. The only way to improve in the weight room is to continually seek out new challenges and put yourself in uncharted territory.

In order to reach maximum potential in strength, speed development, or overall fitness level, each of us must continually fail. Embracing failure is a necessary component of reaching goals and understanding that the road to success is difficult and full of challenges and discomfort. These are traits that we nurture and develop in weight training programs and classes. If a young student can master this concept, they will be equipped to attack any difficult circumstance they encounter throughout their life.

We are currently in the Fourth Industrial Revolution; this is a time in history that has great promise and also danger. New technologies allow us to connect with billions more people than before, and increased networks allow organizations to dramatically improve their efficiency. However, all the new technology also means many current occupations and careers will become obsolete as droids, robots, and automation replace the people currently in these roles.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will create new industries, new careers, and new occupations, but we do not currently know what those jobs will be. Therefore, schools are now faced with the task of preparing the future generation for jobs that we do not know about yet. The individual who understands how to work in a team setting, continually seeks out new challenges, embraces discomfort, and understands how to overcome failure will be a leader in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In Klaus Schwab’s book, The 4th Industrial Revolution, he calls for leaders and citizens to “together shape a future that works for all by putting people first, empowering them and constantly reminding ourselves that all of these new technologies are first and foremost tools made by people for people.” The weight room teaches all students all of these concepts and will help propel these students into the forefront of this new period.

In the January 2017 issue of The Economist, there is a graph showing that the most successful individuals have always been the ones who have high math and high social skills (that is pretty obvious). However, the second most successful individuals are those with low math but high social skills, and their share is growing. Math skills are extremely important, but having those skills without social skills is less important. As we continue through this pandemic and into this next era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it is a must that we prepare our students with great social skills. There is no better place to teach them these skills than a strength program, sports, or physical education!

In conclusion, it is understandable that school administrators must analyze and make changes in order to operate schools during today’s circumstances. However, eliminating or reducing physical education and weight training classes is dangerous. It will do more harm to today’s youth than it will protect them from this virus.

I understand that school administrators must make changes to operate schools during today’s circumstances. However, eliminating or reducing PE and weight training classes can be harmful. Share on X

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 67,700 pediatricians, recently released a statement saying: “Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality,”

A properly structured weight training class teaches students to set goals and overcome obstacles and instills them with the self-confidence to know they can conquer challenges in every aspect of their life, now and in the future. It improves mental health, reduces anxiety, improves cognitive abilities, strengthens immune systems and prepares students to be leaders in their school and community.

The author would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions from Luke Kurtz and Lydia Parent in the writing and editing of this article.

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. Craft, LL and Perna, FM. “The Benefits of Exercise for the Clinically Depressed.” The Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2004;6(3):104-111.

2. Ratey, JJ and Hagerman, E. Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. Little, Brown. 2013

3. Chaddock-Heyman L, Hillman CH, Cohen NJ, and Kramer AF. “III. The importance of physical activity and aerobic fitness for cognitive control and memory in children.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2014;79(4):25-50.

4. Raine LB, Lee HK, Saliba BJ, Chaddock-Heyman L, Hillman CH, and Kramer AF. “The influence of childhood aerobic fitness on learning and memory.” PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72666.

5. Altenburg TM, Chinapaw MJ, and Singh AS. “Effects of one versus two bouts of moderate intensity physical activity on selective attention during a school morning in Dutch primary schoolchildren: A randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2015; pii: S1440-2440(15)00236-4.

6. Davis CL, Tomporowski PD, Boyle CA, Waller JL, Miller PH, Naglieri JA, Gregoski M. “Effects of aerobic exercise on overweight children’s cognitive functioning: a randomized controlled trial.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2007;78(5):510-9.

7. Davis CL, Tomporowski PD, McDowell JE, Austin BP, Miller PH, Yanasak NE, Allison JD, Naglieri JA. “Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: A randomized, controlled trial.” Health Psychology. 2011;30(1):91-8.

As 400-meter runners in the 1970s, we were taught to be proud of our miserable training. My coach called us “The Dragons” because he was going to run us every day until our ass was draggin’. When I look back on the high volume training I suffered through in middle school, high school, and college as a 400 runner, I’m sickened. I never came close to my genetic ceiling for speed—needless volume. We never timed max speed, never ran max speed in practice. Instead, we did repeats—tons of repeats.

I entered the track and field world as a long, lanky basketball player, forever pigeonholed as a 400-800 runner (1972-1981). Speed was never addressed. And we all hated practice. At the age of 17, I plateaued as a 400 runner (50.2). No matter how hard I trained in college, my half-baked speed held me back.

Feed the Cats began in 1999 as a way to fundamentally change the experience of track athletes. Now, my slowest kids are the ones who improve the most. For example, as a freshman, Marcellus Moore averaged 23.3 mph in our winter training. That same year, Jaylon Tillman was the 16th fastest freshman at Plainfield North, running an average time of 18.5 mph. Who improved the most? Jaylon Tillman ran 22.3 mph this year and was ranked #2 in the school.

In most programs, Jaylon Tillman would have received a lifetime sentence of hard labor. Jaylon would have been fed a steady diet of 200s, 300s, 400s, 600s, and creative combinations of the like. I fed Jaylon an alternative diet, and if not for Covid-19, he would have been an all-state hurdler this year and a sub-50 leg on a great 4×4 team.

What About The 400?

What about the 400? That’s the number one question asked by the hundreds of coaches who have contemplated feeding the cats. While speed training for the short sprints makes sense, speed training for the 400 is counterintuitive. Traditional, close-minded coaches continue to spout off the false claim: “Feed the Cats may be good for short sprints, but not the 400.”

I’ve done two recent webinars on training for the 400 meters, totaling over seven hours of content. One was a compare and contrast presentation, Feed the Cats vs. Clyde Hart. The other was a four-hour debate with Ryan Banta, the author of The Sprinter’s Compendium.

Legendary Baylor Coach Clyde Hart believed the 400 was a hybrid of speed and endurance.

“The 400-meter dash is an endurance sprint incorporating the speed of the sprinter and the endurance of the half-miler.”—Clyde Hart

I respectfully disagree with the legend. I believe the 400 is a sprint. The 800 is the hybrid.

The 400m is a sprint; the 800 is the hybrid. And although speed training for the 400m may seem counterintuitive, it should be the priority, says @pntrack. Share on X

Clyde Hart also said, “The main reason we are seeing more of the sprinter-type succeed in the 400 meters today is largely due to the fact that we are able to develop stamina and endurance more effectively than we can increase the sprinting abilities of the middle-distance runner.”

Charlie Francis said the same thing, with brilliant simplicity: “It is much easier to gain endurance having maximum speed than the other way around.”

I couldn’t agree more with Clyde and Charlie. I coach high school kids who are trying to reach their genetic ceiling for absolute speed. I refuse to interfere with a teenager’s quest for speed by hybridizing their training. I refuse to give up on a kid like Jaylon Tillman and specialize his training as a long sprinter because he’s only running 18.5 mph as a freshman. The disciplined pursuit of speed is my overarching principle.

Fact: The 200 is the best predictor of the 400, not the 800.

Max speed (absolute speed) is the best predictor of success in the 100m and 200m. The 10m fly can easily measure max speed. If all of this is true:

• 10m ⇨ 100m ⇨ 200m ⇨ 400m,

• therefore 10m ⇨ 400m

“A good formula for predicting the potential 400-meter time for 200-meter runners, providing they are willing to train and to give all they can to become a top 400-meter runner, would be to double the time of their best open 200 meters then add 3.5 seconds to this.”—Clyde Hart

Note that Coach Hart’s predictor of 400 success was not the 800. Nope, the 400 is a sprint and training should reflect that fact. I often warn coaches: “Don’t plant beans and expect to grow corn.”

I recently observed a terrific video clip from Ernie Clark (Ashland University) explaining how speed (not strength, not endurance) is the basis of the 400. When setting the world 400m record, Wayde van Nierkerk smoked his first 200 (split 20.50). Remember that 20.50 must be a sub-max speed to survive the second half of the race. Nierkerk finished slow, splitting 12.05 in his final 100. Which broke the world record—speed or a strong finish? In comparison, Wayde van Nierkerk’s 43.03 broke the previous record set by Michael Johnson (43.18). Did Wayde van Nierkerk show better endurance than Johnson? No. Nierkerk beat Johnson to the 200m mark, 20.50 to 21.32. Johnson finished strong (11.52) in comparison to Nierkerk, but speed beats endurance in the 400. 

Ernie Clark also points out a similar phenomenon with the best in the women’s 400. Salwa Eid Naser won the 2019 World Championship, running her first 200 in 23.20 and finishing at 48.14. How did Naser’s splits compare to the world record? The world record holder, Marita Koch, blistered her first 200, running 22.47, almost a full second faster than Naser. Koch’s 400m record is 47.60. Naser finished stronger than Koch, but endurance got beat by speed.

“The 30m fly is the #1 indicator of potential in the 100m dash to the 800m.”—Coach Ernie Clark. (I would argue with Ernie that the 10m fly is the #1 indicator for the success in the 30m fly; therefore, the 10m fly is truly the Holy Grail.)

Without any training for the 400m, your top sprinter will probably run the fastest 4x4 split on the team, says @pntrack. Share on X

Anecdotally, I’ve known this for as long as I can remember. Need someone to run the 4×4? Find your fastest short sprinter and put him at anchor. Without any training for the 400, your top sprinter will probably run the fastest 4×4 split on the team. Your short sprinter will be tired at the finish, but so is everyone else.

Why Speed?

The foundation of Feed the Cats is that speed is the key to performance in all track events, up to and including the 400 meters. Speed is the dominant trait of those who excel in the 100, 200, 400, both hurdle events, and the three sprint relays (4×1, 4×2, 4×4). We could argue that speed is a key performance indicator for the jumps and pole vault as well. That’s 12 or our 18 events!

The foundation of Feed the Cats is that speed is the key to performance in all track events, up to and including the 400 meters, says @pntrack. Share on X

My throws coach, Sebastian Carcione, says he’s never seen a great thrower who was slow. It’s no secret that the fastest distance runners are best in the 800m. With the addition of the shot, discus, 800, and 4×8, speed is essential for 16 of our 18 events.

Don’t plant beans and expect to grow corn. In other words, if speed is a key component for 16 of our 18 events, let’s make speed our unquestioned priority!

Speed Defined

When I talk about speed, I’m talking about maximum speed. Some people call it absolute speed. We can measure maximum speed with a high-quality radar gun. I measure it with Freelap—I have the BLE 112 system with 25 FxChips.

We run 10m flys to measure max speed. You could do it by running 20m or 30m as well, but since you’re measuring max speed, why not run the shortest distance? I convert our fly times to miles per hour: 22.37 ÷ 10 fly time = mph. My fastest kids win wristbands.

Feed the Cats

There should be a reason behind everything we do. We should have a system of beliefs, a philosophy of coaching, and an overarching set of principles that guide us. I never meant to brand Feed the Cats, but it’s grown organically into something bigger than me.

My detractors call Feed the Cats a “system,” criticizing its single-minded prioritizing of speed. My critics promote a sophisticated, complex, differentiated program. They use charts, graphs, and flow-charts to uniquely calibrate the training of each athlete and their targeted event. They quote the complexifiers: Bosch, Bondarchuk, and McMillan. Some even claim to factor-in genetics (even though genetic testing has never been implemented in a high school track program!).

“Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify, simplify! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand.”—Henry David Thoreau

Feed the Cats is not a rigid system. In truth, it’s the opposite. Feed the cats is a way to cook, allowing the recipe to evolve.

As a young coach, I coached like Clyde Hart—the way I was coached. I trained all of my “runners” as 400 guys (fact: speed is God-given, right?). Practice wasn’t supposed to be fun. Hard things make you tough. Tough athletes win. Even though my teams achieved unusual success in the 1990s, at age-40, I blew it all up and started over again. No more 10 x 200.

I wanted to change the track experience for high school kids. I wanted to attract cats (cats are fast-twitch athletes, for example wide receivers in football and basketball players who could dunk). I wanted to make track practice the best damn part of a kid’s day.

How Do You Make Track Practice Fun for Sprinters?

1. 1. Stop “running.” Sprint instead. Cats love to compete, but they hate the grind. No laps, no cooldowns, no tempo running—no Clyde Hart stuff.

 

1. 1. Make happy and healthy the priority. Happy and healthy kids do really good work. If kids really like track, someday they may love it. Human beings are obsessed with the things they love.

 

1. 1. No more long practices. Get it done in 45 minutes. Kids spend 20,000 hours sitting at a school desk. We are not after school daycare providers. Get it done and send the kids home early.

 

1. Make every practice meaningful. Don’t save performance for meets.

The Team Speed Approach to Track and Field

This is important. We all have our why.

I’ve coached entire track teams without an assistant. At Franklin High School, south of Nashville, Tennessee, I coached 72 guys, all 18 events, solo. For most of my career, I had one assistant coach (throws) earning a half-stipend. Even though I now have 3.5 paid assistants, the years of going it alone forced me to coach as an essentialist. Essentialism is the Disciplined Pursuit of Less. If you chase two rabbits, you catch neither. We chase just one rabbit.

Give me eight guys who run 23 mph, and we will dominate the IHSA 3A State Championship next year in Illinois. How? We might place multiple athletes in the 100 and 200. With all that depth, we would set state records the 4×1, 4×2, and 4×4 (Sub-40, Sub 1:25, Sub 3:12). One of those sprinters will be a hurdler. Another will long and triple. One of them will be great in the 400.

Remember what I said about essentialism and overarching principles? There it is. We will maximize team speed. Yep, give me an eight-man team of guys who can run 23 mph, and try to catch us.

One of the best things about being a speed-based track team is that sprints have a lower cost than distance events. Distance runners are seldom able to score high in multiple events. Add in the fact that the IHSA State Track Meet is a two-day meet, and the cost is even higher. In 2018, my team won the 100, 200, 4×1, and 4×2 at our state meet. We ran faster times in the finals than we did in the prelims the previous day. We set two state records. Sure, running eight sprints in two days will wear you out, but sprinters can do it. Distance runners can’t compete eight times in two days.

Myth: Feed the Cats is a program for “elites,” not average kids. One hundred percent false. Track at Plainfield North is just as nerdy as anywhere else in the country. We typically have teams of 100 boys, with the majority being freshmen and sophomores. In 2018, when we won every sprint at the IHSA State Meet, only 27 of our team’s 50 sprinters could run 20 mph. My five all-staters that year ran 24.1, 22.8, 22.6, 22.1, and 21.5 mph.

By treating every sprinter as a cat, every sprinter becomes more cat-like (fast-twitch, elastic, and fiercely competitive). Speed grows like a tree, but I have four years with my athletes. My freshmen love track (overarching principle). Therefore they return as sophomores and continue to grow. Sophomores become juniors, and juniors become seniors. Never undervalue happy athletes. Track doesn’t have to suck.

Off-Season Programming for the 400

In the off-season, pure speed is the focus. No endurance. No bullshit. When you sprint for more than five seconds, you’re working on something other than speed. If you’re doing tempo work, you are, at best, not improving speed. At worst, you may be detraining speed. If you do mileage, you are destroying speed.

Since endurance adaptations are relatively easy and speed adaptations are relatively difficult, your off-season focus must be speed, says @pntrack. #400m Share on X

Just like Clyde and Charlie said earlier, it’s easier to develop endurance than it is to build speed. This is so true that most coaches believe speed is genetic and unchangeable. Old school coaches believed coaches create milers, and God creates sprinters. I can’t be friends with these Neanderthals. Since endurance adaptations are relatively easy and speed adaptations are relatively difficult, your off-season focus must be speed.

When the season starts, your athletes will have a terrific speed base. Speed actually creates endurance. If you have a kid who can run at 23 mph, that kid can easily run a 400 at 18 mph, which would translate to sub-50 400m. To develop the ability to sprint farther, we must sprint farther. I call these workouts lactate workouts or acidosis tolerance work.

In-Season Programming for the 400

Sometimes, the best way to describe something is by explaining—in detail—what it’s not. Feed the Cats is not, in any way, similar to the most copied 400-meter training program in the history of track and field: the program used by Clyde Hart at Baylor University (“Quarter-Miler U”).

To preempt hate mail, I have the utmost respect for Coach Hart. Anyone winning 20 NCAA 4×4 Championships knows his stuff. However, we all must grow where we’re planted. Baylor University and Plainfield North High School are different ecosystems. Coach Hart’s freshmen recruits have typically run 46-second 400s before they ever met their college coach. Sometimes, my best freshmen have never attended a track meet. Also, Clyde Hart’s freshmen are 18; mine are 14. Having said that, don’t assume that I would change my program if I coached at the college level—Feed the Cats, done right, would be revolutionary in the NCAA.

Workouts in a Feed the Cats program are categorized and color-coded: green codes for rest, yellow codes for caution, and red codes for extreme. Forty-two percent of our 19-week flexible practice plan for sprinters is color-coded green. Cats sleep 20 hours a day. Speed and X-Factor days are color-coded yellow (“never let today ruin tomorrow”). Lactate workouts and meets are color-coded red and will have a 48-hour hangover.

Lactate Workouts

Lactate workouts are the hardest things we do. However, we only do them in-season, and we almost always make the next day a code green recovery day.

We measure all lactate workouts (see 24-Second Drill spreadsheet and 4×4 Predictor spreadsheet). If you attended one of our lactate workouts, you’d be astonished at the effort and performance of each sprinter on my team. I’ve had visitors tell me that our practice exceeded the atmosphere of a track meet. I agree 100%. I’m heavily caffeinated. My athletes reflect my enthusiasm. It’s showtime!

In the epic 400 debate with Ryan Banta, he criticized my policy of “apologizing” to my athletes when we do a lactate workout. I whole-heartedly defended myself. These workouts, like the 400, require a leap of faith. Acidosis creates a discomfort most athletes have never truly experienced. To call the pain intense would be like calling fire hot. The good news: the pain is temporary, the body will adapt quickly to become biochemically tougher, and we don’t have practice tomorrow!

Lactate work is the price my team pays for a pure focus on speed in the off-season. It’s the price we pay to survive a long sprint. The good news: the body is a fast-learner. Biochemical adaptations are accomplished at a magical rate compared to improving absolute speed. I see significant adaptations after our first lactate workout.

Lactate work is the price my team pays for pure focus on speed in the off-season. It's the price we pay to survive a long sprint, says @pntrack. #400m Share on X

When you run 10 x 200, you are tired at the end of the workout. However, you have not improved speed. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Also, you have not taught the body to deal with acidosis. The 10 x 200 is a lactate threshold workout; the body doesn’t become acidic. If given a choice between a lactate workout and 10 x 200, you might choose the 10 x 200 because it doesn’t hurt as bad. It’s just a soul-crusher. If grinding through hard, mind-numbing, two-hour workouts is your preference, you are not a Feed the Cats guy.

If you’re interested in my Training Cats to Run the 400 video (comparing and contrasting Clyde Hart Training to Feed the Cats), it’s available at Complete Track and Field.

Let’s Get Specific

I have four lactate workouts. (Everyone wants the damn recipe, no one wants to learn how to cook!)

1. 23-Second Drill
2. 600m 4×4 Predictor
3. 450m 4×4 Predictor
4. Critical Zone

All four of these workouts are linked to in-depth articles. I’ve summarized each in the slides below.

In a Feed the Cats program, all pain is self-inflicted. No one practices unless 100% healthy. I never force-feed workouts. My kids build their own house. If my guys don’t feel like doing a workout, they don’t do it. My guys all choose to do the work.

“We want to get the line 80% in shape and 100% healthy rather than the other way around.”—Harry Marra

In addition to Coach Marra’s epic quote, I’d like to say, “We want to get kids 100% fast and 80% in shape, not the other way around.” If you merge both statements, you come close to the essence of Feed the Cats.

100% Fast + 100% Healthy + 80% In Shape = Happy Athletes

Old School Math: 80% Fast + 80% Healthy + 100% In Shape = toughen up! practice was not meant to be fun!

By entering the track season with a maximal speed base, my kids are a couple of lactate workouts away from being solid in the 400m, says @pntrack. Share on X

By entering the track season with a maximal speed base, my kids are a couple of lactate workouts away from being solid in the 400. With a 19-week track season, the meets will do most of the rest. As Latif Thomas taught me 12 years ago, “The faster your maximum speed, the faster your sub-max speed.” When you consider the competitive nature of cats and their love of track and field, 4×4 success is no surprise.

The 400 is a sprint.

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

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the World Athletics biomechanical reports are a treasure trove for coaches and sports data mavens. The 2019 Doha reports may not be available yet, but the reports from Berlin 2009, London 2017, and Birmingham 2018 offer a wealth of data for each track and field event. I used the reports about the long jump to write Building a Better Technical Model for the Long Jump, in which I made evidence-based recommendations for training certain fundamental skills in the event. Analyzing someone else’s data is never easy, so I told myself to take a long break before doing it again. I also told myself to stay away from the biomechanical reports about pole vault because the pole vault is an excessively technical event.

The World Athletics biomechanical data reports on pole vaulting offer critical perspectives which the naked eye can rarely capture as effectively. Share on X

While writing a different piece about pole vault, I needed to check the reports from the Berlin, London, and Birmingham World Championships for a minor reference. I couldn’t help getting pulled into writing something new, and what you’re about to read is the result.

The reports are still a work in progress. A few variables may fall short of their intended assessment, but overall, the reports offer critical perspectives which the naked eye can rarely capture as effectively. A basic understanding will support coaches with more critical analysis and improved feedback for their athletes. Though pole vault seems like the wrong jumping-off point, the event is an ideal model for a case study because ample opportunities exist to collect data. I was pleased to find many similarities between the reports on pole vault and long jump:

• Runway velocity
• Length of steps
• Takeoff angle
• Vertical displacement of an athlete’s center of mass
• Performance marks

These include familiar variables and, expectedly, some new ones as well. Each biomechanical report offers raw data, graphical analysis, and written commentary for the men’s and women’s competition finals. Speed correlates with performance in almost all track and field events, and the pole vault is no exception. The top athletes consistently demonstrated the greatest runway velocities. But that relationship can be further broken down into instantaneous velocities in the last three steps before takeoff, for which more meaningful technical considerations appear. This correlation is not perfect, but it holds up quite well. Runway velocity is one of the variables present in all the reports.

Assessing Stride Pattern

The length of the last three steps before takeoff offers preliminary insight into an athlete’s favored technical model. The ratio between lengths of the penultimate and last step demonstrates how the athlete prepares to jump up. A longer penultimate step followed by a shorter last step most effectively allows an athlete to jump into the air—with or without a pole in hand. My long jump article directly addresses this claim and supports it with evidence from the same World Championships. The pole vault reports present a similar variation in the stride pattern data. For example, 12 out of 15 male vaulters and 8 out of 11 female vaulters from Birmingham 2018 relied on a long-short stride pattern at takeoff. In London 2017, 8 out of 9 male vaulters and 10 out of 12 female vaulters relied on this pattern.

A vaulter’s preparation to jump up is important to a vertical event while the timing of their takeoff can greatly diminish the efficacy of their jump. Professional pole vaulters seem to debunk this claim due to their impressive speed and strength. While they might rely on an even or a short-long stride pattern—which produces a less effective jump—they still manage to clear a high bar. Many athletes and their coaches might call this style, but style is no reasonable excuse for what runway velocities reveal and the naked eye cannot see.

In the early 1980s, pole vault coach Vitaly Petrov introduced and promoted the free takeoff, which requires the vaulter to jump off the ground slightly before the pole tip hits the back of the plant box. The free takeoff was widely used and popularized by Petrov’s athlete and former WR holder Sergey Bubka, who is still one of the most decorated track and field athletes of all time. The Petrov Model (also known as the Champion Model) advanced pole vault technique because it included this free takeoff.

Although a long-short stride pattern supports the free takeoff, the biomechanical reports show it does not correlate with a free takeoff. #PoleVault Share on X

Although a long-short stride pattern supports the free takeoff, the pattern does not correlate with a free takeoff according to the biomechanical reports. For example, the American record holder and Olympic silver medalist Sandi Morris relied on a long-short stride pattern in London 2017 but favors taking off after her pole tip hits the box. This is known as taking off under the pole or getting ripped off the ground. According to still-frame analysis in the 2018 report, Morris does not rely on a free takeoff in this jump because her pole has already begun bending while her takeoff foot has not left the ground. Morris is a decorated vaulter and this style works for her, but I don’t recommend beginners learn to pole vault with the same style.

The 2018 report reveals that Brazilian Thiago Braz da Silva, the 2016 Rio Olympics gold medalist, relies on a free takeoff and a long-short stride pattern. It should come as no surprise that Petrov is his coach. Another iconic athlete in the Birmingham report is former WR holder Renaud Lavillenie, who won the pole vault in the 2012 London Olympics but lost to da Silva in 2016. Though I’ve watched Lavillenie compete many times and know his jump well, I had thought he did not rely on a free takeoff. I was mistaken. Lavillenie relies on an unusual, short-long stride pattern, but the 2018 report’s still-frame analysis reveals he jumps with a free takeoff. This is also evident in his 2014 world record.

Timing the Takeoff

The data from Morris, da Silva, and Lavillenie call into question the assumed correlation between stride pattern and takeoff. These three profiles confirm the need for a new variable, which measures the time between an athlete’s last contact with the runway and their pole tip colliding with the back of the box. When the difference is positive, the athlete jumps up before the collision. This would qualify as a free takeoff. When the difference is negative, the athlete jumps up after the collision—under the pole typically. The combination of this time difference and the last three steps provides valuable assessment for all athletes and coaches. I recommend adding this time difference variable to future reports.

Pole vault needs a new variable to measure time between an athlete's last contact with the track & the pole tip colliding with the back of the box. Share on X

Some pole vault coaches value using a takeoff mark on the runway. In my coaching, I don’t find catching the last step on the runway more valuable than watching the vaulter transition from the runway into the air, so I generally ignore this mark. Other coaching tools, like mid-marks, glean similar information. However, the London 2017 report measured the displacement of the athlete’s top handgrip position relative to the last step, which the reports called takeoff foot position. The naked eye cannot easily observe this measurement, and I found the analysis very useful for the plant.

Unfortunately, these measurements were not included for each athlete. If the biomechanical project team chooses to include takeoff foot position in future reports, it will help determine which planting technique an athlete favors in their jump. Displacement in front of the foot would suggest that the athlete favors a forward plant, characteristic of Coach Roman Botcharnikov’s 640 Model. Minimal displacement, with the top hand directly above the foot—or displacement shifted behind the foot—would, instead, suggest the athlete favors the more traditional Petrov Model. Each model offers its benefits and drawbacks. While the Petrov Model is the most widely used, the 640 Model is safer and easier to learn. A trained eye knows how to determine which technical model an athlete uses, but the takeoff foot position will assist its confirmation. If the takeoff foot position seems extreme in either direction, then I recommend filming several jumps to confirm the assessment before addressing it with the athlete.

Capturing the Plant

In the pole vault, coaching motions is usually better than coaching positions, but it’s incredibly hard to find reasonable data that assess motion better than the eye. Pole angle at takeoff is not a useful variable because these measurements are nearly identical for every athlete. More fruitfully, the 2018 report includes pole angles before takeoff. This data captures the planting motion because the change in pole angle indicates how quickly the vaulter plants the pole over the last three steps. In Images 1 and 2, notice how the change in pole angle is gradual for most vaulters in their final steps. Steeper slopes, or sharp increases relative to the previous step, suggest the vaulter plants too quickly. This is known as punching the pole or flipping the pole. Seven out of the 26 vaulters plant their pole too quickly when compared to the smoother, more general trend apparent from the other 19. Pole angles before takeoff were included in the 2018 report but not the 2017 report.

Data about pole angles before takeoff captures the planting motion & indicates how quickly the vaulter plants the pole over the last 3 steps. Share on X

Like all phases in the pole vault, the plant should precede and transition into the takeoff phase smoothly and gradually. Punching or flipping can create unnecessary resistance and loss of velocity at takeoff. One way to minimize this loss is by letting the pole drop by its own weight and extending the bottom arm to guide it into the box. I found the pole angle data useful, but not completely necessary. Coaches can easily observe how smoothly their vaulters plant the pole. Analysis of professional vaulters has its value in understanding proficient or deficient archetypes, but possibly no more than that.

Applying Vertical Variables

When I noticed the reports included push height, I was thrilled. Then I discovered that push height measures “the vertical distance between the center of mass at pole release and peak height” (Bissas, 2017). Although the rise of a vaulter’s center of mass is critical in assessing technical efficiency, push height addresses this motion insufficiently because it does not account for the displacement above the top handgrip. If a vaulter produces substantial push height but their grip is relatively high, they are not jumping efficiently. Whereas a vaulter who produces average push height and holds the pole relatively low can still create an extremely efficient jump.

A vaulter who produces average push height and grips the pole relatively low can still produce an extremely efficient jump. Share on X

The vertical difference between a vaulter’s top handgrip and the bar height is a more valuable tool. This is known as push-off. I appreciate that the 2017 reports include grip height, but this data was not subtracted from each vaulter’s bar clearance to generate a push-off variable. Vertical distance variables like push height, pelvis clearance height, and swing height miss the mark. For example, Holly Bradshaw, Lisa Rizyh, and Yarisley Silva all cleared 4.65 meters with similar vertical displacement measurements. Bradshaw and Rizyh are comparable in height, and Silva is ten centimeters shorter. However, in Silva’s best jump, she spent considerably less time in contact with the pole than her two opponents.

This profile calls into question the utility of such vertical variables, when other factors, like runway velocity, may deserve greater consideration for assessing technical efficiency. Other vertical variables, like pelvis height, may offer fans a wow factor, but bar clearance matters most. The project team should present variables, like push-off and pole angles, more explicitly, while eliminating confusing variables, like push height or pelvis height.

The 2018 commentary acknowledges that the transition from the runway to off-the-ground mechanics continues to perplex the investigative team. The fastest athletes on the track do not always produce the best jumps because “a considerable amount of the kinetic energy from their approaches was not stored in elastic structures like the bending pole or in muscle-tendon stiffness” (Bissas, 2018). This may derive from “ineffective absorption in body structures,” which relates to the athlete’s favored technical model (Bissas, 2018). In all track and field events, evidence-driven skepticism like this should be an opening to define new variables and collect more data.

Although I’m encouraged by its inclusion, I think the project team misapplied their vertical displacement data from London 2017. A year later, the 2018 commentary recognizes an absence of “data concerning the upper jump phases for this competition” (Bissas, 2018). While this statement is true, I find it misleading. The 2018 commentary states that it “cannot discuss the complete mechanical efficiency of the athletes” when the very same data was collected in the year before (Bissas, 2018). The 2018 reports exclude this data, rendering limited analysis for motions off the ground, and recommends concentration on the “approach, pole plant and takeoff” (Bissas, 2018). Again, I agree—with some reservations. Grip height and bar clearance are the two most valuable measurements for the greater pole vault community.

Grip height and bar clearance are the two most valuable measurements for the greater pole vault community. Share on X

Grip height is one of a few pole specs worth including in a biomechanical report. Pole length and weight rating provide perspective on an individual’s seasonal or historical progressions. These specs can also compare performances between athletes in one competition. For example, a vaulter who clears a higher bar with a shorter pole is a more technically efficient jumper because they produce greater push-off than the opponent on a longer pole. They may not be faster or stronger than their opponent, but certainly more efficient. A vaulter who jumps on a pole with a higher weight rating when lengths are equivalent is usually heavier or faster than their opponent who jumps on a lighter pole. In both examples, I assume the two athletes clear the same height. Hopefully, runway velocities will corroborate these relationships. Grip height is nearly a proxy for pole length, but weight rating is harder to record without athletes sharing this information ahead of, or during, the competition. Neither pole length nor weight rating are included in either years’ reports. These specs deserve greater scrutiny and attention in the future. More data is always better.

Recognizing Limitations

I must recognize the limitation of my analysis. The data in each biomechanical report only represents the best jump from each athlete. The compiled results show that every athlete took at least three jumps in the competition. The best jumps may not, in fact, represent the common practices of each athlete. Even in my ignorance of any of the innumerable emotional, physical, or environmental factors present, it’s impossible to know how each athlete performed relative to prior competition without the data to support such analysis.

Only 72 total vaulters competed in the Berlin, London, and Birmingham finals. This number includes both male and female athletes. While 72 unique attempts to clear a bar provides more than enough data for analysis, this number compares poorly to the total number of clearances by all athletes when summed together. Between all three world championship finals, 72 athletes cleared a bar 194 times. Although 122 unique jumps may have been captured for analysis, they were never presented or published. I view these limitations as both reductive and motivating. They make me skeptical of my conclusions from the reports. The numbers reveal that there is more to learn from this spectacular event.

Hopefully, continued reporting & systematic compilation of data will cement some technical skills into a fundamental learning model for the pole vault. Share on X

Pole vault has evolved several times since its introduction in the 1896 Olympics. From rigid, wooden poles in the early days to flexible fiberglass of the modern era, technical proficiency has always lagged behind pole material innovation. While our understanding of fundamental skills like runway velocity, preparation for takeoff, and a smooth plant has progressed gradually, comprehensive biomechanical reports have never existed for the World Championships until this past decade. Hopefully, continued reporting and systematic compilation of data will cement certain technical skills into a fundamental learning model for the pole vault. In this learning model, I do not mean the Petrov Model, the 640 Model, or any technical model preceding either of these. Runway velocity, preparation for takeoff, and a smooth plant are simple necessities for a good jump. They are embedded within every technical model because they are fundamental skills to the event.

Beginners should focus on fundamental skills—push-off, stride pattern & smooth plant—& avoid emulating techniques of elite pole vaulters. Share on X

The 2017 women’s’ commentary states, “the model should be modified to the athlete” (Bissas, 2017). While I agree with this statement, it applies mostly to athletes with impressive strength and speed—not beginners. I fear it encourages young vaulters to emulate techniques they are neither strong nor fast enough to master in their early years. Faster athletes can grip higher. Stronger, more flexible athletes can take off under the pole more reliably. Beginners should focus more on fundamental skills like push-off, stride pattern, and a smooth plant until they reach their full height, adult weight, and genetically predetermined body proportions.

Thinking Bigger than the Pole Vault

It’s worth noting that the 2017 pole vault reports measured more variables than the 2018 reports did, but they do not explain scaling back their data collection. If it’s because certain variables need more clarity or scrutiny as to which serve the pole vault community best, then I’m encouraged by this reflective process. I hope some of those missing variables from 2017 will return to future reports. A wealth of stories exists from a century of pole vaulting, but very limited data exist comparably in the public domain. Data can help parse credible coaching practices from sheer dumb luck. While stories and anecdotes might inspire us to embrace new ideas, data drives innovation and sustainable improvement.

Data can help parse credible coaching practices from dumb luck. All coaches should read at least one of the World Athletics biomechanical reports. Share on X

I recommend all coaches read at least one of the biomechanical reports. The expanded scope of biomechanical analysis from London 2017 and Birmingham 2018 offers an opportunity to improve your professional practice. The reports provide a worthy service to the pole vault, as well as our wider athletic community. I look forward to the Doha 2019 report, and many more in the future!

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