Blog

Typically in this field, the interns and graduate assistants are given the opportunity to work with less high-profile sports. During my time as graduate assistant strength and conditioning coach in Miami, I was fortunate enough to work with the coed cheer team. In this article I will dive into the needs analysis, character development, and training protocols utilized, as well as the progressions.

Needs Analysis

Cheerleading is a sport comprised of three different positions: the spotter, the base, and the partner.

Spotter: The spotter’s job is to make sure the partner completes the stunt safely. Spotting puts a huge focus on eccentric strength due to the need to catch the partner as they descend from the stunt. The spotter is normally in charge of the counting process to make sure all parties involved in the stunt execute the stunt at the same time.

Base: The base’s primary responsibility is to act as the foundation for lifts and pyramids, and the athlete who fills this position must be able to perform stable isometric contractions to control the lift. In addition to having strong isometric contractions, the athletes must also assist the spotters in safely dismounting the partner from the stunt, which requires another major emphasis on eccentric strength. Normally in co-ed cheer the male cheerleaders are used in this position.

Partner: The last position is the partner. The partner is the apex of the stunt, and their responsibilities differ from the rest of the positions. They require the ability to extend their hips and arms rapidly while maintaining high amounts of core stability from the extremities being put into the extended positions relative to the stunt at hand. They need to maintain flexibility of the lats, triceps, anterior hip, and hamstrings to sustain longer holds up top. Stability in the hips, ankles, and core is also needed to maintain positions in specific stunts, especially if the stunts require the partner to be on one leg or have one arm more distal from the center of mass.

Common injuries seen in cheerleading are to the lower extremities, upper extremities, trunk, neck, and head. These injuries are normally due to falls from improper execution of the stunts, lifting or tossing with poor technique, twisting a body part through high ranges of motions, or a lack of eccentric strength.

Character Development

Cheer presented me with a variety of challenges as a young coach in the profession. One of the most interesting things I found is that a lot of underclassmen had no experience in physical training or lifting, but they spent a lot of time in competitive cheer or similar sports such as gymnastics. As a coach, the biggest question I had to ask myself was, “How do I get buy-in with a team that has never touched a weight before?”

I started doing some research into the psychology of getting “buy-in,” and the majority of the research that I came across had to do with business development, leadership, and other psychological techniques that coaches have used over the years. Among the podcasts, articles, and books that I read were three distinct common factors:

1. People won’t care about what you want them to do, until they know you care about them.

1. Take time to get to know any athlete, client, or person you work with. What are their hobbies? What do they study? What problems are going on currently with them that you can assist with? What kind of music do they like? Etc.

2. Set a standard, then slowly challenge the standard to be raised after success has been achieved.

1. An example I gave for our teams was being five minutes early to anything that we did as a team. If they weren’t five minutes early, then they were late. Once the team agrees to a rule similar to this, have them decide what everyone will do if someone is late to make up for it. Once the team decides what the selective course of action will be, hold your ground with the standard.
2. To progress this standard, add another standard in the session. An example of this would be once the standard has been met five times in a row to never have this “hot streak” end.

3. Once athletes show leadership qualities, give them a little more responsibility.

1. A great example that I used was quizzing the athletes on what we did for the warm-ups on total body days, lower body days, and upper body days. Once I took note of who was really doing well with these “verbal quizzes,” I let them lead the warm-ups as trust was established. Remember, the goal of training is not just to create better athletes, but better leaders and people who can take what they have learned in training and implement it in their respective careers going forward. No one is an athlete forever; eventually you will need to transition, whether you are a retired professional or a high school athlete who did not get an offer to play in college.

Training Protocols

Socrates once said, “No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.” To this day, I view cheer as no different than any other sports team that I had the pleasure of working with. So why treat them any differently?

Therefore, my setup was different than most universities that train men and women’s cheer. I had the men twice a week on Tuesday and Thursday for roughly 12-15 weeks, depending on schedules. One day was in the weight room and the other was outside in the parking lot/field due to conflicts with in-season training with other teams. I was allotted only an hour to work with them, from 5:45 a.m. to 6:45 a.m. each day. For the women, I had Mondays and Wednesdays for 45 minutes from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.

Now the tricky part for me was that they were always “in season” during the school year. During football season the team cheered every Saturday at the games, but during basketball the team cheered two to three times per week depending on how many home games we had that week. On top of that, they practiced from 6:00-9:00 p.m. three times a week.

The first thing I made sure to do was set up my macro cycle to reflect the schedule. I blocked off each season in separate blocks. In each block I had to account for the following variables:

1. Would they be coming off cheering at a practice/game the night before?

2. What intensity was practice done at?

• This included speed of movements, planes of motion, and overall fatigue coming out of practice.

• The majority of the motions were in the sagittal and frontal planes.

3. Where is the team currently at as far as mastery of progressions/regressions goes?

• Ex: squat

• Can they squat with body weight?
• Can they squat from a goblet loaded position?
• Can they squat with a bar on their back?

From there, I determined what testing protocols I wanted to use after examination of their movements on the first day I had with them. My example for the men’s team is below:

1. 3-5 Rep Max Barbell Squat – Used to predict lower body strength.
2. Max Rep Push-Up Test – All of my men coming in could barely perform 15 push-ups without fatiguing out. Some couldn’t even perform one push-up with proper form.  (I will do a full breakdown on how we progressed in these later in the article.)
3. Max Reps Pull-Up Test – Very similar to the push-up test above and used to increase upper back stability and strength. It also has a high correlation to grip strength, which will help increase overall strength.

Note: Overall, my team had little to no experience in training, so the tests were more strength-based to develop a base of training to prevent injuries down the road. Remember: If you do not have good positioning, you cannot build a pattern. Without a good movement pattern, we can’t build a base for strength/stability. Without strength and stability, power might be hindered.

To assist any younger coaches, I have broken down my progression of push-ups for our team. Most of the men’s cheer team originally struggled with doing three push-ups when I started back up with them in the fall of 2017 with a whole roster of new guys. I began their general physical preparatory phase using eccentric push-ups during a set period to develop the ability to absorb force. Eventually, I wanted to progress to a max repetition push-up test.

I had the men’s cheer team emphasize a max push-up test for two reasons:

1. Our setup, as far as time went, was very limited in the weight room. At some schools, cheer is not considered a varsity sport if they do not compete at the NCAA level. My cheer team didn’t compete; therefore, I could only have them in the weight room one day a week due to time conflicts with competitive sports teams. My other day was spent as a circuit day outside with little to no equipment with them, so I had to get creative. The second day is when they did most of the push-ups.
2. Due to the limited time in the weight room, I took time to develop the barbell squat/other squat variations with them, with a total body emphasis after the squat variations for the day. I used a lot of pulling/retraction exercises to take stress off all the pushing that would be done on the second day. On the second day I still did more pulling exercises than pushing, due to some of the players having upper cross syndrome.

   • Since I only had one day to develop one lift in the weight room, a max push-up test was better than a barbell or dumbbell bench test outside of putting emphasis on the squat. Most of the athletes benefited more than ever before due to the team’s overall low training experience.

Below I have attached the famous “Ben vs Tommy” chart from Triphasic Training by Cal Dietz and Ben Peterson.

This chart shows Ben (blue line) and Tommy (red line). The authors saw that the two subjects could produce the same amount of force (415 1RM bench press); however, they noticed that Ben had a higher power output than Tommy, at 50% of 1RM. Ben could eccentrically (lengthening phase of the muscle) absorb force at a higher velocity than Tommy, thus translating into better power production for his upper body pressing. This chart can be practically applied to my scenario with men’s cheer at the most basic level. Most athletes at the college level have no base to absorb force; therefore, they cannot properly reproduce it in a powerful manner once it comes time to perform their plays, routines, etc.

Here are some examples from the base of my training to the more advanced forms of push-up training I did for all my cheer guys.

• Eccentric Push-ups: Lower your body at a set time of 3-5 seconds per repetition; reset your body back up in the push-up position without pressing back up. You just reset your knees back down in a quadruped position and perform the next rep from the top of the normal push-up position. Do this for three sets of 8-10 reps at a 3- to 5-second lowering pace and reap the benefit on how to put your body under tension/absorb force.
  • Side note: If the athlete has trouble with range of motion or core stability, utilize this same variation on a bench to diminish the intensity of the push-up.

• Isometric Push-ups: This is the next progression I do with my athletes. Have the athlete get into a proper push-up position and drop to the floor with their chest hovering about 1-2 inches above the floor. Have them hold it for three sets of 30 seconds and progress from there if need be.
• Push-ups: Have the athlete descend into the isometric position with their chest touching the floor and produce force to get the body back up into starting push-up position with the arms fully extended.
• Weighted Push-ups: Add a 10- to 25-pound plate to the back of the athlete and have them repeat the push-up with good form. If their form deviates from what is expected, cut the set.
• Side note: If the athlete is capable of doing push-ups with weight, when going back to the eccentric and isometric stages of force production in the push-up progressions, have them do the same volume but add in that they have to push up out of the eccentric or isometric variation of the push-up.

Target these muscles in accessory work to help improve the quality and volume of push-ups for your athletes.

1. Upper Back (lats, lower traps, rhomboids, posterior delts)
   1. Bench-Supported T’s & Y’s: 3-4 x 10-20 reps
   2. Bench-Supported DB Rows: 3-4 x 6-12 reps
   3. Bent-Over Rear Delts: 3-4 x 10-20 reps

• Note: All these exercises benefited our team in the max pull-up test as well, due to these specific movements strengthening the upper back/postural musculature.

2. Triceps
   1. Cable Triceps Pushdowns: 3 x 8-12 reps
   2. JM Press: 2-4 x 8-12 reps
   3. EZ Bar Skull Crushers: 2-4 x 10-15 reps

Toward the end of my time at Miami, I was very proud of seeing how far my men’s cheer team had come in their ability to produce force in a push-up from starting with little to no base. I had young men go from not being able to perform three correctly to performing 30+ in a max rep push-up test at the end of last semester after just six weeks of working with them. My more advanced guys who have been around since last year got up to 60+ by the end of the semester.

The most important thing to watch out for at the end of the day while using these progressions is form. Make sure every rep is perfect. Remember, if reps are not performed properly, then your force couplings will not sync up correctly, and you will not get anywhere near as good of a training effect in the short term or long term.

I hope this article helps out young interns, graduate assistants, and coaches alike. The whole purpose for writing these articles is to share the wealth of knowledge that I have gained over my past years in the industry. Knowledge is the key to growth in any field, so I hope you could take something from this to help develop your athletes from the ground up!

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 think we could all agree that eating fruits and vegetables is crucial to health, wellness, disease prevention, and overall longevity. A healthy plate is a colorful plate. Insert #Eattherainbow, because if you look down and all you see is brown, your plate and diet are likely in need of a tune-up.

Think of your body as an engine: a “high performance racing engine” that requires maintenance and tune-ups to perform at its best. To break it down, carbohydrates are the fuel or gas for the tank, protein is the oil, and water, fluids, hydration, and the necessary healthy fats that protect and support our engine is the coolant. Our sleep supports the restoration of the engine, allowing the system to reset and prepare for the next day. If we become overheated, the engine will fail.

Building a strong engine starts with a strong performance diet. So, what about those micronutrients? What about those fruits and—dare I say it—vegetables? Fruits and vegetables help support a strong engine by decreasing the wear and tear when the rubber meets the road. Or should I say, following high-intensity training sessions. Most teens, adolescents, and even adults dislike vegetables. Before I lose you, keep in mind that fruits and vegetables have hydrating properties, contain several nutrients that act as catalysts in producing energy, and serve as cofactors for enzymes that break down the glucose needed for muscle contraction. Check out the vitamin and mineral functions to learn more.

Many people have sat in my office or in the audience at a presentation I have delivered and made comments such as:

• “You want me to eat broccoli? You mean ‘trees of doom,’ right? No thanks.”
• “My child won’t eat vegetables; I’ve tried everything.”
• “I have no desire to eat leafy greens. It’s like eating grass, ick.”
• “I have no idea how to cook or prepare something that is palatable.”
• “I personally don’t eat vegetables, so I guess my kids don’t either.”
• “According to the carnivore diet we don’t even need vegetables.”

So, here is the great news. Despite previous experiences that may not have been enjoyable, due to limited ability in the kitchen, unique taste preferences, and/or a phobia of vegetables, almost anyone can learn to consume the recommended number of servings of vegetables each day. What are the recommended servings of vegetables per day? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) MyPlate recommendations, children ages 4-8 should consume 1.5-2.5 cups per day, boys and girls ages 9-18 should eat roughly 2-4 cups, and adults should get 5 cups per day.

What Is a Serving?

• Raw leafy vegetables = 1 cup
• Fresh, frozen, or canned = 1/2 cup
• 100% vegetable juice = 1/2 cup
• Broccoli or cauliflower: 5-8 florets
• Bell pepper: 1/2 of a large
• Potato: 1/2 of a medium potato
• Squash: 1/2 of a small squash
• Carrots: 6 baby carrots or 1 whole medium carrot (6-7” long)

Yes, any vegetable juice that is 100% vegetable does count as a serving for the vegetable group, but it is better to consume veggies as a whole to experience their great digestive properties, like fiber. When you juice vegetables, you lose the fiber, which has many digestive benefits and supports satiety and fullness. Additionally, you experience a larger insulin response when the sugar is absorbed without the fiber to slow the pancreas response. Many people prefer consuming juice or juicing veggies because of the “health benefits,” but there is no concrete scientific evidence that juicing or drinking juice is healthier than consuming the vegetable or fruit itself. To learn more about vegetable juice intake’s effect on blood glucose and insulin levels, check out this study.

Let’s unpack the health and performance benefits of greater vegetable consumption and how to sneak—I mean incorporate—more vegetables into your young athlete’s diet. Similar to fruits, vegetables can contribute important carbohydrates for energy to support your health and athletic performance. Vegetables are a great source of vitamin C, beta carotene (the plant form of vitamin A), magnesium, potassium, and several other vitamins and minerals. Vegetables are loaded with healthy, protective carotenes that are precursors of vitamin A. Vegetables contain compounds that reduce free radicals and exercise-induced inflammation following tough training sessions. Vegetables even offer minerals and are high in water, which can help support hydration levels. They are crunchy, filling, healthy, performance-boosting, and when prepared to your liking, unbelievably delicious.

Below are a few veggies that pack a punch full of nutrients:

• Kale: Full of manganese, iron, vitamins C, A, and K, and phytonutrients.
• Beets: Rich in nitrates, which are converted to nitrites that promote greater blood flow, improving oxygen and nutrient delivery to tissues. They also contain folate and betaine, which reduce inflammation. According to a 2012 study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the intake of nitrate-dense whole beets improves running performance due to beets’ ability to increase vasodilation of blood vessels, allowing for greater blood flow to improve oxygen and nutrient delivery to exercising muscles.
• Broccoli: Contains sulforaphane, which helps rid the body of carcinogenic compounds and is high in nutrients.
• Spinach: High in vitamins K, A, C, and folic acid. Known to improve blood flow and restore energy, all of which are critical for athletic performance.
• Sweet potato: Good source of beta carotene, manganese, vitamins B6 and C, and fiber. Powerful antioxidants to reduce exercise-induced inflammation.

Many young athletes may not understand the antioxidant effects from consuming fruits and vegetables, but they will understand “eat fruits and vegetables to give you energy to move, train, and perform with a reduced risk of injury.” Now the ears in the room will perk up. You can then discuss the functions of antioxidants, or you can start by helping them improve their relationship with food and their desire to try new vegetables. Often, vegetables are not liked because they have not been prepared in a way that is appealing in taste, texture, appearance, or smell. The human palate changes as we grow, mature, and develop.

It is essential to work with your young athlete to incorporate fruits and vegetables to support their health, growth, and development. Research also indicates that vegetable dissatisfaction improves with exposure. It may take up to four tries to start liking something you previously did not like. Here are seven strategies to get more vegetables into your athlete’s diet:

1. Get them involved. Cooking and preparing meals for at home, on the go, and school requires a bit of planning, and if you include your child in the process, you drastically increase the chances that they will consume their lunch. Start with cutting bell peppers and carrots into sticks. Then move on to preparing sautéed, roasted, braised, or even steamed veggies. Involving them in the preparation process doesn’t just teach them how to cook; they are also more likely to eat something they helped prepare. Get creative and work with your kids to make pasta exciting! Try zucchini noodles in whole-grain pasta, add cauliflower to homemade pizza crust, or rice/mash cauliflower to mimic potatoes.
2. Make your own veggie chips! Prepare kale chips or sliced sweet potato, white potato, or even carrots to be baked in the oven and seasoned with salt, pepper, and a flavoring.
3. Amp up your crunch game. Serve vegetables like carrots, sugar snap peas, sliced bell peppers, and/or cucumbers with hummus, low-fat ranch dressing, or nut butter.
4. Create a baked potato bar! Use one large baked potato and load it up with broccoli and low-fat cheese, sliced turkey, and salsa. Not only is this a fun and creative way to mix things up, but it gives your teen athlete the freedom of choice. Offer up a variety of fixings to beef up the potato.
5. Veggies at breakfast. Egg veggie muffins are a great way to ensure breakfast is consumed by having something for on-the-go that is full of protein, nutrients, and plenty of fiber from the veggies you can barely taste. Create a large veggie-egg scramble in a bowl, portion it into muffin tins, and bake.
6. Skewer it and combine it with a dip. There is something magical about a skewer that causes it to increase the aesthetic of ordinary foods. Teens love to interact with their food, and research shows that teens eat more veggies when they come with a dip. Dips can also serve as a great way to enhance the nutrient composition of the meal or snack. Create a spicy hummus dip with precooked tomatoes, red and green bell peppers, cheese, onions, steak, and chicken. Consider offering a low-fat ranch dip or tomato-based BBQ sauce with it.
7. Blended. Use a vegetable that is not bitter in taste. Many leafy greens, like spinach and kale, blend quite well with blueberries, cow’s milk, yogurt, chia, and a high-quality whey protein powder for a power meal. Try other veggies like cucumbers, beets, canned pumpkin, squash, carrot, and sweet potato. Frozen zucchini, with its creamy texture and high nutrient profile, is also a great smoothie addition. Zucchini offers anti-inflammatory properties, promotes digestion, and is rich in potassium, folate, vitamin B6, and riboflavin.

   1. You can cut down on food waste by chopping up and freezing not only veggies but fruits and placing them in freezer bags for smoothies.
   2. Another great way to save time in the morning is to prep smoothies in gallon freezer bags on Sunday to have them ready to go for the week. This helps athletes start the day off with a high-quality breakfast and get those veggies into their diet.

The more involved an athlete is in their sport, the more they must make the connection between eating for health and athletic performance. Training is very taxing on the nervous system. Young athletes who fail to prioritize a healthy eating routine could be sidelined with injury or illness.

Nutrition should support health, wellness, and optimal performance, with injury prevention a top priority. Good nutrition provides the building blocks to support growth, development, and maturation, but great nutrition is essential for attaining maximal athletic performance. Even the most skilled athletes rely upon a continuous supply of nutrients to maintain strength and stamina and to recover properly and fully between training sessions and competition. A driver won’t be confident in making a long trip if they’ve been using cheap gas and oil and putting inadequate fluids into the engine.

Young athletes who feel confident and energized, and who have maintained their engines leading into game day, will be most successful. The last thing you want is a warning light to come on and a crash to happen in your engine/body. Keep the body full, hydrated, and tuned up to prevent fatigue, weight loss, muscle soreness, injury, loss of mental focus, and decline in performance. Regardless of skill level, hard work, and strength and conditioning program, there is no way to offset poor nutritional choices.

Nutrition can make a good athlete great or a great athlete good. Athletes should always view nutrition as their secret weapon to outcompeting their competition.

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

The path to achieving sporting excellence requires more than talent alone. For many athletes, progress through the years of this journey is often nonlinear and subject to a number of unexpected opportunities, bumps in the road, and setbacks. It takes incredible passion, determination, confidence, and resilience to travel this “rocky road to success.”

In my last article for SimpliFaster, I described the realities of training a young female short track speed skater who was also a full-time med school student, and the programming strategies we used while she was completing various internships. Here, I would like to share the story of another full-time med school student—Maïté Bouchard—whose training I have been supporting for almost three years now. Not only does Maïté have to maintain academic excellence with classwork, exams, and internships, she also competes in one of the fiercest track & field events in Canadian Athletics: the 800m.

Maïté’s coach is responsible for putting together her annual training plan and programming the different running-specific sessions. She works with him three times a week on the track and completes the remaining weekly running sessions on her own. My responsibility, as a member of Maïté’s Integrated Support Team (or IST), is to oversee her physical preparation. On a weekly basis, we usually meet for 1-2 training sessions in the weight room, depending on the time of the year. Communication with Maïté’s coach at the start of each training cycle is important so that I can adjust our training objectives to ensure that both training and running objectives remain in sync.

I will provide a detailed look at some of the programming strategies that we have used until recently during her physical preparation while she concurrently trains with her coach on the track, completes different internships, and travels the world to participate in meets. This way, it is possible to share some aspects of a coach’s decision-making process and how it aligns with current practices.

Needs Analysis of the Event and Targeting an Approach

The process of performance training starts with a thorough understanding of the sport and athlete that you’ll be working with. In 2018, at the beginning of this new collaboration, I was still mainly involved with Canadian football players and knew little about track and field and the 800m. It was therefore crucial for me to get as much information as I could about Maïté’s event, her training and competition background, and her current physical competence.

Middle-distance running events such as the 800m are complex and require a varying blend of (1) aerobic, (2) anaerobic, and (3) neuromuscular performance to perform at a high level.¹ Speed is without a doubt an important performance factor, but relative contribution of the aerobic system is estimated to be around 55-65% aerobic². From an athletic development perspective, our focus was to prepare the different structures (muscles, tendons, bones) for the demands imposed on the body while letting her coach take care of the sport-specific sessions. By examining the research on sprinting—and in line with the suggestion that neuromuscular and mechanical qualities related to maximal sprinting speed and anaerobic speed reserve can enhance performance in middle-distance events¹—I identified three main elements to our approach:

1. Force application and orientation into the ground
2. Posture
3. Skill acquisition and refinement

There are obviously many more pieces to the performance puzzle, but I like to keep things simple and identify key principles around which I can design a flexible framework. When combined with a physical competency assessment (flexibility, single-leg squat, forward lunge and return, double-single leg landing), this brief task analysis served as our foundation for choosing the different exercises and methods that would constitute the training program.

Consideration of prior training experience and injuries was also important. We eliminated exercises that would cause unnecessary delayed onset muscle soreness (e.g., barbell reverse lunges supersetted with lying leg curls), as those would prevent her from completing high-quality sessions on the track. We also eliminated exercises that put high loads on the lumbar spine (straight-bar deadlift, for example). After all, the most specific training sessions were to be done on the track, and athletic development would act as support for her performance.

These choices were necessary to facilitate the transition from one training philosophy to another. At first, exercises using mostly her body weight and dumbbells such as squats, lunges, step-ups, and various pushing and pulling exercises were included 1-2 sessions per week to focus on developing general strength. Simple plyometrics such as box jumps were progressed over time and adjusted according to her running volumes and periodization of training. Olympic weightlifting variations such as jump shrugs and high pulls were performed using dumbbells. The why behind including Olympic weightlifting movements was:

1. To apply force into the ground by developing lower body muscular power by overloading the triple extension movement.
2. To work on the optimal, sequential recruitment (coordination) and timing of the ankle, knee, hip, and shoulder.

In addition, these movements are time-efficient and provide variety. The other parameters, such as load, number of reps, rest intervals, and order of the exercises (single exercise, superset, circuit, etc.) were manipulated to fit the objectives of the session. Nothing fancy—a simple progression over time that allowed us to establish a solid training foundation and for Maïté to perform her sessions on the track without any muscle soreness. Our goal was also to help her improve on her 2017 result of 2:03.91 at the Abidjan Francophone Games and reach the standard to qualify for the Olympic Games.

This simplicity was necessary, especially with the different internships that were part of her predoctoral training. At the Université de Sherbrooke, where Maïté is enrolled, medical school students have to complete 2.5 years of predoctoral training divided into three phases. It was important for us to account for the demands and schedules of these internships, and how they can impact training. For example, in April 2018, during the second phase of predoctoral training, she had to complete two full weeks of medical training in Victoriaville, which is a 75- to 90-minute drive from Sherbrooke. That distance prevented her from driving back to Sherbrooke on a daily basis, except for two weekly sessions with her coach on the track.

From a resistance training standpoint, during such times, we often came back to identifying the exercises that provided us with the most bang for our buck, and that Maïté felt comfortable doing without any supervision. In this case, we would choose some sort of plyometric exercise, an Olympic weightlifting derivative, one or two lower body exercises (either double-leg or single-leg), an upper-body superset, and a core stability exercise.

After this month (April 2018) came a number of competitions in both America and Europe. At that time, most training sessions were performed on the track with her coach and were specific to her event. In the gym, the first weekly session again mostly focused on enhancing strength and power qualities by progressing the demands of plyometrics exercise and by transitioning from double-leg lower body exercise, such as hexagonal bar deadlift, to single-leg movements like split squat and step-ups. The second session mostly consisted of circuit training focusing on coordination and postural strength.

At the end of her summer 2018 outdoor competition season, she had achieved a personal best of 2:01.95 in Belgium. She concluded her season with confidence, and the team felt that we all were on the right track for the next season. But we know that life does not always go according to plan…

Learning to Adapt: School Demands and Performance Setbacks

Fast forward a few months—we found ourselves in winter 2019 preparing for the Pan Am Games. Training had gone well over the fall, which served as a general preparation phase with higher running volumes and more general work in the weight room. We certainly did not expect that January and February 2019 would be heralds of the months to come.

From an academic standpoint, Maïté was about to start her clerkship (or rotation) in different departments at the hospital. Her first rotation, at the emergency, included day and evening shifts and was pretty intense; her second rotation in radio-oncology, a month later, was a bit more relaxed. This stretch also followed the holidays, during which quality training is always a challenge.

Due to her rotations and two indoor competitions early in January, we only had two training sessions in the gym before her first competition (in Boston). Nonetheless, she was able to offer a solid race and a first-place finish at 2:04.64. The following week she flew to France to participate in another meet, but her time of 2:08.70 was a huge disappointment. Encouragingly, she bounced back with a solid race at the end of February with a 2:03.59, breaking the indoor 800m record for Quebec.

All in all, during those two months she completed a total of six resistance training sessions in addition to her track sessions with her coach, which were given priority. This would be a lesson for us in the future, as we came to realize that maintaining training frequency was very beneficial and allowed her to have a mental break from work and studying and continue with a very organized schedule. It was also during that period that we came to find a time-efficient structure to the training session in the gym. Within 60 minutes, we came up with the following exercise order for the first resistance training session of the week:

1. Olympic weightlifting variation (jump shrugs, power clean from the hang)
2. Single-leg lower body exercise (step-up variations)
3. Foundational strength (e.g., Gambetta leg circuit)
4. Upper body pushing-pulling superset (e.g., chin-ups and overhead pressing)
5. Core stability

While the first session focused on force production, the second session focused on coordination and postural strength. At this time, we also started experimenting with different variations of the hip lock and other coordinative strength exercises from Frans Bosch³.

In March, Maïté was away in Quebec City for another rotation in gastroenterology—she described that period as very intense, with 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. shifts and a drive through traffic to get to Laval University to have access to the indoor track and weight room. Her training was initially divided into two resistance training sessions:

1. Lower intensity, which she could complete the day after a high-quality session on the track.
2. A second session of higher intensity in the gym after a lower intensity day.

Instead of going back to simpler exercises and methods, we decided to stick with our recent training routine. We had worked on perfecting her technique on the Olympic lifts for a few months by first using dumbbell high pulls and snatches and gradually introducing the barbell. This emphasis on teaching the why, perfecting technique, and progression allowed her to feel competent and confident in using the lifts by herself without supervision. Even though the initial plan seemed manageable, we came to a decision that it would be better for her to perform only one resistance training session considering her academic workload. Depending on how she felt, she had the option of completing one of the two sessions.

The next two months (April and May 2019), Maïté’s schedule included a number of competitions in California. Again, the emphasis at this time was on her specific running workout, with resistance training sessions supporting her preparation for those meets. Given the uncertainty of having access to the right equipment, resistance training sessions were designed to include some plyometrics, some dumbbell work, and postural strength exercises. During these congested competition schedules, DB complexes and variations of the Gambetta leg circuit⁴ were valuable tools. Then, at the end of these two months, we took advantage of 14 days without competition to lift some heavier loads using complex training, which alternated biomechanically similar high-load exercises with lighter-load exercises.

The 2019 Pan Am Games were held in Peru—with a reignited fire, Maïté ran her semifinal race according to the plan designed by her coach. With 150 meters left, she was in a good position to attack the runners ahead of her when she got tripped from behind and fell hard on the track. This 2019 outdoor season was obviously disappointing at many levels, but we were hopeful she would bounce back.

On the Rise

Interestingly, looking back at the design of the training sessions performed in preparation and during the 2020 indoor season, there were no major differences compared to 2019. The first session of the week still focused on improving the muscular qualities associated with sprinting, while the second session focused more on the coordinative and postural aspects of performance. At times we would alternate the performance of those sessions during the week based on how she felt on the track. Regular subjective feedback about her energy, soreness, and overall mood was essential to adjust training considering the absence of more objective feedback that you can find in the sport science literature.

She had resumed her monthly rotations at the end of August 2019 (planned rotations in internal medicine, cardiology, and pediatrics), but you could tell that there was something different at this moment in her preparation. Our most objective feedback were her times on the track, and we could see that we were heading in the right direction. Maïté and I started to have discussions prior to our weekly meetings about how she felt on the track during certain training sessions and what we could do in the weight room to enhance those sensations. Some of the content of the training sessions was decided at the start of each one, depending on whether she felt she needed strength work or more “pop” when sprinting on the track.

It was also at that time that we jointly decided to fully commit to using step-ups as her main lower-body strength building exercise. Essentially, the start of an 800-meter race is not as important for her as it might be if she were competing over shorter distances, and she felt that the vertical force application and posture associated with the step-up might provide a better potential for transfer later during the race. Maïté was thus more involved in the decision-making surrounding her training, and I believe this proved beneficial in adjusting to her reality as a med school student-athlete.

We kept refining her technique in the power clean with the help of my colleague, Tracy Fober, by correcting her starting position and initiating the movement from mid-thigh following a short pause, and by performing 1-3 reps using multiple sets. This exercise challenged her to get better, and she was motived to improve. In addition, we tried split snatches using dumbbells to get that aggressive vertical hip extension during the second pull. We also committed to including variations of the hip lock and step-ups on day 2 to train reflexive co-contractions around the hip, coordination, and ankle stiffness.

Finally, we also experimented with a “priming” session 1-2 days prior to some of the competitions in January and February 2020. Resistance priming sessions are typically planned within 48 hours before a competition to enhance neuromuscular performance, and they can include a variety of resistance exercises ranging from 30-95% 1RM.⁵ In our case, we combined the following exercises for 2-3 sets and called it a day.

1. 1-arm DB split snatch x 3 reps per side
2. Reactive step-down to foot onto box x 5 reps per side
3. Single-leg squat x 5 reps per side or a submaximal sprint over 10 meters x 1 rep

Maïté’s results during the 2020 indoor season were above expectations. On three occasions, she improved her Quebec record with times of 2:02.69, 2:01.33, and 2:00.93. All this while resuming her rotations in family medicine. Unfortunately, COVID-19 put an abrupt stop to her streak.

Reflection and Key Takeaways

For me, this article is an excellent way to take a step back from this journey with Maïté and reflect, review, and question what we did and how to keep improving. As I conclude, I’d like to share some take-home points for working with student-athletes who are performing at an extremely competitive level while also balancing work and/or study demands that are stressful and time-consuming:

• Understand that specific sessions on the track and other running activities are priorities, and that physical preparation prepares the body or infrastructure for the demands of the sport.
• Identify key exercises and methods that have a positive transfer or effect on the track, pitch, or court. Instead of frequently changing the exercises, stick with those key exercises, refine technique, and manipulate the complexity of the exercises instead.
• Design your training session in a way that is time-efficient. We have a similar warm-up routine at the start of every training session that leads into a maximum of 5-6 exercises that are chosen depending on the theme of the session (strength or coordination).
• Maintain training frequency if possible, even during exam periods or during rotations. Simply adjust the intensity and total volume of the resistance training session accordingly. These training sessions are already built into their weekly schedules.
• Involve the athlete in the decision-making process, especially with mature athletes. They can provide you with valuable information about what works best for them and what does not.

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. Sandford, G.N. and Stellingwerff, T. “‘Question Your Categories’: The Misunderstood Complexity of Middle-Distance Running Profiles With Implications for Research Methods and Application.” Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2019;1:1–8.

2. Gastin, P.B. “Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise.” Sports Medicine. 2001;31(10):725–741.

3. Bosch, F. Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach. 2015. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 2010 Uitgevers.

4. Gambetta, V. Athletic Development: The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning. 2007. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.

5. Harrison, P.W. James, L.P., McGuigan, M.R., Jenkins, D.G., and Kelly, V.G. “Resistance Priming to Enhance Neuromuscular Performance in Sport: Evidence, Potential Mechanisms and Directions for Future Research. Sports Medicine. 2019;49(10):1499–1514.

Let me say this plainly: Every high school principal and athletic director should want a centralized, school-wide strength and conditioning program in their building. My confidence in this statement comes from my experience seeing the educational and strength and conditioning landscapes from a variety of angles. The marriage of these two worlds—scholastic education and strength and conditioning, particularly in high schools—is a match made in heaven for those willing to consider it. This partnership, if handled appropriately, is one of the most powerful I have encountered in my own journey between both worlds.

My Personal Journey

Entering college in 1998, I was simply looking to become a collegiate strength and conditioning coach. But as providence would have it, my career experiences provided a much more comprehensive perspective—one that has been shaped over a 20-year period during which I have walked in the shoes of student, coach, teacher, school principal—and I am now back to the role of teacher/coach. Each experience has fostered my belief in this powerful partnership.

Student

“A vigorous body helps create a vigorous mind.” –Thomas Jefferson

Whether it was becoming aware of Soviet sports science by growing up down the street from Louie Simmons’ Westside Barbell in Columbus, Ohio; studying under an Olympic-level physiologist as an Exercise Science student at the University of Mount Union; or playing under the winningest coach in college football history—who also happened to have a background in the science of behavioral psychology—my appreciation for a science-based approach to integrating the training of the body and mind was birthed by these foundational experiences.

Coach

“Success is like anything worthwhile. It has a price. You have to pay the price to win and you have to pay the price to get to the point where success is possible. Most important, you must pay the price to stay there.” –Vince Lombardi

As a coach, I have been blessed with a wide variety of experiences: volunteer assistant at the college level; graduate assistant coach at the college level; assistant at the high school level; head coach at the high school level; head coach at the college level; and private sector performance coach. I’ve been a part of losing teams, and I’ve been a part of national championship teams. I’ve experienced coaching at all three levels of the NCAA, in a high school setting with thousands of students, and in high schools with fewer than 200 students. Through a broad net of experiences like this, you learn a lot about what helps performance and what hurts performance. You absorb transferrable principles, grow to understand the cost of excellence, and learn the art of differentiating how these truths apply to the needs within the community you are serving.

Teacher

“Whenever you shepherd, know well the condition of your flock, and set your heart upon your herds.” –Proverbs 27:23

As a schoolteacher, I have worked with snot-nosed sixth graders, maturing 12th graders, and everything in between. I have walked the hallways of large public schools and very small private Christian schools. I have taught more than one subject, had my own classroom, traveled between classrooms, and participated in many faculty seminars.

Being on the front lines with students exposes you to their various needs and the struggles that contemporary young people face in their day-to-day lives. These experiences have given me a deep-seated passion for the overall health and well-being of young people. Whether it is physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, or social, we as teachers tend to grow increasingly sensitive to the tapestry of factors that impact the success of students in our classrooms.

Principal

“Guide the decision-making process but give your men the satisfaction of participating in the process. Consensus can prevent problems.” –Larry Kehres

In my first year as a high school principal, I spent a lot of time repenting of the poor attitudes that I sometimes held toward administrators when I was a classroom teacher. When you learn how deeply “you don’t know what you don’t know,” it has a profound effect on your perspective.

Being a school administrator in the 21st century is a massive job with many competing priorities. For most principals I know, the work of building a genuine culture of mission, unity, and collaboration throughout the school community is one of the most elusive yet critical tasks. And if you want something that will be a potent disruption to this culture-building and all of your exciting academic efforts, insert an athletic department riddled with conflict, failure, injuries, and in-fighting. Without a specific strategy to foster collaboration and prevent these problems, athletics can quickly turn into a hornet’s nest that will damage the fabric of your overall school culture.

What Every Principal Wants

My experience from these various vantage points, including my own time spent as a principal, leads me to believe that administrators everywhere want the same basic good for their school communities. There is a shared set of overarching objectives that I would summarize into these four core areas:

• • Health and well-being of students
  • Engaged learners
  • Unity and teamwork among faculty and staff
  • Growth and success for students

What Every Principal Needs

I believe all administrators would agree with this statement: A positive, dynamic school culture does not happen by accident. It takes intentional planning, communication, and action. Those administrators who are passionate about cultivating culture throughout the whole school are always searching for tools, methods, and strategies that have the most “bang for the buck”—strategies that are efficient and that will deliver great results without sabotaging their already scattered time and energy.

If you are a principal or athletic director reading this article, and I have your attention, please allow me to share a tool that I would liken to a potent fertilizer in the hands of a gardener. It’s a single resource that when applied to your overall scholastic program can simultaneously: improve the overall health and well-being of the majority of your students; produce more engaged learners; unify and build collaboration among your most ego-susceptible staff members (coaches); and be an engine of measurable growth and success for a large cross-section of your student body.

This potent tool is a school-wide strength and conditioning program, administered by a qualified strength and conditioning professional, unified throughout your physical education and athletic programs.

4 Reasons to Consider S&C

If you are a principal or AD, here are four reasons you should integrate this powerful tool to help meet the overarching goals and objectives for your school:

1. Improve the Health and Well-Being of Students

It has been widely published that schools are currently working with the most anxious generation on record. Whether it is anxiety related to their home life, social life, or school performance, a large cross-section of the students we work with struggle with depression, anxiety, and other mental health concerns.

Addressing these needs certainly calls for a multifaceted approach, but contemporary research has increasingly validated the role of one very powerful tool in this fight: intense exercise. Studies have shown direct correlations between intense exercise (resistance training, sprinting, etc.) and lower levels of anxiety and depression among adolescents. A 2017 study that surveyed thousands of adolescents showed that “The group that had the highest level of activity had the highest levels of well-being and the lowest levels of depression and anxiety.” A 2019 study published in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews cited many possible ways that “Physical activity can treat and prevent depressive symptoms,” concluding that “exercise promotes self-esteem, social support, and self-efficacy.” Resistance training, in particular, is the form of exercise that has yielded some of the most positive findings in keeping anxiety at bay.

If treating and preventing depressive symptoms in a natural way is not enough to convince you that the majority of your student body needs to resistance train in an organized way, maybe saving parents trips to the ER, PT, and/or ortho and preventing lost classroom time due to appointments will push you over the edge. Whether because of the benefits that a simple exercise like barbell squat can have in preventing injuries or the findings of a comprehensive review of research from 1982-2016 showing how regular participation in resistance training by youth athletes can decrease injury rates by up to 68%, the physical well-being of your students will be better off with resistance training than without it.

As Joe Eisenmann, Ph.D., one of America’s top experts in youth growth and development, puts it, “A compelling body of scientific evidence supports participation in appropriately designed youth resistance training programs that are supervised and instructed by qualified individuals. –Sincerely, The position statements of major sports medicine organizations.”

2. Engage Learners

Rewind hundreds of years and you will find examples of human beings touting the connection between a strong mind and a strong body. This discovery through general revelation, observation, and experience has been irrevocably confirmed through modern scientific research.

The more often and more intensely a person exercises, the better the brain functions. For our students, we’re learning that activities like regular strength training and sprinting contribute to measurable increases in learning and academic performance.

Besides producing healthier brains that are more prepared to learn, there is another benefit that a sound, science-based strength and conditioning program provides for students. A truly instructional strength and conditioning environment inherently provides training and scaffolding for the development of a growth mindset.

As students are assessed, engaged in training, motivated to improve, and reassessed to show progress in a strength and conditioning program, they are repeatedly being taught that their physical abilities and mental fortitude are qualities that can be developed. These types of progress and resilience are classic components of a growth mindset. I have found that this type of training, in the low-stakes environment of a strength and conditioning program, provides an excellent framework that students can build upon in their other personal, social, and academic challenges.

3. Establish Unity and Teamwork Among Faculty and Staff

Unity and collaboration among adults in schools can often be elusive. One reason is that in the world of education and coaching, philosophical beliefs and the resulting passions can be very tribal. Adherence to particular strains of strategy, while demonizing others, is far too common in educational and coaching workshops, clinics, social media accounts, and materials. These puritanical attitudes and reductive practices typically cause more division than unity and, in my opinion, tend to stall progress on behalf of kids.

As a principal who at the time was a “former” coach, I always found it helpful to take a more humble, holistic, integrated approach when trying to unify my staff. Inspiration for this approach came from the wise words of 17th-century theologian Rupertus Meldenius, who once said, “In essentials Unity, in non-essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.” Rather than picking a popular tribe to identify with and doing a proverbial cannonball into the pool of the latest fads in research and pricey workshops, I led my team in selecting some time-tested, research-based, essential fundamentals that we all could agree on. From there, we sharply focused our efforts on resourcing those areas, no matter what philosophy we borrowed from to get things done. We would be firm in purpose, but flexible in implementation.

I have found the same approach helpful with coaches, as we tend to have the most tribal tendencies of them all. Are you an “Olympic” person or a “powerlifting” person? Is “speed” the right word or is it “conditioning”? Do you squat “below parallel” or not squat at all? Do you run a “spread” offense or a “Wing-T”? Do you like “pitch counts” or do you hate them? Do “ladders” suck or are they helpful? Do you believe in “linear” periodization or “conjugated” periodization? Does lifting “hurt your shot” or “help your shot”?

Stand tall, puff your chest out, identify yourself, and pick your molehill to stand on. It can turn into quite a circus within the coaching community. The pull toward ego can be very strong. So, what is a high school AD or principal to do if they want to bring unity to this headstrong community that struggles with “sharing” athletes? Enter the power of a centralized strength and conditioning program.

Some keys to this approach that I have found very helpful include: hiring a qualified strength and conditioning professional (preferably with formal exercise science training)—not just picking a sports coach who is the most “swole” or the most passionate about training; hiring a professional who can unify around core/transferrable principles of athletic development—not a tribal apologist who subscribes to one particular “type” of training; and then providing all the admin muscle you can muster to resource, support, and guide this process toward success.

I will share more practical tips with administrators at the conclusion of the article, but the way we currently apply this at Chicago Christian High School is that we build our central program around five core areas that our coaches can all agree on. These may be different for your school, but for us these are: spiritual/leadership development, joint stability, flexibility, mobility, and strength. None of our coaches want their athletes to get worse in these areas. The consensus is that improvement in these areas will help any of our athletes across the spectrum of all sports. There may be disagreement in how exactly to accomplish these improvements, but that is where the next layer of our integrated approach comes in.

From these core agreements, we then filter our program through a shared workout* format that includes:

Strength Workouts

Spiritual/Character session + Dynamic warm-up + Ground-based barbell work + Sport-specific auxiliary work

Mobility Workouts

Spiritual/Character session + Dynamic warm-up + Linear speed work + Multidirectional COD work + Stretch reflex/plyometric work

*Note that this outline represents workouts for off-season athletes. Our sports coaches have autonomy over in-season training.

The key unifier for us is that once this outline is set, we allow (and encourage) our individual sport coaches to participate in exercise selection in a large way. Whether it be spiritual development content, sports-specific auxiliary exercises, or mobility workout exercises, our goal is for sports coaches to take ownership over choices for their sports prep, but filter it through the strength and conditioning professional and the shared science-based format for the workouts.

There is a lot more I could share about our specific fleshing out of these ideas, but that is not the goal of this article. I am sharing a small snapshot of our experience to illustrate how we use a centralized strength and conditioning plan as a tool to cultivate unity and collaboration among our various coaching staffs, rather than division and compartmentalized workout sessions. This is especially important for us, as two-thirds of our athletes are multi-sport athletes. Our system is by no means perfect, but we have very little in-fighting among coaches, our parents love the program, and our kids continue to improve across the spectrum of our defined essentials in measurable ways.

All of my fellow administrators out there know that what I just described in the previous sentence does not happen by accident. I think they would also agree that this type of unity in an athletic department is school culture gold. I truly believe that a well-thought-out, school-wide strength and conditioning plan has the power to break up hard ground and help assist any school with striking similar gold.

4. Nurture Growth and Success in Students

No educator worth their salt wants to hurt their students’ chances at success. Effective educators are always looking for and willing to implement strategies that will help increase student performance.

I have already mentioned some examples of how learning and academic performance are helped by having your students participate regularly in a science-based strength and conditioning environment. But the growth and success benefits do not stop there.

Another inherent performance-enhancing quality of a school-wide strength and conditioning program is how it can saturate the entire student body with the research-backed benefits of setting and meeting measurable goals. The motivational and performance-enhancing benefits of measurement and informational feedback for students is something that is well documented in behavioral psychology research and a tool that many successful coaches have utilized. A sound strength and conditioning program has this power built in. Whether it be weights that are calculated, sprints that are timed, jumps that are measured, or bar data analyzed, students can experience a daily environment rich in measurement, goal setting, and timely feedback. Helping students grasp these goal-setting skills in the strength and conditioning classroom can give students a framework for how to apply them in their academic pursuits and other areas of interest.

Lastly, I don’t believe there is a principal or athletic director who wants their sports teams to stink. Athletic success can have a magical way of boosting overall school morale, motivating young people, and energizing a community toward excellence. If you want one particular step that you can take to help increase this type of success throughout the entire athletic department (all sports, male and female), hire a qualified professional and unify how your athletes lift, sprint, jump, condition, and recover (i.e., a centralized strength and conditioning program). For the sake of brevity, I want to purposefully give more of an anecdotal challenge to help provide some credibility to this claim.

If you are an athletic director or principal, I challenge you to pick 4-5 athletic programs in your state that have repeated state-level success in most of their sports (male and female, power sports and endurance sports, etc.). Don’t think about individual sports (best track program, best football program, best basketball program, etc.), but focus on collective, repeated success as a whole athletic department year in and year out at the state level. We all know those schools, and we also know that they are very rare.

Make your list, call those schools, and ask their athletic director about how they handle strength and conditioning at their school. Take notes, ask probing questions, and seek examples. When you get off of the phone call, ask yourself whether there is an organized strength and conditioning program present in their school that most of their kids and sports teams participate in (yes or no). After you finish all of your phone calls, tally the yes and the no answers. Then decide for yourself about the validity of this claim. 

4 Steps to Take

If you are an administrator looking to begin the process of taking your school toward a more unified, centralized strength and conditioning plan, a great starting point is to get acquainted with the website of the National High School Strength Coaches Association (NHSSCA). There you can find great resources and get connected to the right type of people within your state as you begin this journey. I would also like to share with you four final pieces of advice:

1. Make room in the budget – I have been in my fair share of budget committee meetings and have also been inundated with the numerous requests and competing priorities that are our lives—I feel you! If you are serious about doing this right, you will have to make room in the budget. Go to bat, advocate, be a trailblazer, have tough skin, make phone calls, explain the vision, and explain it again. Do whatever it takes to make sure that when you hire a qualified professional (remember—don’t take shortcuts and hand this off to the coach who likes lifting weights the most), you pay them as well as you can, and they have a line item in the annual budget for equipment, curriculum materials, etc.

2. Have the tough conversations – The administration should do the heavy lifting and lead the charge on integrating this plan into PE curriculums and athletic programs. Throw this lead block, pave the way, and take care of the politics on behalf of the coach. This will go a long way in making sure this venture is successful.

One specific recommendation on this front is to lay out a clear vision of what this will look like to your coaches and PE teachers, why you are doing it, what you expect of them, and how you will hold them accountable. I recommend building participation into yearly coaching evaluations. Communicate well, hear questions, motivate your team, and create buy-in. Your teachers and coaches are good people who deserve great communication, but you also need to set up your strength and conditioning coach for success. Put this load on your shoulders—you can do it.

3. Overdo the cheerleading, promoting, and public support – Publicly validate your strength and conditioning coach and successes within the program every chance that you get. Parent meetings, coaches’ meetings, school assemblies, halftimes, banquets, social media, etc. Athletes, coaches, teachers, and parents need to know that the administration is fully behind this program. This is one of the key factors to successful implementation.

4. Watch school spirit, unity, academic performance, and athletic performance grow!

If I had to choose two exercises to assess the overall athleticism of an athlete, I would look no further than observing a 10-meter fly and 30 meters of double arm bounding for distance. The 10-meter fly paints a wonderful picture of acceleration and maximum velocity capabilities, but it is not a catch-all.

I have had the privilege of coaching some amazing athletes during my time as the jumps coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School. In four years, we have had four different athletes long jump over 23 feet, and another who was just under. The interesting part of this? NONE of the five were part of our 4×100 meter relays.

A huge part of this is that we have never been faster in our school’s history. Over the past three years, the relay has consisted of three or four athletes who were sub-11 seconds in the 100-meter dash. The five long jumpers mentioned were all fast (1.00-1.06 in the 10-meter fly), but none of them ever broke 1.0 like our 4×100-meter athletes. To go along with their excellent, but not elite, top-end speed, they had the ability to recycle free energy extremely well (elasticity). This was immediately apparent when watching them bound.

The goal of this article is to provide options for utilizing bounding within a program. While the focus will be through the eyes of a track and field jumps/sprints coach, much can be applied within the field/court sport sector.

Narrowing the Scope

To start, I must first discuss term definition and training age. In this article, bounding refers to a stride variation where the R-L pattern emphasizes air time (vertical or horizontal), often in a continuous rhythm.¹ I address this because various “bound complexes” (often a combination of bounding and hopping) exist, but here I will only address patterns where the ground contacts are made by alternating foot contact. Also, while I will present many variations that are appropriate for athletes of any age, others are not.

Before moving into advanced variations, it is essential that an athlete have a broad plyometric background. Responsible coaches milk every last drop out of a stimulus before progressing because they know it is the best way for an athlete to maximize what they have been given in the future. As a high school coach, my hand has definitely been forced because of what an athlete has done outside of our program. In this situation, there is not much you can do besides adapt and make the needed exceptions so the athlete can still find success.

In an ideal world, very few athletes should make it through the full spectrum of our training progressions. At the high school level, in particular, athletes should leave us with stimuli still on the table.

Bounding Constraints

Even with narrowing the focus of an alternating contact pattern, there are still many constraints to consider when utilizing bounding in training. These, of course, are based on the desired result.

Foot Contact

The foot can be cued to contact rolling from heel to toe (rocking chair action), flat, everted, or inverted. The first two would be more focused for athletes who jump often, the last two for those whose focus is sprinting.

Intensity

When bounding is mentioned, most people assume that the goal is maximum distance, speed, or height. This simply does not have to be the case. One common circuit for my athletes is to undergo the “phases of life bounding circuit,” which consists of baby, toddler, child, teenager, young man, and athletic prime bounds. We stop there because I do not need to see any old man bounds.

I’ve found using these terms is more effective than saying “do the first rep at 80% and the next at 90%.” I see a difference in reps using the “phases of life” terms that I do not see when I use percentages.

• • Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, I had begun to implement going through all the “phases of life” in one repetition. This was inspired by having the MuscleLab Contact Grid and utilizing the Scandinavian Rebound Jump Test.

Arm Action

Single arm, double arm, no arms, arms out, arms up, arms forward, one arm. Single arm is common for speed bounding, double arm for power bounding. No arms causes the athlete to focus on the type of ground contact being addressed. Arms up and arms out places a greater demand on the lateral chain. Arms forward changes the location of the center of mass. One arm has the athlete only swinging one arm, which is a significant challenge to balance and maintaining rhythm.

Recovery Patterns

Once foot-loose occurs, heel recovery patterns can be low (most common) or higher. The latter correlates more to maximum velocity sprinting.²

Focus

Height, distance, speed, minimize ground contact time, and variable. The first four are self-explanatory. Variable is often paired with distance through setting up a bounding course with small cones or mini-hurdles. The distance between objects would be variable, which challenges an athlete’s coordination through assessing the effort needed to land in the desired location.

Type

Sagittal, frontal, transverse, combination, scissor, pencil. Sagittal is standard linear bounding. Frontal examples are skater bounds, diagonal bounds, or Polish bleacher bounds. Transverse would have the athlete bound over a curve (such as a soccer circle) or through a serpentine course. One recommendation I often have for coaches is to ensure their training has an emphasis in all three planes. Obviously, sprinters and high jumpers run on curves and field/court sports involve curvilinear running, but more importantly, sagittal motion itself incorporates all three planes. Utilizing exercises that emphasize each can assist in creating a bulletproof athlete.

Combination bounds include more than one type within a repetition. Scissor bounds are also referred to as straight leg bounds. Joel Smith of Just Fly Sports gives a great demo that can be found here. Pencil bounds are a phenomenal foot/ankle exercise (implemented in our program by Chris Korfist) where the athlete keeps the hip and knee locked, posing a greater challenge to the lower leg.

Tempo

Fluid or segmented. Fluid bounding helps to develop elasticity, while segmented bounding works on force absorption and power generation.

Start

Will the athlete begin bounding from a static starting position or take steps prior to the bounding? In a standard linear bound for maximum distance, a static start will correlate more with acceleration due to the forward angle that will be present at the torso. However, negative foot speed is usually not present heading into ground contact, and the contact times are much higher, which makes this a generation or two removed from true acceleration mechanics. When the athlete has an approach prior to beginning bounding, their posture is often upright during the bounding. This can have greater transfer to maximum velocity mechanics, especially if the heel recovery is higher.

As a coach, I like to be like Egon Spengler and avoid “crossing the streams.” While I think bounding from a static start has positive benefits for sprinters and team sport athletes, I do not like using the variation for track and field jumpers. I train most like they will eventually be a triple jumper someday. A huge component of being a successful triple jumper is posture preservation.

One of the biggest problems seen in novice triple jumpers is excessive forward rotation through the phases. I personally do not want the jumpers I coach to feel forward rotation while hopping or bounding because I do not want that feeling to be acceptable if they end up triple jumping. Therefore, you will not find them bounding from a static start or completing a standing triple jump. We will always be upright prior to beginning bounding. If I want to give a different stimulus to train acceleration, I provide resistance to a sprint start via a harness, sled, rope through a figure eight descender, rubber bands, Exer-Genie, or 1080 Sprint.

Bounding Considerations

With all the different components that make up a bounding rep addressed, we can now proceed to the specific quality we hope to improve. We will assume that any variation of bounding is being used to enhance common training goals such as improving strength, speed, power, coordination, and tissue resilience. I feel we can break the additional desires into the development of three categories: acceleration, maximum velocity, and jumping.

Acceleration

In the initial phases of sprinting, eversion of the foot occurs, and ideally the athlete will contact the ground on the ball of their first-second metatarsal. Therefore, bounding in which this type of foot contact is used can be a wonderful way to strengthen this part of the foot. Combining a pencil bound with foot eversion nails this. Keep in mind, if the brain does not believe the athlete can be stable in this position it will find a work-around, which is just about guaranteed to be less powerful.

If you watch great accelerators, whether in track and field or field/court sports, a commonality they all possess is excellent shin drop. Shin drop occurs after initial foot contact—the knee rotates forward, making the angle the shank forms with the ground more acute. From the field/sport perspective, shin drop often occurs after a full foot plant (a running back or point guard about to change direction). In addition, football linemen who can keep their shins and torso parallel (via shin drop) are able to harness all of their power.

Shin drop is also present in various forms of bounding, as seen in Video 7. Work from J.B. Morin’s group shows elite sprinters have ground reaction forces (GRF) that are oriented in a more horizontal direction for a longer period of time. Utilizing bounding as a way to teach the body to be comfortable with shin drop can carry over to a sprinter being able to delay the onset of maximum velocity through a GRF that has a greater horizontal component for a greater period of time.

As alluded to earlier, beginning from a static start and bounding over a short course (~20 meters) is not perfectly aligned with acceleration, but there are commonalities. The force vectors can be more horizontally aligned, swing leg recovery is usually low, and, generally speaking, the athlete is accelerating (although the velocity will top out much sooner than in a sprint).

Max Velocity

As an athlete shifts into a more upright posture, foot contacts will change to an inverted foot, with initial contacts taking place on or near the ball of the fifth metatarsal. Pencil bounds with foot inversion followed by a roll through the big toe for the win. Sure, the intensity and contact times will not replicate sprinting at maximum velocity, but guess what? Nothing does! Structures and patterns can, and in most cases should, be strengthened at submaximal intensities (while intent remains at a maximum).

Bounding with a forefoot contact (sometimes called toe bounding) can be done, covering greater distances per bound than the example shown in the second clip of Video 2. If this drill is done with higher intensity, the athlete should wear shoes and perform it on a softer surface. It should be noted that, even in elite sprinters, the heel can contact the ground in maximum velocity after the forefoot strikes—so do not stress if this happens with your high school athletes.

A “squatty,” or knee-bent, scissor bound (see aforementioned Joel Smith video) correlates well with maximum velocity mechanics because there is knee bend at touchdown in upright running. Higher heel recovery bounding over longer courses (30+ meters) is said to be tied to improvements in maximum velocity², but I have yet to dabble in altering heel recovery mechanics with the athletes I coach.

Jumping

Just about any jump in which forces will be extreme will require a rolling or flat foot contact. Prior to this occurring, dorsiflexion of the foot will be present, which helps prepare the quadricep group for impact.⁴ Utilizing the full foot for ground contact helps disperse force over a greater area. The rolling contact will allow for elasticity to be present because the athlete simply rolls through without braking. Athletes who attempt forefoot contact at too high of an intensity (often found in the contact of the hop phase of the triple jump) become heel bashers, and momentum is destroyed.

When utilizing this type of bounding I keep cues to a minimum. Foot contact is, by far, the most important piece. I like to have athletes do barefoot low-intensity bounds on a soft surface to develop a feel for it. Beyond that, I have stolen Jake Cohen’s cue of “pushing bounds vertical” to get athletes to achieve the hovering effect desired.

When using locomotive plyometrics, I try to follow one of the core principles of my life—“the disciplined pursuit of less.” The primary exercises in our matrix are skipping, galloping/run-run-jump, and bounding complexes. Of these items, bounding at high intensity creates the greatest GRF, which is why they are a staple of any quality jump program (for athletes who are ready for them). Strength of the take-off leg is a big freaking deal, as elite jumpers have a knee angle near 170 degrees upon impact with the board. Strengthening the legs for this type of impact via bounding (traditional and scissor) will allow the brain to feel safe heading into take-off, which will lead to greater take-off velocities and bigger jumps!

In terms of arm action, I predominantly favor double arm action primarily due to the ability to deliver greater force into the ground, and because most triple and high jumpers are double arm (most high jumpers I’ve coached tend to block with two arms—then go to single). The most common cue I’ve used for double arm bounding is “rip open the curtains.” However, some athletes prefer a more vertical pumping pattern, and I’m fine with that.  All this being said, single arm (or speed bounding) still holds a place in our programming. If an athlete only sprints and long jumps, they will partake in a higher percentage of single arm bounding.

Additional Options

Resisted

I have found the Exer-Genie to be a great option, as it provides smooth resistance versus a rubber band, which has recoil. However, both cause the athlete to create more hip displacement. I will also throw bounding up an incline in this category. This can be a great intro or return-to-play activity because propulsive demands are challenged, but impact forces are diminished. Foot contact here will be on the forefoot, which makes it more in line with acceleration or maximum velocity contacts.

Weighted

I am not a huge fan of most weight vests as they shift too much. I was planning on utilizing Exogen wearable resistance (as shifting is nonexistent) in tandem with bounding for some of my advanced athletes, but then COVID-19 struck. Regardless, adding weight combined with gravity creates greater impact forces.

Staggered Elevation Changes

Take off on the ground (left foot), land on a short box (right foot), take off the same box (right), land on ground (left), etc. The primary purpose here is to enhance eccentric demands upon landing from the additional height of the box, but you also get an overspeed component on the way up because the muscles in the leg that will contact the box will pre-tense earlier because the box makes the “ground” come sooner. Varied elevation bounding can be introduced relatively early in an athlete’s career, assuming the intensity is low. Full-go bounding with elevation changes is a grown man’s game.

Overspeed

Old school bungees work pretty well for this. Pre-tension, which tends to clean up foot contact and lead to an overall better bound, is necessary. Impact forces are also enhanced via the assistance. This is something I have only used with a fraction of upperclassmen.

Program Option

Hopefully, the above information has opened some new avenues for how bounding can be more targeted within a program, but if you are feeling overwhelmed as to where to start, one possibility is connecting bounding performance with sprint performance. In his classic, Development of Maximum Sprint Speed, Coach Frank Dick provided two tables that can help accomplish this. The table below shows target times for the 100-meter dash, followed by performances that correlate with that target time in the standing long jump, 3-bound, 5-bound, and 10-bound tests for distance.

As athletes improve in the bound test of choice, their corresponding performance in the 100-meter dash should also improve. If 100-meter times are irrelevant for you, the other chart from Dick allows for a coach to take the 100-meter time given from the bound test and obtain hand-timed performances of various distances. This can also be done through the Frank Dick Chart Calculator.

Dick’s charts are evidence of a correlation between bound performance and sprinting, which is a big deal because it attaches greater meaning to bounding. If an athlete sees a connection in how their training impacts competition performance, buy-in occurs, and intent within the exercise is maximized. Utilizing bounding to improve sprint performance can be especially valuable for coaches with limited space in the winter months. Instead of a 60-meter space needed to address training at maximum velocity, a coach would only need 20 meters for a 5-bound test.

Final Word

I hope this article has caused your mind to ponder applications of the bounding variations within your context. Whether track and field or a field/court sport, you can glean benefits from the different versions. As always, our only limits are our biases and creativity. Stay bouncy, my friends!

References

1. Watson, Matthew. “Plyometric Training Systems: Developmental vs. Progressive.” SimpliFaster Blog. 2020.

2. Smith, Joel. Speed Strength. Berkeley, Just Fly Sports, 2018.

3. Fichter, Dan. Track Football Consortium Presentation. Lombard, IL. 2016.

4. Schexnayder, Boo and Lane, Todd. “The Triple Jump: Technique and Teaching.” Schexnayder Athletic Consulting. DVD.

I was first introduced to curved nonmotorized treadmills (CNMTs) in early 2017 while in New York City on an unrelated project. A TrueForm Runner treadmill had been used for many years at Drive 495 on Broadway in SoHo, and I was asked to give my opinion. My immediate impression was that this type of treadmill required quite a bit more coordination and proprioception than the conventional motorized treadmills. It felt awkward and unsettling initially and could easily be passed off as gimmicky at first glance. And to be quite honest, I’ve never been a motorized treadmill fan at all. As such, the thought of running on any treadmill—compared to overground running and sprinting—was not an attractive option for me. But by the second session of running on the TrueForm the very next day, I started to see the benefits and potential of this device and was motivated to try other brands and see if all CNMTs are created equal. In this article, we will discuss the reasons why they may not be.

The challenges presented by the recent global pandemic and the associated stay-at-home orders around the world made training for performance or fitness a major headache over the last few months. I had many clients—both teams and individuals—wondering how to stay in shape at a time when gyms, tracks, and playing courts and fields were closed to everyone. And even though some restrictions are now lifting, the demand remains for equipment that allows individuals to stay home, distanced from groups of people who could transmit the virus. Regardless of the throngs of manic people rushing back to beach parties and barbecues, there is still the silent majority who don’t want to gather socially.

In the case of running and sprinting activities, we’ve experienced some unique challenges during the lockdown’s peak. While it was understandable that many people didn’t have access to a full complement of weights, it didn’t help that some were afraid to go outside to run, sprint, or jump around. In some cases, inclement weather added to the reasons to avoid going outdoors, making many athletes feel literally trapped in their homes.

All of these constraints made me reconsider the use of CNMTs as a primary training stimulus for all sports. Performing running drills on the spot, tethered by a resistance band to a doorknob or bedpost, can only take you so far. With the help of TrueForm, I was able to connect athletes and teams with a training modality that served many purposes, with sprinting as the foundational activity to prepare for the return to sport. This included athletes playing professional basketball, baseball, football, and ice hockey.

The ability to engage in locomotion at maximal velocity with the TrueForm treadmill has certainly been a game-changer during this time. Listed below are a few of the key reasons why people have gravitated toward the TrueForm and similar products lately, and why it’s been one of my primary equipment recommendations in my consulting and course offerings.

General Benefits of the Curved Nonmotorized Treadmill

There are many benefits to using a CNMT, whether you’re a serious runner, competitive athlete, or simply a fitness participant. Being able to step on a treadmill and begin running without having to figure out your desired speed or fear of being swept off the deck by a malfunctioning motor provides great convenience and comfort. For first-timers, stepping on a CNMT deck can be a little bit of a balancing act, but the brain and body adapt quickly. This feature also makes it very easy to use with rehabilitation patients beginning to walk or jog on a treadmill. They can set their speed based on self-assessed ability and confidence, as opposed to needing a practitioner to designate a speed for them. The benefits greatly outweigh the challenges with this technology, and users will quickly gravitate toward the device’s more natural feel. Collectively, the benefits listed below provide great incentive to investigate the value of CNMTs for all types of running-related work for athletes, fitness participants, and rehabilitation patients.

1. Accommodation of Step-to-Step Variability

I’ve always felt awkward running—or even walking—on a conventional treadmill. I’ve never found the correct speed for walking, running, or sprinting on a motorized treadmill, which always involved tinkering with the speed buttons to find some semblance of a sweet-spot for my particular gait. Science and research have shown that everyone experiences some degree of step-to-step variability when it comes to movement velocity and ground contact time. Some steps provide more propulsion, while others lead to more braking forces. There tends to be higher variability at slower speeds because the skeleton, joints, and muscles engage in a type of negotiation with the ground from step to step.³ Gait symmetry is more attainable at higher speeds due to the short ground contact and support periods as well as elastic responses, providing even more support for a sprint-based approach to improve running form and overall symmetry.

When running on a motorized treadmill, you have to move at the set speed of the treadmill belt, while a CNMT accommodates your unique step-to-step differences more readily. Experienced runners will notice an immediate difference while novices will quickly acclimate and find comfort in the treadmill’s adaptation to their rhythm and pace, rather than the other way around. A rehabilitation patient will benefit from the variability permitted by the CNMT during the early stages of treatment and won’t feel nervous about searching for an appropriate pace to fit their particular circumstances. The difference in feel is analogous to listening to the variable rhythm of a drummer in a band versus a repetitive drum machine. The human drummer is much more enjoyable to the human ear and brain, just like running on a manual treadmill.

2. Overload Abilities

CNMTs generally provide a relatively significant increase in the physiological cost of running when compared to overground running and motorized treadmills. Several studies have demonstrated differences between these modes of running, finding that CNMTs require approximately 20% more effort—determined by assessing VO2 and heart rate—than overground running.^{1, 5} Researchers attributed the additional effort to having to run on an inclined deck—essentially uphill—on the upward curved portion of the CNMT deck and having to move a heavy treadmill belt manually.

They also found that heavier athletes required less effort to run on the CNMT because their weight helped propel the treadmill belt down the curve and back with greater ease; running over regular ground favors lighter athletes. One thing you’ll notice immediately is how much you sweat when running on a CNMT. If you factor in the additional 20% effort required to run plus the lack of air cooling when running through the atmosphere, this makes perfect sense.

The weight of the treadmill belt can vary from brand to brand and even from model to model within brands. The belt’s weight and the impact on your muscles are certainly noticeable when you run on a CNMT for a given time and then step onto solid ground to perform a short run. It’s as though the posterior chain muscles are hyper-activated by the CNMT, and hip extension is noticeably easier on regular ground. I’ve used this contrast approach in many of my courses where we have a participant sprint maximally for six seconds on the CNMT and then immediately step off the treadmill and perform a ground-based sprint of 20-40 meters. When I ask how the ground-based sprint felt, everyone would reply with either, “It felt like someone was pushing me forward,” or “My knees just came up automatically!” The responses made me think more about the supplemental use of CNMTs for posterior chain development in appropriate doses. It essentially qualifies as a safer form of horizontal loading in the upright sprint position (as opposed to dragging sleds 50-60 meters), and I’ve used it effectively in contrast sessions, mixing it with overground flying start work.

3. Sprint Training Alternative

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly made it a challenge for people to sprint both indoors and outdoors. Closures of gyms, track, and outdoor fields have made it virtually impossible to do a good sprint workout. Sprinting on asphalt or concrete is a reasonable way to get high-speed work accomplished. Still, the impact on the feet, ankles, shins, knees, and back becomes apparent after only a few workouts and the constant repetition of decelerations required over time.

Many of my clients have access to CNMTs in their homes or their private gyms, and we’ve had to modify their training plans to integrate upright maximal sprinting on these treadmills to make up for the loss in volume via conventional track or field work. Over time, I’ve become comfortable with providing equivalent speed workouts on the CNMT. And, and as we’re making our way back to outdoor activities, we’ve seen some positive outcomes with a transference of technical improvements and physiological abilities.

One of the major adjustments we’ve made when prescribing work on the CNMT is to use time or the total number of steps per repetition as our work indicator, as opposed to distance traveled. Time works well if there’s another person on hand to cue a five- to six-second effort verbally, but having an athlete time their maximal effort can have unwanted side effects. At maximum velocity, the slightest movement of the head down to see the elapsed time on the digital display can throw off posture and technique, resulting in a drop in hip height and poor foot placement. Thus, we’ve adapted some workouts to only rely on the total number of maximal strides for each repetition. If we know an athlete is capable of running 4.5 steps per second at maximum velocity, we will calculate a total of 18 strides for a four-second effort. Typically, I’m replacing a 30-meter sprint with about a five-second effort on the CNMT, as it takes more effort to accelerate overground than it does to start sprinting maximally on the treadmill. To compensate for the lack of access to acceleration work, I also prescribe jumps and plyometrics over short distances to target specific muscle groups and ground contact times associated with starts and short accelerations.

I found that using upright maximal sprints on the CNMT for the two months of primary stay-at-home measures during the current pandemic worked quite well for my clients and family. You never want to get too far away from the specifics of sprinting overground, but the intensity of the runs on the CNMT also had some significant systemic effects on individuals in terms of output capabilities, general fitness, and stress tolerance. Also, the ability to sprint maximally when outdoor options were not available provided significant psychological benefits to these athletes, knowing they were accumulating beneficial training at very high intensities when their competition may not have similar opportunities.

4. Video Analysis Abilities

Treadmills have always offered an easy means to video record an effort and analyze it through various apps and biomechanical software programs. The placement of a tripod for a video camera or smartphone allows for a simple and economical way to standardize video analysis. Conversely, filming outdoors is always a challenge when trying to pick a consistent vantage point to compare from repetition to repetition. The perspective outdoors changes constantly, and you may only be able to strictly analyze two or three strides if you wish to measure angles and ranges-of-motion.

The CNMT experience, however, provides a very realistic and pragmatic means of analyzing upright sprint mechanics consistently over as many as 20 to 25 strides. Factor in CNMT’s natural step-to-step variability benefits, and you also can analyze an athlete’s true output abilities. In contrast, the motorized treadmill scenario could be biased by the output of the treadmill itself.

I’ve often used multi-camera setups for my sprint work with athletes on the TrueForm Runner and Trainer models. Capturing sprint repetitions from the side, front, and rear views is very effective for collecting valuable data in a short amount of time. I’ve even situated cameras for slow-motion close-ups of an athlete’s feet contacting the belt to analyze ground dynamics, ultimately giving the athlete different cues or involving a physical therapist to address any specific concerns.

5. Performance Training At Home

Training at home has never been an exciting prospect regardless of whether you’re lifting weights, doing body-weight circuits, or performing drills in a corridor or across the dining room. Having a CNMT at home during the global pandemic has been a game-changer for my family and me. I have three kids at home who did not get to participate in the spring track season, which would have included numerous training sessions and valuable competitions over 100-, 200-, and 400-meter distances. Hence, the canceled track season left us with an enormous hole in their training and performance preparation.

Being the overzealous sport parent that I am, I quickly jumped on the CNMT bandwagon and ordered a TrueForm Trainer right away. As soon as it arrived, I quickly assembled it and had my kids taking turns to get accustomed to the dynamics of the curved deck and weighted belt. Before you know it, we had a whole series of workouts and competitions taking place in my basement with no complaints from the kids. It’s been a pretty amazing experience, all helped by the fact that the CNMT offered both a degree of novelty and reality. All of the kids were able to deliver maximal efforts on the CNMT and process technical instruction quite easily. Because we could record their repetitions with our smartphones, we could show how they should approach the next repetition. More recently, we were able to go to a nearby park and perform some sprints over various distances, and my wife was surprised at how good each of them looked. The home-based performance experiment was complete, and the investment paid off. Now we have the treadmill available for training during inclement weather, particularly during the winter months, when it’s virtually impossible to run fast outdoors.

6. Social Media and Virtual Training Opportunities

Because of all of the facts identified above, the CNMT now presents an interesting opportunity to share performance, training sessions, and running mechanics easily on social media. Yoga, dance, and weightlifting have been easy to share over social media because of their stationary qualities and ease of video recording. Running hasn’t been so easy to capture and convey on Instagram and TikTok. However, the use of CNMTs offers a new way to capture running technique and the quality of movement displayed by athletes. While some videos have focused on speeds attained on CNMTs, I believe there is a greater benefit from demonstrating good technique for everything from sprinting to interval training to longer-distance efforts.

I’ve been using Zoom and Facetime to guide coaches, physical therapists, and athletes on how to carry out workouts effectively while also giving useful tips on running technique. I record these sessions and pass them on to the clients to review before our next training session, giving them some homework upon which to develop their technique further. Some clients have set up heads-up displays that are cast onto HDTVs or projected onto walls to ensure they can maintain posture during our sessions. You can stream video using a GoPro or similar technology to provide high definition views of every repetition.

Ideally, all athletes would have access to a CNMT to allow for opportunities to receive remote coaching from experts. While we would like to think that good coaches exist in every corner of the world, the reality is that people must search for the best possible options to ensure they’re getting experienced and capable eyes watching them move. The CNMT gives us a chance to provide a realistic training experience that can be adjusted and optimized in real-time regardless of geographical distance. Further advances in heads-up display glasses with video feeds and running metrics streamed from other wearables and in-shoe technology will only make this experience more viable and valuable. The possibilities are endless.

Why TrueForm Treadmills?

Circling back to my introduction to CNMT technology in 2017, some of the reasons I keep coming back to the TrueForm brand are based on confidence, trust, communication, and familiarity. After those initial experiences running on the TrueForm, I made an effort to try other brands to see where the true differences lay. Because I was in New York City, finding other brands was very easy and conveniently only a few blocks away from Drive 495 on Broadway. I was able to try a Woodway Curve, a Technogym SKILLMILL, and an Assault AirRunner, all within a few days of my first workouts on the TrueForm Runner.

At first, I didn’t notice any significant differences from treadmill to treadmill. They all had curved decks and slatted belts. The handrail configuration differed slightly, I could detect subtle differences in the steepness of the curves, and the weight of the belts varied. Some were noisier than others. And the prices varied significantly. So which treadmill was the best fit and value for what I was trying to do, and would I feel comfortable recommending a particular brand to friends and clients?

TrueForm was the winner for a variety of reasons. Value is one of the biggest factors in picking any product. Sure, I’d love to have deep pockets and choose the most expensive equipment to outfit a facility or train my clients. However, we must set limits and include other considerations before pulling the trigger. Below are my reasons for going with the TrueForm products for my training, my courses, and recommendations for individual and team clients.

1. Versatility

One of the first places I had a TrueForm Runner installed was a physical therapy clinic where I offer my services. The flatter curve of the TrueForm allows me to transition patients from slow walking to fast walking easily and then jogging and faster running throughout their locomotion rehabilitation. I use it with patients recovering from knee replacements, ACL reconstructions, hip replacements, sprained ankles, Achilles ruptures, hamstring strains, and quadriceps tendon avulsions. Patients are surprised at how easy it is to move on the TrueForm and also comment that they could feel it working other muscles up the chain, including back and abdominal muscles. Patients also need very little monitoring for their workouts because they can choose their speed and comfortably complete their session. There’s no fiddling with speed settings or incline adjustments. The TrueForm treadmill offers a combination of simplicity and novelty that everyone enjoys without creating any fear or uncertainty.

On the other end of the spectrum, I use the TrueForm with sprint athletes to work on their top-end speed and associated mechanics. It’s very easy to encourage faster running and efficient mechanics by propping up the front end of the TrueForm with a block of wood or a weight plate. Even an inch of elevation can be a great stimulus for athletes to find their groove for high-speed running. When some people argue that other brands with a steeper curve would be better for high-speed running, I always remind them that the versatility of the flatter curve gives me many more options for working with a wider variety of clients and patients. I can prop up the front end of the TrueForm in less than a minute to fit the needs of my high-performance clients.

2. Durability

One of the biggest draws of the TrueForm line of treadmills is their durability. My good friend and podcast partner, Don Saladino, has had a TrueForm Runner in his Drive 495 facility for over four years. Knowing how much maintenance is required for high-end motorized treadmills, I remember asking him how much maintenance the TrueForm required. I recall him saying, “I don’t think we’ve had to do anything for the TrueForm except wipe it down. It’s bulletproof!”  And ever since, I’ve heard the same story from other gym owners and teams who’ve purchased TrueForm products.

Durability is a significant factor for any gym considering a purchase of over $5,000 for a piece of equipment. The less a facility owner has to worry about maintenance and potential breakdowns, the more attractive the investment, particularly if it’s a popular piece of equipment. I’ve seen TrueForm treadmills in Cross-Fit facilities that had to be hosed down at the end of the day from constant intense use by gym members. TrueForm has also held outdoor events and competitions in beach environments where the treadmills get covered in water and sand, with no impact on the performance or longevity of their machines.

For homes or small fitness studios, there is much less wear and tear and overall volume of use. Thus, the choice of the TrueForm Trainer makes a lot of sense for consumers who want the convenience of being able to sprint or run at home. Knowing that TrueForm wanted to create a more affordable option for consumers entering the CNMT market, I was a little apprehensive initially about the “cheaper” overseas-produced model, knowing the solid reputation of the American-built TrueForm Runner product. However, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at both the build quality and performance of the Trainer model, and we’ve been using it almost daily for walks, tempo runs, or sprints. I expect to be using this piece of equipment for well over ten years.

3. Support

When buying any product that is a significant financial investment, you want to make sure you have the best possible customer support moving forward. From the beginning, I’ve been exceptionally impressed at the quality and frequency of communication I’ve had with the TrueForm crew from day one. The company essentially has four employees who run things efficiently and effectively because the circle is tight, and the right hand always knows what the left hand is doing. If I have a question, Jeff or Zack at TrueForm get back to me by text or email within the hour and provide a solution. As a running coach who relies on this equipment for my day-to-day consults and coaching sessions, having the ability to troubleshoot any hardware issues with staff right away is a huge confidence and trust-building factor in my decisions around purchases and recommendations. If I know a product is not only reliable but also well supported, it’s a no brainer decision for me.

TrueForm has also been very receptive to recommendations for updating the treadmills based on my personal experiences. They’ve adjusted the handrails forward to allow for more room and a greater emphasis on front-side mechanics—for both the legs and the arms. If an athlete thinks they might clip the handrail with a hand or a knee during a maximal sprint, they alter their mechanics to the detriment of the session. The adjustments made by TrueForm to accommodate these mechanics have been very helpful with my athletes and clients. We’ve also discussed various options and innovations for heads-up displays that allow athletes to maintain a higher line of sight for monitoring time, speed, heart rate, and pace. The fact that we’re having these conversations and they’re making changes gives me great confidence in this company. It also communicates to me that TrueForm behaves like a modern technology company, adapting quickly and responsively to their consumers, rather than forcing people to adapt to apathy and lack of imagination.

4. Community

As part of my Running Mechanics Professional courses that I began offering in 2019, TrueForm expressed an interest in being part of these in-person events, to my surprise. There are many opportunities to demonstrate the value of the CNMT technology, and at first, I only covered the intricacies of these workouts if a hosting facility or organization already had a CNMT on hand. I soon realized that not all CNMTs were created equal, and I got stuck with some lower quality models for my courses; I wasn’t pleased with the outcome of the demonstrations and the user experience for course attendees. When TrueForm heard about this, they committed to providing both TrueForm Runners and Trainers at various courses. We had the TrueForm crew deliver treadmills to New York, Montreal, and Kansas City during the summer of 2019, making all of the events a great success.

More importantly, the trips by TrueForm staff conveyed to me a sense of community and commitment to exposing their product to various markets and professionals by any means necessary. Watching them unload dozens of treadmills from their truck and trailer after a long road trip is inspiring. When we held a running clinic at Drive 495 in SoHo New York in 2018, TrueForm did not hesitate to commit 12 TrueForm Runners to the event to give people a chance to sprint and run on their product. They also provided custom graphics to support both Drive 495 and SprintCoach.com, which made a huge difference to the branding around the event. And I’ve witnessed TrueForm staff hauling their trailer all over the country to attend Triathlon, Cross-Fit, and Spartan Race events wherever they can. They are truly committed to developing a community around their product.

5. Customized Graphics

TrueForm has a fantastic option for customers who want to personalize their treadmill to display their brand. Using a local graphics company, they provide custom decals and wraps for customers that add some flash to the end product. There have been numerous teams, athletes, and celebrities who’ve taken advantage of this feature and have been ecstatic with the results. I recently connected TrueForm to a popular social media influencer who likes to train furiously in his apartment, particularly during the stay-at-home orders. Within a few days, they had a TrueForm Runner delivered and set up in his apartment with full graphics displaying his company and brand. He was elated with the results and was training on the TrueForm the next day, producing captivating content for his followers. While this may seem like a gimmicky feature to the TrueForm full service, you can’t discount the impact of an aesthetic upgrade to enhance the overall customer and user experience. It’s been a game-changer from my personal experience in working with clients.

I joined in on the graphics production for my own TrueForm Trainer. In working with my kids, I wanted to demonstrate the concept of moving to the front of the Trainer when they wanted to run faster. I produced decals with a photo printer for these speed zones (illustrated in Image 10), so it was clear what they had to do to run faster. Of course, as you move forward, you have to put more vertical force into the treadmill belt, but they had no problem executing the technique once they grasped the concept. I now have other clients use the same placement of these decals to make sure they understand where they need to be on the treadmill for their various workout activities.

Concluding Remarks

It’s important to point out that there are many high-quality options for CNMT machines available to both organizations and regular consumers. While most people are very price-conscious when analyzing their choices, you do reach a point where you have to pay a certain price to ensure quality, performance, and safety. As with any good technology or product, knock-offs and copycat products will hit the market before you can hit Enter for a Google search. So, consumers must be smart when evaluating all of the options on the market, particularly when budgets are tight. Consider the fact that a good CNMT product should be with you for well over a decade, and you can spread the cost of that purchase over the life of the treadmill. The benefits accrued over this time, assuming consistent use, are invaluable.

I chose to go with TrueForm based on my experience, history, and rapport with the company and the product itself. I feel very comfortable recommending their products because I’ve spent a good deal of time running and coaching on their treadmills. There are other good products on the market you should consider as well. As an example, I had the pleasure of running and coaching on a Woodway Curve XL at one of my courses in Phoenix, Arizona. I was very pleased with the build quality, performance, and roominess, and everyone who tried a few reps on the treadmill felt very comfortable. The extra space on the belt and deck provided a very secure experience for people who had not run or sprinted on a CNMT machine. The only downside of the XL is that it’s much more expensive than the TrueForm models and takes up a much larger footprint in a gym space. But it may still work for a larger facility with larger athletes who want to create the perception of more space while running on a CNMT, assuming the price is not an obstacle.

In the final analysis, as with barbells or medicine balls, it’s what you do with the equipment that will determine whether you made a successful purchase. I love my TrueForm Trainer treadmill because I know exactly how to get the most out of it with my experience and expertise in working with sprint-based athletes for over 30 years. And with the help of the TrueForm owners and staff, I’ve tweaked the technology to maximize the efficacy of every session. This also gives me the ability to work effectively with others who have access to TrueForm products via video calls and the provision of progressive sprint programs.

Because of the tremendous success I’ve experienced with clients and teams over the last few months, I’m developing a sprint-based digital platform for using treadmills to not only coach athletes but also to educate sport, fitness, and rehabilitation professionals on how to effectively use TrueForm products and other CNMT machines with their athletes, clients, and patients. We will be providing real-time educational experiences that simulate in-person sessions and build on the strength of the CNMT training environment. Pivoting and adapting in times of massive change and challenges and using new technologies is all part of the new normal. Jump on board, and I look forward to interacting with you at “high-speed” 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

References

1. Edwards, RB, Tofari, PJ, Cormack, SJ, and DG Whyte. “Nonmotorized Treadmill Running Is Associated with Higher Cardiometabolic Demands Compared with Overground and Motorized Treadmill Running,” Frontiers in Physiology. November 2017: 8, 914.

2. Gonzalez, AM, et al. “Reliability of the Woodway Curve Nonmotorized Treadmill for Assessing Anaerobic Performance,” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2013: 12, 104-108.

3. Hatchett, A, et al. “The Effect of a Curved Nonmotorized Treadmill on Running Gait Length, Imbalance and Stride Angle,” Sports. 2018: 6, 58; doi:10.3390/sports6030058.

4. Mangine, GT, et al. “Speed, Force, and Power Values Produced from Nonmotorized Treadmill Test are Related to Sprinting Performance,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2014: 28(7), 1812–1819.

5. Schoenmakers, PJM, Crisell, JJ and KE Reed. “Physiological and Perceptual Demands of Running on a Curved Nonmotorized Treadmill Compared With Running on a Motorized Treadmill Set at Different Grades,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2020: 34(5), 1197–1200.

6. Seneli, RM, Ebersole, KT, O’Connor, KM and AC Snyder. “Estimated Vo2max from the Rockport Walk Test on a Nonmotorized Curved Treadmill,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2013: 27(12), 3495-3505.

7. Waldman, HS, Heatherly, AJ, Waddell, AF, Krings, BM and EK O’Neal. “Five-Kilometer Time Trial Reliability of A Nonmotorized Treadmill and Comparison of Physiological and Perceptual Responses vs. a Motorized Treadmill,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2018: 32(5), 1455-1461.

Lifelong physical activity is an important determinant of health and wellbeing, and it becomes increasingly important as we age. With the passing years, increased levels of muscle mass—and the maintenance of that mass—are associated with better preservation of function and lower rates of all-cause mortality in the elderly. As we’ve become more aware of this relationship between activity and health as we age, more older adults are turning to organized sports to motivate them to maintain their fitness. One increasingly popular area is Masters Athletics.

Like its mainstream counterpart, the open age group championships, Masters Athletics has a competitive arm, which includes World and European Championships. Competing in these championships drives the motivation of many masters athletes to improve and progress. In this article, I take a subset of masters athletes—masters sprinters—and discuss what we know about their performance. And given what we know, how to use the information to support the sprint performance of these athletes.

Why Are Masters Sprinters Slower?

The men’s 100m world record, held by Usain Bolt, is 9.58 seconds. Bolt was not quite 23 years old when he ran that time—which, in terms of human lifespan, is relatively young. And yet, what the general pattern of performance tells us is that, after our twenties, we tend to get progressively slower with age.

• The M35 100m world record is 9.87 seconds, run by Justin Gatlin (who has a PB of 9.74, achieved at age 33).
• The M40 record, 9.93 seconds, is held by Kim Collins (which, surprisingly, is his personal best).
• Willie Gault holds the records for M45, M50, and M55 (10.72, 10.88, and 11.30, respectively; Gault’s absolute PB is 10.10, which he ran age 21 before playing in the NFL).

This trend holds in the longer sprints and in women’s sprint events.

• In the 200m, the absolute WR is 19.19, the M35 record is 20.11 (Linford Christie), the M50 record is 22.44 (Willie Gault), and the M70 record is 25.75 (Charles Allie).
• In the women’s 100m, the absolute WR is 10.49, compared to a W35 record of 10.74 held by Merlene Ottey (which, like Collins, is her personal best), a W45 record of 11.34 (Ottey again), and a W55 record of 12.80 seconds (Nicole Alexis).

The clear trend here is that performance declines with age. Although some can peak in their mid-30s, most do so earlier. And, after age 40, all are slower. To develop key training strategies, we need to understand why.

Several studies have explored this in detail from a sprint mechanics standpoint. In 1993, the Journal of Applied Biomechanics published Nancy Hamilton’s paper, where she reported data on 162 elite master’s runners. The results demonstrated that, unsurprisingly, running velocity decreased the older the athletes got, from 8.93 m/s in the 30-40 age group to 4.91 m/s in the over-90s group of male sprinters. As sprint velocity is essentially a product of stride length and stride frequency, Hamilton then explored differences in these two variables with increasing age. Again, stride length (in this case, defined as one complete cycle, meaning right foot to left foot to right foot again) decreased substantially with age, from an average of 4.35m in the 30-40 year age group to 2.84m in the over-90s.

On average, there was a decline of 20-30cm of stride length per decade. This occurred with a concurrent increase in support time (time on the ground) with age, and a decrease in time spent in the air. In the latter case, the time changed from 0.12s in the 30-40 age group to 0.085s in the over-90s (as a brief aside, typically elite sprinters spend much more time in the air than they do on the ground; 0.085s is about the amount of time that world-class male sprinters spend on the ground per stride).

A similar study generally supported Hamilton’s findings. In this 2003 paper, a group of Finnish researchers collected sprint mechanics data from the 2000 European Veterans Athletics Championships with a total of 37 males and 33 females taking part, including at least one of the top four finishers in each age category. Generally, the younger athletes achieved their maximum velocity significantly earlier in the race than the athletes in the older age bands. The 40- to 49-year-old men achieved maximum velocity at around 45m compared to 25m for those in the 80- to 89-year age group. Stride rate (comprised of airtime and support phase) decreased with age, as did stride length, but these changes in stride rate were only significant during acceleration. Again, the time spent on the ground per stride increased with age, while time in the air decreased. As a result, the authors concluded that masters 100m sprinters get slower primarily due to a decrease in stride length and an increase in ground contact time with both males and females.

A more recent study, this time from 2019, provides some further insights into how sprint mechanics change in masters compared to younger sprinters. In this paper, the researchers reported that, as sprinters age, their frontside hip mechanics alter; essentially, they’re unable to get their knee as high as their younger counterparts. A key question here—which the paper does not answer—is whether this is due to a reduction in functional range of motion or a reduced capacity to produce the required levels of strength to achieve a high hip angle.

As a quick digression, let’s discuss optimal sprint mechanics. This will be a vast oversimplification, and for a more in-depth discussion, I recommend Mann’s The Mechanics of Sprinting & Hurdling. In general, to run quickly, athletes have to optimize their stride length and stride frequency to best suit their unique makeup. Elite male sprinters generally have a stride frequency of just under 5 Hz (5 steps per second)—typically somewhere in the region of 4.8 Hz. Their stride lengths (right foot to left foot) are usually about 2.5 m at maximum velocity (for women, this is ~2.25 m). Stride length and stride frequency are the key components of maximum velocity. Still, they both have a multitude of constituent factors, as identified in these classic diagrams by Hunter and colleagues (which they adapted from Hay):

There’s also a negative interaction between stride length and stride frequency, such that as one goes up, the other goes down, and vice versa. For example, my stride length at maximum velocity was around 2.25 m—considerably shorter than the 2.54 m average of elite sprinters, and likely the reason why I never became a true elite sprinter. However, my stride frequency was much higher than the average elite sprinter at about 5.3 Hz.

To maximize their stride length and frequency, elite sprinters aim to spend as short amount of time on the ground as possible, typically getting down to around 0.085s per step. This is a huge challenge for sprinters. To maximize their stride length, they need to produce the required amount of force to propel them forward at speed and do so over a very short time period. The shorter amount of time the sprinter spends on the ground, the longer they can relatively stay in the air, meaning their legs can move over a greater range of motion, and they can cover more ground. While in the air, elite sprinters achieve a greater hip flexion angle (they get their knee higher) in front of the body, which again increases their stride’s range of motion, increasing stride length. The increased range of motion in front of the body also increases the range through which the foot can be accelerated toward the ground, increasing the speed it possesses upon ground contact. This reduces the amount of braking force that needs to be overcome, decreasing the amount of time that needs to be spent on the ground.

In summary, if we compare the above biomechanical profiles of elite sprinters and elite masters sprinters, we see that the older athletes have a shorter stride length. This is due to their increased ground contact time and decreased hip flexion angle, and both of these may be related.

Why Do Masters Athletes’ Sprint Mechanics Change?

Having established that an increase in ground contact time and a decrease in hip flexion angle likely underpin the loss in stride length in masters athletes, the next step is to ask, What causes this? A second Finnish study, from 2009, provides some valuable insight here.

For this study, the authors recruited male sprinters who were young adults (17-33 years old) and older elite masters (40-82 years old), subjecting them to a battery of tests. The authors replicated the findings of the earlier studies. The older sprinters had a reduction in stride length with a concurrent increase in contact time and a decrease in air time. The authors then explored why. First, the older athletes had lower ground reaction forces; they were unable to match the force outputs of their younger counterparts. Apparently, this was related to the muscular properties of the masters sprinters, who had reduced knee extensor and plantar flexor muscle thickness. This loss of muscle thickness was primarily driven by an age-related decline in type-II muscle fiber, meaning that masters sprinters have fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers than the younger adult sprinters. Importantly, there were no differences in muscle fascicle length—something related to sprint ability—between younger and older athletes.

Building on this, the authors also explored differences in strength between the age groups. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the older athletes demonstrated an age-related decline in half squat 1RM strength (dynamic strength), leg extension (isometric strength), power (vertical jump height), and rate of force development. Further analysis showed that, when age was removed from an explanatory model, muscle thickness and vertical jump height were the two factors that best explained the loss of speed.

To summarize, we can clearly see that:

1. Masters athletes are slower than younger athletes, primarily due to reductions in their stride length.
2. The loss of stride length is primarily due to both an increase in ground contact time and a decrease in ground reaction forces, with the two likely related; an overall loss of strength and power with age means that athletes have to spend longer on the ground to produce a set threshold of force.
3. Masters athletes have reduced ground reaction force because they possess lower levels of strength and power than their younger counterparts.
4. These lower levels of strength and power are likely due to a loss of type-II muscle fiber due to aging.

What Does This Mean for Training Program Design?

The age-associated loss of type-II muscle fiber appears to be the main driver of loss of speed in masters sprinters. This suggests that, alongside typical sprint training best practice, there should be an emphasis on increasing (or, more realistically, attenuating the age-associated reduction in) type-II muscle fiber size and proportion. To achieve this, we should increase the emphasis on resistance training for many reasons.

First, resistance training tends to lead to skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and muscle size is generally proportional to muscle strength (although this is still debated). Higher load resistance training is also associated with greater stimulation of fast-twitch muscle fibers and motor units, which increases both the relative size of type-II muscle fibers as well as the muscle’s strength and power characteristics. Resistance training for masters athletes is, therefore, likely to be a crucial component of their training programs.

At this point, we can suggest:

1. Training for masters sprinters should primarily aim to offset the reduction in type-II muscle fibers seen with aging.
2. As masters sprinters already likely use relatively high volumes of sprinting (one method of maintaining type-II fibers), using high-load strength training, where safe, should assist in maintaining (or minimizing the reduction of) type-II fibers.
3. As losses in knee extensor (quadriceps) and plantar flexor (calves) strength are associated with reduced sprint speed, perhaps we should especially target these muscle groups.
4. Ballistic and plyometric exercises may help limit the age-associated loss in rate of force development that might be associated with masters sprinters’ loss of speed.

Additional Programming Considerations

As any aging current or former athlete like myself will tell you, it seems to take longer to recover from the big sessions as we age. A 2016 review published in the Journal of Aging and Physical Activity suggested this relationship is potentially a bit more nuanced; as we age, we tend to be less active overall. As a result, we’re less fit and need longer to recover. The key finding from the paper was that there are no apparent differences in recovery between younger and masters athletes from a physical perspective, but that masters athletes may perceive they take longer to recover following exercise. As a result, they tend to reduce their training intensities and volumes to a greater extent than their younger counterparts.

As a result, masters athletes should ensure they optimize their recovery through a variety of means. If they maintain their fitness through maintaining training volume and intensity, it appears they don’t have an increased recovery burden generally. But, as explained below, this is potentially nuanced.

As mentioned earlier, a key strategic pillar of their training should be developing or maintaining type-II muscle fibers, which in turn increases hypertrophy and muscle strength. As we age, we become subject to age-related anabolic resistance, when the muscles of older individuals cannot match the muscle protein synthesis rates of younger athletes. This means that, following exercise that causes muscle damage, there is potentially a longer period of recovery required, something we need to be wary of.

Also, while ~20g of protein can maximally stimulate muscle protein synthesis in younger athletes, older athletes may need a higher dose—closer to 35g of protein—to elicit the same effects. This, in turn, may reduce the age-related anabolic resistance that’s generally present in masters athletes. As a result, a review article from leading researchers in this field suggests that masters athletes should consume 3-4 doses of ~35g of leucine-rich protein per day, with one of the doses coming directly after exercise.

Alongside the increased protein intake, masters athletes should consider both β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) and creatine supplementation to maintain (or hopefully even enhance) their muscle mass and strength. HMB is an interesting supplement that was in vogue about ten years ago. When protein intake is adequate, there might not be any additional benefit from HMB supplementation, but the International Society of Sports Nutrition’s position stand suggests it might be useful. There are also several studies on the use of HMB in the elderly. However, most of these involve much older individuals (70 years plus) or sedentary people, so it’s not clear how their results would relate to masters sprint athletes. If athletes do decide to consume HMB, around 3g per day seems optimal. Creatine is another potentially worthwhile supplement, but again the research is typically in untrained and clinical populations.

Finally, research tends to suggest that older athletes are more likely to suffer from a range of muscle and tendon injuries. For example, a recent review on risk factors for hamstring injury suggested that older age was a significant risk factor for a hamstring injury, as was having suffered a previous hamstring injury. As masters athletes are likely to have been training and competing for much longer, they are more likely to have experienced previous hamstring injuries, doubly increasing their risk. Research also suggests that masters athletes have an increased risk of Achilles tendinopathy. As a result, masters athletes should be proactive in their injury risk-reduction training, using eccentric loading exercises to enhance the damage resistance of these structures.

Developing Training for Masters Sprinters

Based on what I’ve written above, I believe it’s clear that masters sprinters should follow typical best sprint training practices. However, we need to increase emphasis on building or, most likely, maintaining the relative proportion of type-II muscle fibers the athlete has, primarily through high-load resistance training and plyometric exercises.

Alongside this, injury reduction exercises for the hamstring and calf muscles are important to mitigate any age-associated increase in injury risk, while also understanding that highly damaging exercise, such as eccentric loading, may increase their recovery times even further. Finally, from a nutritional standpoint, masters athletes should aim to consume about 35g of protein multiple (3-4 times) per day, including after exercise, and may wish to supplement with HMB and creatine. By following these simple guidelines, we should be able to maintain the current performance levels of masters athletes for longer, enhancing their relative performance well into 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

The days of soccer players pounding the pavement mile after mile to increase their fitness levels are long gone. Soccer is a repeat sprint ability sport, requiring high-intensity movements followed by brief periods of rest over an extended period of time.¹ The research shows how players with a higher VO2 max often play at higher competitive levels of soccer.^2,3

In professional soccer, a typical preseason is six weeks in length before any competitive matches—these six weeks are a perfect time to develop the soccer-specific fitness qualities necessary for high-level performance in the sport. However, in the collegiate soccer setting, coaches are all too familiar with the 1-2 weeks of time they get to spend with their athletes before the first competition. Often, we see programs practicing twice per day to pack in as much fitness, tactical work, and skill development as possible.

In order to maximize our 1-2 weeks pre-competition and reduce the risk of injury, we expect our soccer athletes to arrive at a high fitness level. To reach the desired fitness level, we send out our preseason fitness program six weeks prior to arrival on campus. The plan below is:

• Simple
• Can be accomplished anywhere.
• Can be individualized.
• Is evidence-based to improve VO2 max in the weeks leading up to the collegiate soccer preseason.

Methods

Day 1 of the six-week program will serve as both testing and fitness. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test is widely accepted as a valid test for measuring VO2 max in soccer players.⁴ There are two different variations of the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: level 1 and level 2. The difference between the two protocols is the speed at which the running begins (with level 1 being slower and level 2 being faster). Level 1 ends up being a longer duration test because of the slower starting speed. Utilizing the level 1 protocol, the standard I use for my collegiate soccer players is a team average of level 40 for females (20 for keepers) and level 50 for males (30 for keepers).

Testing is important to compare the athletes’ starting fitness levels to their post six-week fitness levels. Testing also allows coaches to assess how the athlete handles the stress and anxiety that comes with the test, as well as evaluate movement patterns such as acceleration and change of direction abilities.

Weeks 1-3

For the first three weeks, I have the soccer players undulate their running. We have three different days that have three different emphases. Day 1 is the 4×4 method⁵, Day 2 is our 120% MAS day⁶, and Day 3 is our maximal velocity day.

Concurrent Training

To enhance athletes’ physical preparedness upon arrival to campus, we program in resistance training days that complement our fitness program. In the weeks leading up to beginning our fitness program, the athletes complete four days/week of resistance training. As we introduce the fitness program, we drop a day of resistance training (down to three days/week). This reduction in resistance training frequency allows us to introduce the fitness program without overtraining our athletes.

Every athlete’s schedule is different in terms of their day-to-day life, but we recommend that they attempt to run and resistance train on the same day. However, these sessions should be separated by six hours. The reason behind pairing the running and resistance training sessions on the same day is to allow the in-between days to truly be rest days from training. The athletes will complete individual skill/technical work, but that should not be detrimental to their training days.

Consistent communication with the athletes is paramount—this gives us the ability to see how they are adapting to the program, if they are recovering, and if we need to modify the volume or training frequency. At the end of the day our plan is simply a blueprint, but we take into account all of the other factors that affect our athlete’s lives.

Day 1

Four sets of four-minute runs at 90-95% max heart rate with three-minute recovery runs in between at 70% max heart rate.⁵ If our athletes have access to HR monitors, then we suggest they utilize them to get an accurate picture of their HR percentage. If they do not have access to HR monitors, we utilize a few simple cues. For the four-minute working portion, we inform the athletes that this time should be “hardly comfortable,” while during the recovery portion we use the cue “comfortably hard.”⁷

The athletes still receive a primarily anaerobic stimulus; however, the total volume or accumulation of time on this day provides an aerobic stimulus. This aerobic stimulus also appears on Day 2 and Day 3, but in different amounts.

Day 2

Day 2 is shorter intervals and based on the Maximal Aerobic Speed (MAS) method.⁶ I start the athletes out at 120% MAS, which I calculate from their Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test score. They must achieve that distance in 15 seconds, then they are allowed 15 seconds of rest, and then repeat. I start them with two sets of five minutes with two-minute recoveries between sets. Each week I add one minute if they successfully achieve the distance of all of their runs. It is easier to progress them in total time than it is in distance.

We recommend that our athletes complete this day on the soccer pitch, as it provides enough straight-line distance to complete all of the runs in a shuttle style. See Baker⁶ for a complete diagram of how to set up the pitch for this day.

Day 3

The third day is max velocity day. Now, max velocity running makes up a small portion of any soccer game; however, many times it can be the deciding factor for the outcome of a game.⁸ Many goals are preceded by an explosive movement or sprint to create separation from a defender. Max velocity also prepares the tissues for the demands of the sport, thus making the athletes more resilient.

I start the athletes out with 30 seconds of max effort running, or you can use 200-meter runs if you are on a track. I then let the athletes completely rest for four minutes (remember, we are sprinting, not doing aerobic work here). The first week we start small with three reps, and we add a rep each week as the athletes starts to adapt.

Weeks 4-6

After three weeks of these three different runs, we add in a fourth day. The Day 4 emphasis is short duration and low volume compared to the other days, but very high intensity because it focuses on change of direction—specifically, 180-degree change of direction at high velocities. The amount of time and space the athlete has available prior to the change of direction task will ultimately decide the velocity at which they approach, and thus the intensity of the task. We can limit the approach velocity by modifying the amount of run-up space the athlete has, or we can also modify the intensity of the COD by having a smaller angle of change. Given the time of the year that we implement this COD task, we want to prepare the athlete for the most demanding aspects of their sport so they will be best prepared—this is why we selected the 180-degree angle.

Change of direction is a KPI for soccer players. During a soccer match, players will utilize a change of direction movement 90-100 times.⁹ An explosive and efficient transition from defense to offense can give the athlete the advantage they need to score a game-changing goal; likewise, if an athlete can transition from attacking to defending, they can potentially negate a game-deciding goal.

Breakdown of Change of Direction Day

1. Two cones are placed 5 yards apart in a straight line.
2. The athlete begins with a dynamic lateral shuffle to the outbound cone.
3. At the outbound cone, they employ a crossover step to change direction.
4. The athlete then accelerates back to the start cone.
5. As the athlete approaches the start cone, they begin to decelerate.
6. They employ a crossover step again to change directions.
7. The athlete finishes the rep by accelerating through the outbound cone.

The entire run is completed with maximum intent. The rest intervals can range anywhere from 45 to 60 seconds, as we want the athlete to be fully recovered before running another round. When we first implement this into the program, we keep the volume low—2-3 reps on each side—and gradually increase the volume by 1 rep/side each week.

Results and Recommendations

The program concludes with a final Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test to assess performance improvements. In general, if athletes scored lower on the initial assessment, we will see a greater overall improvement after the six weeks: It is not uncommon to see an athlete go from level 25 pre to level 37 post. On the other end of the fitness spectrum, when athletes have a high initial assessment fitness level (40+), we see less of a percent change from pre to post test. However, these athletes still improve their post-test scores by 3-6 levels. What we have seen in the past with our athletes is that the athletes who test higher on the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test upon arrival to campus sustain fewer soft tissue injuries throughout the 1- to 2-week team training period prior to competition.

Previous methods of improving VO2 max for soccer players included large amounts of aerobic-based running. As we can see from the current research, purely aerobic work is not optimal for increasing soccer players’ fitness levels. Yes, we get an aerobic stimulus every day throughout the course of training, but our main focus is to improve the repeat sprint ability of our soccer players.

Soccer can be a complicated sport to program for, with many athletic qualities important for success. Just like coaches who undulate the weight room aspect of training to hit multiple qualities, we can undulate our running programs to hit multiple qualities. At the end of the day, focus on the qualities you want to train, be consistent with the training and the progressive overload of those qualities, and keep it simple. Lastly, save all the fitness-based small-sided games for in-season to keep athlete motivation high.

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. Bangsbo J., Nørregaard L., and Thorsø F. “Activity profile of competition soccer.” Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences. 1991 Jun;16(2):110–116.

2. Slimani M., Znazen H., Miarka B., and Bragazzi N. L. “Maximum Oxygen Uptake of Male Soccer Players According to their Competitive Level, Playing Position and Age Group: Implication from a Network Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Human Kinetics. 2019; 66, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0060

3. Mohr M., Krustrup P., and Bangsbo J. “Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2003; 21(7): 519–528.

4. Tanner R. K. and Gore C. J. (2013). Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes (2^nd ed.) Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, USA.

5. Helgerud J., Hoydal K., Wang E., et al. “Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2007; 39(4): 665–671.

6. Baker, D. “Recent trends in high-intensity aerobic training for field sports.” Professional Strength and Conditioning. 2011; 22: 3–8.

7. Turner A. and Comfort, P. (2018). Advanced strength and conditioning: An evidence-based approach. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

8. Reilly T., Bangsbo J., and Franks A. “Anthropometric and physiological predispositions for elite soccer.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2000; 18(9): 669–683.

9. Bloomfield J., Polman R., O’Donoghue P., and McNaughton L. “Effective speed and agility conditioning methodology for random intermittent dynamic type sports.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007; 21(4): 1093–1100.

In my own personal training over the last five years, the term “velocity-based training” usually referred to a sprint between Freelap timing gates. However, an easily portable bar speed monitoring unit, the “FLEX,” has changed that paradigm in recent months.

In the weight room, I’ve always enjoyed the use of bar speed monitoring in group training. Measuring barbell velocity across my athlete groups has always been for the following purposes:

• • Motivation.

• • More athletic execution of lifts.

• • A new stimulus to be phased in and out of a program.

Motivation: Having an outcome goal is clearly more inherently motivating to an athlete and will yield higher outputs. Jumps are several centimeters higher when you have an object to touch. Maximal isometric outputs on a force plate are 10% higher when the athlete gets feedback on their output. Don’t downplay the role of feedback from the environment in the total development of the athlete.

Athletic lift execution: Whether lifts are heavy or light, speed of execution is an important factor in what type of athlete the individual is becoming. In the Olympic lifts, in particular, when velocity falls below a certain threshold, the movements just start to look “un-athletic.” Just ask any experienced coach. We also know that doing lifts that are supposed to be athletic (Olympic lifts) with low bar speeds will not yield improvements in things like vertical jump. Bar speed monitoring keeps power work just that—power work.

Novelty: Bar speed monitoring is a great tool to drive selective novelty into the training program as well. This novelty can be served well by the selective introduction and reintroduction of work into a training program. I’ve historically used bar speed monitors in an “every other week” format, but this scheme could be very adjustable depending on how much neural energy you want your lifting sessions to consume. I have always enjoyed using bar velocity on a biweekly basis, since I felt it gave athletes something to look forward to and also took a bit of pressure off in the weeks that we didn’t use it to set a “bar speed PR” with a particular weight. In this manner, we could flow biweekly between a “strength version” of a lift, and a “power version.”

All this being said, I’ve found the bar speed measuring units that I’ve liked the most have this in common:

• • They are very simple to set up and use.

• • They give meaningful outputs.

• • They give consistent outputs and are reliable.

The FLEX unit is a piece of bar-speed monitoring technology that meets these three criteria extremely well, whether you are working with a team or training by yourself. The device is lightweight, easy to set up, accurate, and futuristic-looking. It comes with the unit, as well as a long rectangle of reflective material that gets set up under the bar.

Pros of the FLEX Unit

In my experience, the FLEX unit has the following “pros” for its structure and function:

• • Streamlined interface.

• • Easy to set up.

• • Lots of interesting metrics.

• • Easy management of history.

• • Great insights as to the makeup of your workout.

• • Just looks cool and sleek.

The unit and its interface are super slick. It’s extremely easy to turn on and connect to a smartphone or tablet, with minimal hoops to jump through to get up and running with the performance of a set.

The metrics the FLEX unit offers are:

• • Velocity (peak, average, and set average).

• • Power (peak, average, and set average).

• • Rep distance.

• • Power, strength, and speed ratio breakdown for entire workout.

• • Bar path.

Below are two common metrics for the FLEX—velocity and power.

Here are some “less common” metrics that I find interesting. The bar path and distance give some insights into the inherent variability that occurs from rep to rep in each training set.

The rep distance is one metric I hadn’t seen before, and I was particularly interested to see the variation that happened from repetition to repetition in each exercise I performed, not just in terms of velocity, but set distance as well (albeit subtle). This idea really brings out the notion of “repetition without repetition” that is present in all human movement, as well as barbell training.

In moving through the workouts day to day and week to week, you can easily manage your training history via a very simple and practical interface. The ratio breakdown of qualities, as I mentioned before, is a nice “at-a-glance” measure that helps you get a sense of what you were actually training that day!

Overall, I don’t like a bar speed unit for my personal training unless it makes the training more enjoyable by not having to click too many buttons. This device does just that, along with a variety of meaningful metrics and easy access to my own training history.

Cons of the FLEX Unit

I don’t really need to make a list for the cons, since there aren’t many. One aspect that isn’t a “hard” con is that there are no current eccentric bar speed metrics, or “shape of the lift” metrics, available in the app, so to speak. This data is definitely being “recorded,” but since this is a portable unit designed for an individual interested in improving resistance training maxes (and not likely the eccentric strength needed to rebound quickly into a jump), this data is currently not available in the app.

There is no way to avoid it with the unit, but there are also two pieces to set up for each lift. In an individual setting, this is no problem at all, but it may become an issue when there are more moving pieces in a room with more athletes, and as the coach-to-athlete ratio gets higher.

Recommended Especially for Individuals and Small Groups

The FLEX is a portable, lightweight bar speed monitoring device that looks futuristic and is simple to use. I would highly recommend it for anyone looking to take their personal barbell workouts to the next level, as well as those who are training others in 1-on-1 or small groups.

In larger group settings, this unit can be very effective (especially at its reduced cost), and I have used it in these settings with the help of interns. As these groups do get larger, however, a traditional GymAware unit will likely offer a more streamlined barbell speed monitoring experience. Overall, the FLEX nails what it is meant to do on every level, and I highly recommend it.

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

Not long ago, I was skimming my social media feeds and came across a post from a friend, which simply stated, old-school strategies die hard. Now, the post had no context as to what it was referring to, but this phrase alone sparked some thoughts regarding the state of the strength and conditioning profession.

First, I want to put this into perspective. I’m overseeing four assistant coaches, 300+ student-athletes, and working with ten head coaches. Specifically, I work with football and women’s basketball. Our job is to prepare our student-athletes for the rigors of collegiate athletics and design scientifically sound programs that will put them in the best position to reach their full athletic potential. So, there are a lot of moving parts to this equation:

• What does your team or weight room schedule look like?
• How many coaches do you have?
• What do you have for facilities and equipment?
• What is the training age of your athletes?

All of these factors should guide us in what we prescribe to our student-athletes.

Have We Mastered the Basics?

When we get new athletes in our program, I assume that they’re either coming from no training background or a bad training background. During this time, we introduce the movements and how they should be performed—slow cook the training. Here, we lay the foundation for the next 4-5 years of their college career.

For our redshirts, our goal is this: when we put them into their first offseason training setting, someone observing a workout would not be able to tell the difference between a freshman and a senior. Then, as they progress through their career, we only have to tweak technical errors, instead of having to re-teach every offseason. The question that may arise is, “What do we use as a metric to move on with our teaching progression?” Well, the short response is, “Does it look the way it’s supposed to look? Does the rack of a clean look the way it’s supposed to look? Does the squat look the way it’s supposed to look to proper depth? Does the pull/hinge look the way it’s supposed to look?”

When we look at programming exercises, we need to consider the needs of the group of athletes we’re coaching. What then constitutes a good exercise?

1. It’s done standing
2. It’s multi-joint
3. It’s done with free weights

If it meets these three criteria, it’s probably a good exercise. With that said, we need to have our “nonsense” filters set on high and look a little deeper.

• Does the exercise follow principles, specifically the principle of progressive overload?
• As the athlete adapts, can you progressively overload the movement to create a stimulus? Our progressions are:
• Easy to hard
• Stable to unstable
• Bilateral to unilateral

The focus should be on the basics! Our goal is to do the basics savagely well, as Verstegen has said. We Olympic lift. We squat. We pull and hinge. We push and pull. We unilaterally train our athletes equal to bilaterally training them. We sprint, jump, change direction, and condition. We stick to the basics as long as we can. Once we achieve or train to the point where we can use our coaching expertise to shift our training goals or prescription, we will. This is the art of coaching! Not what is cute or flashy in exercise prescription.

Content Creation ≠ Programming

This becomes especially intriguing as we find ourselves trying to sift through the copious amounts of content everyone is trying to push out via social media. For some of the coaches who are particularly active online, it seems their primary objective is to send out as much content as possible to make themselves relevant in the profession. Content is one thing, but the quality of content is another. In addition to the quality is the ability to apply the content to your particular setting or population. The material may be excellent, but disastrous if used in the wrong setting. For example, I have seen some great drills, exercises, and systems that would be difficult to implement within a large group setting. Not only from the coaching perspective of making sure the athletes are accomplishing what the drill or exercise was designed to address but also being efficient with our time.

In the collegiate setting, we are fortunate to have our athletes for a 4 to 5-year block where we, as strength coaches, can teach and progress our teams based on what we observe when they come on campus. On the flip side, we’re also expected to transform and create miracles with athletes who come from different backgrounds, abilities, and training ages. With this, I’m not sure that we have evolved.

Believe me, I understand the sentiment of trying to establish ourselves in the profession. Not only for the young coaches but for the experienced coaches working to maintain or improve their presence. It’s become apparent that as professionals, we’re trying to re-invent the wheel, especially within the ranks of young coaches. Which poses the following questions:

• With all of the strategies, exercises, and driven data, have we really evolved as a profession?
• Have we mastered the basics of training?
• Do all of our athletes know how to properly squat, hinge, press, pull, and extend?

In other words, have we achieved the proverbial strong enough? If I pose that question, I struggle to get an adequate or consistent response. Are we in good enough shape for the time of year? Meaning, are we appropriately addressing conditioning based on the time of the year? In February, we don’t need to be in game shape for a football season. Likewise, for basketball, we don’t need to be in game shape in June or July. However, we still need to design and implement the appropriate amount of conditioning throughout the year to not get out of shape. The best way to get into shape is to not get out of shape, which I believe Al Vermeil said.

Training vs. Exercise

One observation I’ve made is that it appears training is frowned upon in some situations. Training is a hard, boring, methodical process that takes discipline to maximize its benefits. I get it! This is cyclical in nature, as I have seen the hills and valley of ideas, concepts, and revelations come and go throughout my 20-year career. To paraphrase Coach Alejo, whatever the new training idea that’s marketed right now, I can tell you what it used to be called. In other words, there isn’t a whole lot that’s new.

But there is a difference between training and exercise, and I’m inclined to believe that exercise is popular right now. Don’t get me wrong, depending on the population you work with, exercise might go a long way. It’s ok to want to move, sweat, and put your time in the gym, but is it getting you closer to reaching the full potential of your athletic qualities? We should gear hard, consistent training toward achieving a particular goal or benchmark, such as strength, power, speed, etc. It needs to be tangible. And you can’t improve these athletic qualities by just exercising. A side plank DB snatch, or a single-leg contralateral, bottoms up press won’t elicit a quantifiable increase in stress to force adaptation, let alone prepare someone to play a collision sport.

The popular response on social media from some coaches will be, “well, we don’t chase numbers in the weight room.” That’s not what I am saying. I’m talking about lifting heavy things with great technique. I am talking about sprinting. I am talking about conditioning intelligently. We are too quick to think outside of the box, to “entertrain” athletes when we have yet to master the box with basic fundamental movements and exhaust their ability to elicit an adaptation.

Are You Managing What Gets Measured?

In some cases, it seems that copious amounts of data are collected just to collect it. That, in turn, takes away from what our job is as strength and conditioning professionals—being a coach. Envious would be the wrong word, but more power to the programs that have the staff and resources to collect meaningful data to aid in their student-athletes’ performance. If you’re fortunate enough to be in that situation, how much influence does the data have on your organization’s day-to-day operations and the many moving parts in a collegiate setting?

With the huge influx of information, I’m not sure we’re providing for our student-athletes better than we were before. Injuries are still an issue, even at the professional level. And I should get this out of the way: there is no such thing as injury prevention! With training, our goal is to reduce the incidence of injury or to mitigate harm. If injury prevention was possible, injuries should be totally minimized at the professional level with all of the resources at their disposal, but they’re not. Interestingly, injury mitigation is expected at the lower levels of college athletics, but the high-level college and professional levels haven’t figured this out yet either. The point is, sometimes stuff happens.

Old School for a Reason

So, going back to the idea of old strategies die hard, I want to put this into perspective. Old strategies die hard because they work! They don’t endure just because of a stubbornness to change. Contrary to popular belief, old-school coaches like myself have tried, experimented, implemented, and executed every concept that has been social medialized. The reality is that we’re applying the tools that work within our system, philosophy, and constraints.

It goes back to if you have a dollar to spend, how are you going to spend it? Are you going to spend it on gimmicks and newly invented exercises that are not going to reach a threshold for adaptation? Or are you going to spend it on sprinting and teaching great squatting, hinging, pressing, pulling, and Olympic lifting technique and loading appropriately based on training age? Tools that work and can be efficiently coached and tracked for adaptations should be the go-to.

After being described as an injury predictor, the Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR) has recently come under scrutiny by the sports science community. Dr. Tim Gabbett has been at the forefront of this topic, and his research has been instrumental in shedding light on athlete monitoring and its importance not just for performance practitioners, but for sport coaches as well. He demonstrated the importance of monitoring volumes not only in the weight room but in nearly all sport activities, including games. Gabbett’s research has shown how fluctuations in volumes of sport-related activities may affect injury rates in athletes.

However, Franco Impellizzeri has been adamantly challenging ACWR’s ability to predict injury. He wrote a letter in May 2019 to the BJSM questioning one of the most circulated visuals that describes ACWR (see adapted Image 1 below). Impellizzeri said the figure is unreliable based on the adjustments that were made, and he recently published an article saying:

We suggest ACWR be dismissed as a framework and model, and in line with this, injury frameworks, recommendations, and consensus be updated to reflect the lack of predictive value of and statistical artefacts inherent in ACWR models. (Impellizzeri 2020)

An athlete’s previous injury history, sleep habits, hydration status, nutrition, biomechanics, psychological state, training age, training volumes, injury rates in the sport, environment, aerobic capacity, and many more variables play varying roles in each sustained injury. I agree with Dr. Impellizzeri that ACWR’s predictive value is very limited. However, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. ACWR is still useful for sport coaches and performance practitioners as a high-performance (HP) tool.

ACWR and Milo of Croton (Progressive Overload)

For those of you who haven’t heard the story of Milo of Croton and his cow, I’ll give you the shortest version that I can:

Milo was an athlete in ancient Greece and wanted to become stronger to improve at his sport of wrestling. He began carrying a baby calf up a mountain every day. As the calf grew, Milo became stronger.

Essentially, all this story describes is progressive overload for strength training. Here is where ACWR comes into play: If Milo had jumped immediately from carrying a calf to carrying a full-grown cow the next week (or if he went up the mountain 15 times a week with the calf compared to seven times), would he have gotten injured due to the large jump in training load and volume? Maybe. But because of the cow’s slow growth and the sustained distance, Milo became stronger via progressive overload while simultaneously avoiding injury.

What is ACWR?

ACWR is a ratio between acute training loads (training volumes during the previous week) and chronic loads (training loads for the last four weeks). The chronic load (CL) values can change (four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, etc.), but you can lose valuable insight if you choose a longer CL value. With an 8-week average, for instance, it’s harder to see weekly changes compared to a 4-week average. For example:

• Previous week: acute workload of 60 miles
• Previous four-week average of acute workloads: (50 miles + 55 miles + 55 miles + 60 miles) / 4weeks = Chronic workload of 55miles
• ACWR: An acute workload of 60 miles / chronic workload of 55 miles = 1.1 ratio

Going back to Milo of Croton, what was his ACWR? The only thing that changed for Milo was the size of the cow. Because of the slow(ish) growth, he accumulated similar incremental increases of intensity over weeks of training and got stronger while limiting his risk of injury.

The way you choose to measure your training loads depends on how insightful you want your data to be. When I performed some original research for my Master’s thesis on cross country athletes, I wanted to look at the rating of perceived excretion (RPE) and distance run during practice. The most common way of calculating workloads is using an RPE 1-10 and multiplying that by a volume or the duration of training (GPS data). Premier football leagues across Europe use speed and distance to calculate training and game intensities for players, which is the gold standard, in my opinion. The crude calculation of RPE x Duration can provide some insight into how an athlete perceives their training. It also can give great feedback to the coach as to which athletes are performing at the right intensities and which are not.

Why and how is an RPE calculation effective? RPE was invented by Dr. Gunnar Borg as a 6-20 scale to illustrate how the perceived response of exercise correlates with the heart rate response to exercise (see Image 2 below). RPE is a good psychophysical representation of work that’s completed. The psychological aspect takes into account how challenging the exercise is to the athlete based on how they’re feeling at that moment.

Some common factors that affect RPE are mood, sleep, feelings toward exercise, etc. The physical aspect is the body’s response to the imposed demands and the environment in which you are training. These include exercise type, training status, hot or cold climates, elevation, and many other variables. Both psychological and physical responses to exercise play a major role in how someone perceives the difficulty of their training. Because of the demonstrated importance of this relationship, RPE and/or reps in reserve (RIR) have become typical additions to strength training feedback.

If two athletes who have the same strength levels perform the same exercise in the same environment with the same weight, and Athlete #1 had an RPE of seven and Athlete #2 had an RPE of 9, is it safe to assume that Athlete #2 experienced more training stress than Athlete #1? Is this feedback valuable?

What Is a High-Performance Model in Athletics?

The HP model is athlete-centered and ensures that the athlete’s development is the top priority for everyone who is in contact with them. This ranges from the player development coaches to ATC to S&C to mental skills. With everyone having the same goal of developing athletes to the best of the group’s ability, the next most important aspect is communicating effectively about what the goal is for each group.

After that comes developing a plan that’s agreed upon for each athlete’s development. It’s critical that each group communicates about what they see in the athlete and then compromise as to the most effective way to develop that athlete. It is essential that each groups’ expertise is understood and agreed upon. While discussion and discourse are encouraged, once a decision has been made by the expert(s) in their field, there should be very little (if any) second-guessing of that decision. If there is, bringing up concerns to that person and not to anyone else is the most effective way to communicate disagreements. This model takes the onus off of the sole leader and emphasizes decentralized leadership within each person’s expertise.

ACWR: High-Performance Tool (S&C Focused)

For an S&C HP model, the primary goal, especially during a season, is to keep athletes as healthy as possible and able to perform to the best of their ability on the field. The secondary goal is to maintain and develop the traits that will help our athletes succeed on the field. This is crucial because there is an inherent risk to training—the only way to ensure no injuries occur in training is not to train at all.

As I stated before, injuries are multifactorial. No one thing is the sole cause of an injury. I agree with Dr. Impellizzeri that there is no shot ACWR can predict that an athlete will be injured; however, proper periodization exists to limit injuries and gain desired physical characteristics in a timely and effective manner. This is where ACWR can be really helpful for coaches who have little background in sports science and creating practice plans. Having large weekly fluctuations in training volume and intensities is not effective for athletic development.

ACWR is effective at illustrating changes in three of the most important aspects of training:

1. Stress responses for each athlete
2. Adaptations you are expecting
3. Consistency in training

1. Stress Responses

Global stress has been the topic of multiple studies (Mann, et al. 2015; Lavell & Flint 1996), and while this topic needs more in-depth research, there are some safe assumptions we can make based on the literature. Mann et al. looked at the stress levels of student-athletes in football throughout a semester. They found that athletes were almost twice as likely to be injured during periods of high academic stress compared to low academic stress. This illustrates the importance of monitoring global stress, which ACWR effectively accomplishes. For example, during finals week in college, a natural deload in training probably occurs based on the anticipation that global stress will increase. If an athlete is still giving an RPE post-training that is higher than what you anticipate, it may be necessary to decrease their training load to help diminish the likelihood of injury.

Charlie Francis’ High-Low model demonstrates another example of the stress response. The model describes two distinct types of training days: high-stress days emphasizing adaptation and low-stress days prioritizing recovery. Transferring this concept to a high-performance model requires effective communication among coaches. If there’s a lack of communication, daily stress can dramatically increase because there are no days that emphasize recovery (see the top model on Image 3 below). Using ACWR would be a practical way to show when and where you should plan the high-stress days and when to schedule the low-stress recovery days. This gives the coaching staff an excellent picture of how to periodize their specific practice plans for their players within the High-Low model.

 2. Adaptations

Eliciting adaptations with training loads is the basis for improving sports performance. Monitoring training is essential to accomplish this task safely and effectively. Using ACWR and testing athlete adaptations (jump testing, sprint testing, sport performance, etc.) can give you a really clear picture of where you need to make changes in programming. If you have the budget, GPS data is an excellent source for monitoring athletes—not just during sprint mechanics, but also during practices and games, adding a more in-depth look that RPE can’t provide.

When attempting to improve maximal power and speed in your sport, you should be training at those levels and testing your athletes on those characteristics. Maximal speed and power adaptations can decrease in as little as three days (Issrusin, 2008). If you aren’t noticing improvements—or, more importantly, are noticing decreases in performance—it’s essential to have the ability to go back and analyze why.

ACWR can give invaluable insight into each athletes’ psychophysical state during training. If an athlete is constantly above your desired RPE, their stress levels may be consistently too high (or they’re pushing too hard and need to be reined in). On the opposite end of the spectrum, if the programmed training intensity is too low, athletes aren’t reaching their minimal effective dose. The inability to produce maximal power due to residual fatigue or lack of stimuli can result in decreased power and speed production. A decrease in power production is the number one adaptation you want to avoid throughout a season.

Returning to Image 3 (above), during the sprint training days, which athletes would most likely be able to produce the most power?

• Those following the first weekly plan that’s consistently in the moderate to high stress, or
• Those doing the second plan that places fewer stressors on them on their low days before strength and power training?

3. Consistency

Consistency of training is something I think all strength coaches and performance practitioners recognize as critical. As I illustrated in the Adaptations section, strength and power characteristics can decrease extremely fast. Consistently stressing the body in a periodized manner can create gains that occur throughout an athlete’s career, and having a consistent daily schedule is critical for athletes, especially in-season.

Athletes who travel constantly need to have an anchor point during a season. This is easiest to plan during homestands in which athletes aren’t stressed with travel and don’t have major changes to daily their routine. An ideal schedule may vary from athlete to athlete, and it’s difficult for studies to illustrate exactly why consistency is important.

Intuitively, the more consistent the schedule, the fewer the unnecessary stressors placed on the athletes. Limiting the instances of “Hey, change of plans, we are going to practice today at 1 pm instead of 3 pm” is really important to accomplish this. There are plenty of stressors that athletes—especially “minor league grinders” and college athletes—face during the year. Travel, sleep debt, food security, schoolwork, and family issues, just to name a few. Not knowing the weekly schedule should not be one of them. I totally understand that changes are going to happen during the year due to unforeseen circumstances. However, unnecessary schedule changes should not be a stressor on the long list that athletes already face.

Final Thoughts

As I’ve noted, ACWR is not an effective tool that predicts predisposition to injury, as Dr. Gabbett has described in his research. It can, however, be an extremely effective tool for performance coaches monitoring their athletes’ workloads, especially when the performance coach does not prescribe a large portion of the workload. Additionally, ACWR can be an extremely effective tool for a strength coach or performance practitioner to demonstrate to the player development staff where and when stressors are placed on athletes, and how and why to consolidate those stressors to emphasize recovery days and higher intensity days better.

“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Everyone who has been on a coaching staff with a sport team knows that plans, practices, and player moods can all change at a moment’s notice. Adaptability is the greatest ability that S&C coaches and performance practitioners can have. Having a plan is essential for success, but blindly sticking to a program when ACWR is calling for change will lead to a decrease in performance and possibly injury. Modify your plan to fit the current situation and execute that plan!

“A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”—George Patton

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. Gabbett, T. J. (2016). The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med, 50(5), 273-280.

2. Gabbett, T. J. (2016). The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med, bjsports-2015.

3. Impellizzeri, F., et al. (2019). The acute-chronic workload ratio-injury figure and its “sweet spot” are flawed. SportRxiv (preprint).

4.Impellizzeri, F., et al. (2020). Acute to random workload ratio is “as” associated with injury as acute to actual chronic workload ratio: time to dismiss ACWR and its components.SportRxiv (preprint).

5. Issurin, V. (2008). Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 48(1), 65-75.

6. Lavallée, L., & Flint, F. (1996). The relationship of stress, competitive anxiety, mood state, and social support to athletic injury. Journal of athletic training, 31(4), 296-299.

7. Malone, S., et al. (2017). The acute: chonic workload ratio in relation to injury risk in professional soccer. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 20(6), 561-565.

8. Mann, J. B., et al. (2016). Effect of physical and academic stress on illness and injury in division 1 college football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(1), 20-25.