Blog

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.

The last day of school is a very special day for non-coaching teachers and students who are not involved in athletics. It signals a long rest. A time for both faculty and students to have 8-10 weeks of relaxation. At the very least, they have that amount of time to enjoy not having to think about being at school.

Coaches and student-athletes also look forward to that special day. As we know, however, it’s not because of anticipated long stretches of relaxation. Instead, it signals the beginning of summer practices, camps, tournaments, and strength and conditioning workouts. This is an enjoyable time for most. It’s also a busy time for all.

The Most Fertile Training Period

No coach spends more time on campus during the summer than the strength and conditioning coach. Most sports have a two- or maybe three-hour block during the day 3-4 times a week when they work with athletes. If you work with multiple sports, your day could last six, eight, or even 12 hours. At York Comprehensive High School, my day runs from 7:30 a.m. to 1:15 p.m., which is close to what a full work day runs during the school year, in terms of total hours. It may be more because there is no break during that time. We just roll one group after the other.

While we do look forward to and enjoy this time of year, it doesn’t come without its unique challenges. For me, it’s a great time. While we don’t have the time off other educators get, we get the opportunity to do what we love year-round. The time, while enjoyable and productive, presents us with obstacles that make us think outside the box.

This article will discuss some of the situations I have experienced and how we have worked around them the best we could. Things we don’t have to deal with during the school year are now issues. Sports teams from all three seasons will now have practices and strength and conditioning needs. Compounding this is the need to share multisport athletes.

Most sport coaches will talk a good game about “sharing,” but won’t always demonstrate actions that coincide with that. While we may not coach a sport, that situation will inevitably drag us into a Pandora’s Box. Add in the next layer to that issue: middle school athletes. Some states bar joint workouts with middle school and high school students. My state allows it.

Getting a talented, rising seventh grade athlete who has a training age of zero and plays three sports can present a multitude of problems during the summer “free for all.” If you also “block” your athletes, as I and many others do, you may end up with six or eight different variations of a session going on, all at once. On the other end of the seventh-grade athlete issue is the training age zero rising senior. How do we encourage that initial foray into high school athletics when the athlete’s teammates are years ahead on the training age spectrum?

In the summer, athletes often miss days or even weeks of training and practice. How do we account for that within the training calendar? These issues highlight the obstacles strength coaches face once summer “vacation” begins.

Scheduling Sessions – A Solution to the Nightmare

Scheduling sessions is the first hurdle we must cross in the journey to creating and implementing a successful summer workout plan. The main factor that needs to be navigated before any scheduling decisions can be made is whether to schedule as “sport” groups, male and female athletes, or some combination of the two. I’ve done a little bit of all three over the years. One thing that always stays consistent is putting football on its own. The pure numbers make it difficult to share the room.

My process begins with nailing down the exact times that ninth grade, JV, and varsity football will need me. That’s the easy part. I can’t speak for every situation, obviously, but in my experience, football is the only group that the vast majority of the athletes and coaches show up for year-round. This group gets priority scheduling because of that year-round effort, right or wrong.

After football gets slotted in, the next decision is male and female groups or sports teams. This is where the aforementioned “Pandora’s Box” situation comes into play. If we select sports teams, that presents us with a couple problems.

One is having enough time to get all the teams in individually. The other is how to deal with the many multisport athletes we have and navigate the sometimes-fragile relationship between various sports coaches who expect those athletes to attend their session. Often, the multisport athlete is one of the better players for both teams, and sometimes a leader on both or even three teams. I have done it both ways in different situations. However, if you have more than 2-3 teams of female or male non-football athletes, it gets tricky fast.

At YCHS, we have decided to go away from individual team sessions, even as far as our classes go. We are in the process of switching from sport classes to male and female. Neither way is totally ideal. This summer, for example, our female athletes are with me from 8-9:15 a.m. and our male non-football group from noon to 1:15 p.m. In the past, we have gone later, from 11-12:15, because most of our female teams held summer practice from 9-11 am. Our 8 a.m. slot had been male, non-football.

This year, we had one female team move their practice time to 6-8 a.m. So we had one team early and the rest at 9:15 a.m. My solution was to move our female weight room time to 8 a.m. That puts the single sport athlete on campus four days a week for about three hours. For our multisport female athletes, that may cause them to be on campus from 6-11:30 those four days. That will be an issue for sleep and recovery, as it would be for any teenager.

There is no perfect solution. As strength and conditioning coaches, all we can do is find the best scenario possible and monitor the athlete the best we can. If we see any issue, we can adjust the workload on our end. In our situation, I find it best not to encourage “team” training. Our program is unified, and I see no reason to get involved in the division of sports teams.

Middle School Athletes – Consider Biological and Training Ages

When I coached in North Carolina, the issue of training the middle school athlete was simplified by state-mandated rules. It was simply stated that no student enrolled in the middle school or below for the following school year was permitted to take part in any practice or training session involving high school students. I hosted a summer camp in the evening and ran a speed and quickness program through the recreation department.

In South Carolina, it’s not that simple. Middle school athletes can and often do attend our after-school and summer programs. In fact, eighth graders can play at the junior varsity level. That throws a pretty big wrench into the situation.

I have had both seventh and eighth grade females show up to summer sessions, along with rising freshmen and 10th-12th grade athletes. It gets complicated fast. This is where I lean on our sport coaches for support. Without their attendance and help, I would be forced to turn those students away or add a session that would either be hours before or hours after their practice sessions.

This situation requires us to be masters of multitasking and not get flustered easily. I work directly with this group with the help of one other coach. I still run our clock, coach on the run, etc., but I have to count on my sport coaches to be strong assistants and help with the coaching and supervision of the older, more experienced athletes in the group.

Making sure the coaches you know will be there are educated on how you do things is imperative. One thing I make sure to remember is that my priority is our current athletes. While training our young group to be prepared for the high school level is extremely important (which is why I do it myself), there are times when my focus must be on our older group. I explain that to our coaches and athletes.

At that time, it is important to have the sport coach who helps you with the middle school group be well-versed enough in your Block “0” protocols to take over the group when needed. As is a common theme in many of my articles, we must take the time to properly train and educate sports coaches in the nuances of what we do. They can and will be invaluable to you if they are prepared to jump in when needed with more than the most basic coaching.

Blocked Athletes – A Simple Solution to a Complex Problem

I have always believed that the best-case scenario for grouping athletes is by training age or blocking. Imagine if we had the ability to have all athletes within the same block within a session? Even two blocks combined, as long as they are concurrent, would be extremely helpful. I have never been in a situation where that was feasible. The closest I get is having the varsity football team in the same class during the school year.

In the summer, it can get pretty far in the opposite direction. In addition to the middle school athletes I spoke of, I have all levels of training age blocks from one (new lifter) through four (elite). To make the situation even more complicated, every summer I get the inevitable athlete or two who are juniors or seniors but have never played a sport or taken part in our strength program. Essentially, they are block ½, or at best 1 ½, athletes. Most have a basic knowledge of working out, but very little in the way of technique or how to perform what our higher block athletes in those grades can perform.

The first part of this potentially difficult equation is to make sure we have “slow cooked” our athletes. If we have progressed each of our older athletes as we should have, we have a leg up. It’s vital that you have a process to teach slowly and with great attention to detail. That makes things much easier when you get to a situation with many levels training at once. Our program motto is “Master the Ordinary.” If both our higher block athletes and sport coaches are educated and willing to make sure that the ordinary, basic things in our program are done right, it allows me to spend extra time teaching those things to our lower block athletes.

The second aspect is program organization. CoachMePlus is the tool we use for this. I have also organized the program in the past with Excel sheets, but it’s much more time-consuming to prepare. Using CoachMePlus, we create micro groups that are put together by block. Therefore, we may have five different blocks training, using five different variations of the workout, but each has their own assigned areas. This allows us to monitor and coach at the group level.

Another important factor in this is the use of a unified program. Below is a chart that lists several of our main movements and how we differentiate them by block. By using a unified program within our modified tier system, we can have each block doing a training-age-appropriate movement, but within the same movement family as all the other blocks.

Below is an actual example taken from one of our recent workouts.

This also helps me during the busy summer months by ensuring that all our coaches and athletes are on the same page. My softball coach can assist me with our basketball, volleyball, or even football athletes, if the need arises.

Summer Vacation – The Curveball We Know Is Coming

The final summer-specific issue I will discuss is something all coaches have to contend with. The last day of school is likely the final time any coach will have all their sport’s athletes present at the same session until mandatory practices begin in August. It’s something that can frustrate coaches, but we can’t do much about it.

While we all have athletes who plan their entire schedule around the sport’s schedule, most do not. Vacations, camps, and distractions can lead to the loss of training days. My advice to all our athletes is “do your best to be here.” If it’s important to them or their parents, they will figure it out. As we all know, it’s not as important to most as it is to us. We have to have a plan. Mine is not complicated.

Again, I go back to having an online-based program as an advantage. For us, it’s CoachMePlus. The athletes get an email every day with a link to the workout. In all likelihood, the sport coach will not give them credit for “distance training,” but at least they have the opportunity.

I have no illusions that many of our athletes take advantage of this, but the opportunity is there. If they just do the main scheduled movements, they will not fall far behind. When I was Excel-based, I would supply them with a sheet if they asked (they never actually did, though).

Overall, I don’t let myself get too stressed about the vacation situation. Teenagers are resilient. We’ll catch them up as needed. The bulk of our training is done outside of summer anyway.

In South Carolina, we basically have six weeks between graduation and the start of fall practice. This includes two “dead weeks.” I won’t worry about an athlete until they have missed a couple weeks in a row. I have no magic solution for this age-old situation. Like everyone else, we just try to offer opportunities and help our athletes make great decisions.

Get the Most out of Your Summer Months

I hope this piece has given you a small insight into how we do things at YCHS. I am grateful for the opportunity to assist you and thankful that you took the time to read this article. I hope you can take any part of this that interested you and use it to your advantage. Feel free to contact me to expand on this or any other topic I can be of assistance with. I wish you a happy and productive summer.

Editor’s Note: Block Zero and other tier concepts from Joe Kenn have been referenced in past articles and is considered mainstream. See How to Introduce Youth Athletes to Strength Training for an explanation of how this works.

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

As coaches, we’re often inundated with information on the Next Big Thing. Speed program X, Strength Program Y, or whatever Pro Athlete Z is doing seem to catch interest among coaches and parents alike. In my younger days, I was no different in my pursuit of “advanced knowledge” and even more eager to apply it.

During nearly twenty years in the industry, I’ve seen trends come, go, then come back again—sometimes repackaged, recycled, and watered down. But one trend that has steadily grown (if you can call it growth) is the lack of baseline skills coupled with a dwindling physicality in the developmental population. This has made the answer to the question, “Where do we start ’em”‘ one that has regressed congruently over the years.

Some may argue that today’s training landscape (and to an extent, physical education in general) is ridden with a lack of behavioral and physical standards. This is bred by the tolerance of low efforts while over-celebrating the equivalent of basic hygiene with over-expectant results. This may seem like a loaded statement to some. Still, we can examine the country’s youth obesity rate¹ along with the prevalence of injury in young athletes² to see how this philosophically may fit. Layer this with well-meaning but misinformed parents who ask you about the Westside Barbell Program for their twelve-year-old (true story), and you have the recipe for a ticking time bomb of premature injury and burnout.

I don’t mean to go on a rant about how kids are soft, and their parents are crazy but recognize that invoking standards, celebrating success, and building culture takes some ingenuity. This also helps us traverse the murky waters of athletic development in our pursuit to prepare these trainees for their next level.

So, where do we start ’em?

Drive Engagement, Embrace the Basics, and Celebrate Success

The short answer is a blend of general physical preparation (GPP) that employs a progressive loading and movement system during which our young athletes can see where they’re at and know where they’re going. The key is in how we make the general basics attractive enough so that our young ones embrace them.

The following model is a blend of ideas from various GPP methods, inspired in part by social media posts from Jay DeMayo several months ago. The crux of the program includes basic movement patterns for the upper and lower body paired with resisted crawling, carrying, and dragging patterns. Execution involves interspersing a crawl, carry, or sled drag in between sets of your chosen 1×20 exercise. You can see the GPP influences here, ranging from Yessis (1×20) to Dan John (crawls and carries) to Louie Simmons (sled dragging). I’ve run variations of this program for one to three months, depending on the progression of the individual involved.

In this system, we realize progression in a few ways.

1. The 1×20 parameter allows our athletes to progress in two ways: by increasing load upon hitting the 20 or by increasing repetitions with the same load. The wonderful thing about this is that the visual of “more weight on bar” or “more reps per session” is empowering, as momentum and confidence build over time.

2. Each movement has a progression where young athletes earn the next level by hitting a target load for an assigned repetition range. For kids and parents who want the barbell right away, I explain we must earn our way by displaying impeccable control of our bodyweight before loading with external resistance. Some of the exercises progress a level or two within the month, while others take a while. In this way, individualizing a program has a direct purpose and grows with them. I term this auto-regulatory progression.

3. As work capacity improves, time to completion compresses. Over time, these kids become beasts. And as this portion of the session becomes easier, we allow them to add in stuff they like. In other words, they earn their way to fun by taking ownership of their progress. We can’t ignore the significance of this subjective progress, as the perception of “getting in shape” creates a motivated, internal mental environment that allows young athletes to approach each day with the best effort they can give us. For coaches, this is an important tool.

Be warned, though, that this implementation makes for a bit of a smoker—initially, athletes breathe hard and often report DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness). Trust me, when I say we do not chase this, it’s a result of the lack of acute work capacity. Athletes quickly adapt to these demands, as bi-weekly personal bests become a regular occurrence. Another psychological caveat of the single set program is the urgency factor. Athletes get one chance to do their best. No do-overs! No second chances! No sandbagging! Whatever happens, happens right here and right now!

It’s a built-in culture-builder within a pragmatic system.

The Basic Template

Here is the skeleton layout of the system.

Block I: Lower Body Emphasis

A1) Squat: variation based on progression

A2) Forward/backward bear crawl

A3) Hinge: variation based on progression

A4) Lateral bear crawl

A5) Single-leg variation: left

A6) Rotisserie crawl-bear to crab to bear; repeat

A7) Single-leg variation: right

A8) Forward and backward bear crawl

A9) Trunk/hip flexion

A10) Lateral bear crawl

Block I emphasizes the lower body, where we work three of the five basic movement patterns (squat, hinge, single leg). Some will disagree with having two squat exercises in the block, but the way I see it, you can use the single leg in different planes, as in a lateral lunge or rotational lateral lunge.³ I also include a basic trunk drill (I don’t call it core) involving hip flexion or anterior chain stability.

We determine the beginning exercises during an evaluation. Progressions for the hinge range from the old school waiter’s bow to the barbell RDL. For the bilateral squat, we begin loading with a dumbbell (goblet style) and progress to the barbell. Single leg is an interesting case, as I’ve used a similar progression to the squat but have found loading with a weighted vest is better because it lessens the complexity. Keep in mind, complexity is another layer of loading (especially on one leg) that may not be the best option initially. The crawls serve as “focused filler” work that prepares the upper limbs for Block II without directly interfering with lower body fatigue (not to mention all the great things the cross-crawl pattern does for the brain).⁴

Block II: Upper Body Emphasis

A1) Horizontal/vertical push

A2) Forward sled drag/carry variation

A3) Trunk lateral flexion

A4) Backward sled drag/carry variation

A5) Horizontal/vertical pull

A6) Lateral sled drag: right/one-arm carry variation

A7) Trunk rotation

A8) Lateral sled drag: left/one-arm carry variation

A9) Trunk extension

A10) Drag/carry variation

Block II is upper body dominant, initially applying one multi-joint push and pull movement along with hitting the other movements of the trunk (flexion and rotation extension). The multi-joint push and pull is enough for most young athletes at this stage, but you can layer in single-joint drills as trunk work becomes too easy. Again, the reason behind putting a drag or carry here is that it won’t directly interfere with the strength drills. One can argue the trunk is getting worked in the carry—which I agree with, but from an isometric standpoint. The simple beauty of the carries and drags lies in their resemblance to hard work. As stated earlier, having young athletes perceive work as hard is important in building standards of behavior in the overall culture.

Remember how I told you this session is a bit of a smoker? Well, here’s how we accomplish this: we go on the clock. My experience in working with the swim community forced me to learn a certain vernacular to understand how aquatic athletes practice. A common swim set may be ten one hundreds on the one-thirty, meaning they swim 100 yards every one minute and thirty seconds ten times—your basic interval-based training here. Organizing the swim dryland workouts in this fashion allowed a connection to their language and culture while keeping effort and compliance honest. After researching articles on how to condition in the weight room, I figured I would apply that to the above structure.

In the early going, for a few reasons, I space out the intervals a bit with an E202 (every two minutes on the two minutes).

• We aren’t out to destroy these kids, as they’re walking in our doors with low work capacity and low training age.
• There is more space to coach in. If movement quality means as much to you as it does me, you’ll appreciate the time to coach the proper technique.

As each athlete improves in movement progression, strength levels, and stamina, you can compress the interval to challenge them. The most compressed interval I’ve used is the EMOM (every minute on the minute) structure—a challenge to the aerobic pathways given a set of 20 will last about 25-35 seconds.

Troubleshooting the Carries, Crawls, and Drags

The next question becomes, how do we apply the carries, crawls, and drags? Take a simple inventory of what you have in terms of implements and space.

Things you need to crawl:

1. Your body
2. Space 5-10 yards

Things you need for carries:

1. Kettlebell, dumbbells, barbell, or farmers’ walk handle
2. Space 15- 20 yards

• If you don’t have anything from number 1, you can use loaded buckets
• If you don’t have space, you can march in place

Things you need for drags:

1. Loadable sled with strapping, ropes, or chains
2. Space 15- 20 yards

• If you don’t have a sled, you can make one from an old tire with a 2×6 piece of wood as a base inside the tire. Load up anything of weight inside.
• If you have a treadmill, you can turn off the motor, and the belt will provide resistance. This has come in handy during our current state as everyone is homebound.

Here’s the quick and dirty application.

If you have the allotted space: crawl for 10 yards and carry/ drag for 15-20 yards.

If you have less space: crawl in 5-yard increments, carry in a shortened area (or march for thirty seconds), drag, or work the treadmill for thirty seconds. This is a scenario where, if you lack a training partner or the coach is with a group, you can set an interval time (SIT Timer in the App Store) for :30on/:30off and commence exercise on the beeps.

One great caveat about this model is how it fits into the minimal effective dose and bang for your buck philosophies. The entirety of an E202 session will be forty minutes for each block and compresses to twenty minutes in an EMOM. Total body strength and work capacity are covered, while leaving room for technical work for sprinting, jumping, cutting, and landing. Applying remedial dynamic means in congruence with this system is no problem, as you can increase the volume and repertoire of jumps, throws, and tumbling as the workouts become more time-efficient.

Which Brings Me to Other Variations I’ve Applied!

Let’s say you have a kid who comes in, and mom and dad tell you they only have 30 minutes today because they have an ACT tutor coming. I’m sure my fellow private sector coaches have dealt with this (or comparable) often enough. If we need to compress the overall daily structure to include our dynamic work, we can simply insert extensive jumps or throws into the series.

Block I: Lower Body Emphasis —No Contrast

A1) Squat: variation based on progression

A2) Med ball chest pass vs. floor or wall

A3) Hinge: variation based on progression

A4) Overhead throw vs. wall

A5) Single-leg variation: left

A6) Sideways/shot put throw vs. wall

A7) Single-leg variation: right

A8) Twist throw vs. wall

A9) Trunk/hip flexion

A10) Slam variation

Block II: Upper Body Emphasis—No Contrast

A1) Horizontal/vertical push

A2) Low box jumps

A3) Trunk lateral flexion

A4) Low hurdle hops with forward displacement

A5) Horizontal/vertical pull

A6) Zig zag jumps with two legs or skater style

A7) Trunk rotation

A8) Split jumps

A9) Trunk extension

A10) Single-leg hopping LLRR

Make sure you put these on the minute and keep the jumps and throws to no more than ten total per exercise. If you want a contrast effect, just simply perform the jumps during the lower body emphasis and the throws during the upper body emphasis.

A Slightly More Advanced Model

Here is yet another variation I’ve applied with contact sport, cheer, and gymnastic athletes. You can compress it or extend it in a couple of ways.

Base model

Block I: Lower Body Emphasis + Somersault

A1) Squat: variation based on progression

A2) Forward somersault

A3) Hinge: variation based on progression

A4) Backward somersault

A5) Single-leg variation: left

A6) Forward somersault

A7) Single-leg variation: right

A8) Backward somersault

A9) Trunk/hip flexion

A10) Forward somersault

Block II Upper Emphasis + Rolling

A1) Horizontal/vertical push

A2) Shoulder or log rolling

A3) Trunk lateral flexion

A4) Shoulder or log rolling

A5) Horizontal/vertical pull

A6) Shoulder or log rolling

A7) Trunk rotation

A8) Shoulder or log rolling

A9) Trunk extension

A10) Shoulder or log rolling

Extension

A1) Squat: variation based on progression

A2) Forward somersault

A3) Hinge: variation based on progression

A4) Backward somersault

A5) Single-leg variation: left

A6) Forward somersault

A7) Single-leg variation: right

A8) Backward somersault

A9) Trunk/hip flexion

A10) Forward somersault

A11) Horizontal/vertical push

A12) Shoulder or log rolling

A13) Trunk lateral flexion

A14) Shoulder or log rolling

A15) Horizontal/vertical pull

A16) Shoulder or log rolling

A17) Trunk rotation

A18) Shoulder or log rolling

A19) Trunk extension

A20) Shoulder or log rolling

Compression

A1) Squat: variation based on progression

A2) Pick somersault or roll

A3) Horizontal/vertical push

A4) Pick somersault or roll

A5) Hinge variation

A6) Pick somersault or roll

A7) Horizontal/vertical pull

A8) Pick somersault or roll

A9) Trunk drill of choice

A10) Pick somersault or roll

Anyone who has followed Dan John over the years can see his influence here. And let me tell you from experience, the stress on the vestibular and circulatory system is tremendous. An EMOM clock here works best and keeps you honest while you’re trying to figure out which end of the room is which when you’re getting up from the rolls.

By no means is this system a be-all and end-all, nor is this anything you must do in perpetuity. As your athletes progress through the ranks, they will require more intensive means. But you can revisit this system during rest cycles or the “curve balls” life may throw at you. You can make the adjustments suggested above when time, equipment, or space become an issue—which happens to be the case for some of us currently.

The marriage of simple GPP modalities, along with a systematic approach to strength and conditioning, has allowed me to plug and play variations that fit the current and evolving needs of my athletes, along with daily fluctuations in performance and logistics. And all the while, we’re getting them to embrace the basics, drive work ethic, engage their efforts, and catalyze improvement. The simple stuff is sexy when it delivers.

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. “Childhood Obesity Facts,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• “The prevalence of obesity…affected about 13.7 million children and adolescents.”
• “Obesity prevalence was 13.9% among 2- to 5-year-olds, 18.4% among 6- to 11-year-olds, and 20.6% among 12- to 19-year-olds.”

2. Youth Sports Injury Statistics,” Stop Sports Injuries, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine.

3. Nick Garcia, “Creating and Implementing Template Based Training,” Garcia Performance (blog), October 17, 2018.

4. Dan Fichter, “Neuro Based Training,” Presentation TFC 8.

Being a coach in Calgary, Alberta, my year-round training options are at the mercy of the weather. Long winters, frigid temperatures, and endless snow keep us captive indoors many months of the year. We do not have the luxury of being outside on a field or on the track to properly train speed in a year-round fashion, particularly maximum velocity. Granted, Calgary is much warmer than the place I grew up three hours further north (lovingly called Deadmonton), but the winter conditions can seriously impact the long-term speed development of many athletes.

Comparably, with the recent worldwide pandemic, many athletes are relegated to their homes and must train in basements or small spaces. This means many promising and high-level athletes are not training properly (if at all), and speed training is surely the most neglected quality.

Where space and weather are limiting factors, tools that can help develop and build speed qualities are greatly needed. Luckily, one such option exists, and it can be extremely valuable in the pursuit of speed: tethered running.

What Is Tethered Running?

I am a pirate; meaning I rarely create anything of value myself, but instead steal ideas and tools from all the great coaches out there doing great things. Tethered running—which I stole from fellow Canadian Derek Hansen, and which he started experimenting with circa 2000—is simply putting a rope or band around your hips and anchoring it to something sturdy (or held by a partner). This then allows the athlete to do a multitude of training options indoors and without much more than a few square meters.

The placement of the rope allows for a much more natural feel than simply doing the same exercise in place without the tether. The little bit of resistance provided by the rope (my personal preference is my 1-inch purple resistance band) affords the athlete the ability to lean in slightly and strike the ground in a manner more akin to upright running, creating a more realistic muscle sequencing pattern. The external resistance also means the athlete has to maintain good postural control and develop body awareness. Tethered running is also a great option when you have a bit more space and a partner handy, because they can hold the band and slowly walk forward, allowing the athlete to get more posterior chain involvement.

Is tethered running a substitute for actual sprint training? A resounding NO! But as a tool to develop (some) speed qualities when weather and space eliminate any possibility of performing quality sprint work? Absolutely.

Think of it this way: If an athlete can’t run but still wants to train, what are they going to do? Likely weight training and bodyweight circuits training, which are fine and definitely have their place, but on their own will not develop the neurological or stiffness qualities required for sprinting. If an athlete is sitting around (like during quarantine…) then they are essentially detraining. If they are training but not doing speed-related work, they are detraining speed! This can lead to poor performances and an increased risk of soft tissue injuries once they ramp back up their training volumes (i.e., better weather or no more quarantine). Tethered running is a great adjunct to get quality speed training when the situation calls for it.

Here is an incomplete list of many of the capacities and physical qualities needed for efficient sprinting. Properly implemented tethered run training can also focus on, maintain, and even develop these areas:

• Posture
• Coordination/patterning (developing front side mechanics)
• Arm mechanics
• Rhythm, relaxation, and timing
• Frequency
• Elasticity/reactivity of the lower leg/foot
• Leg and trunk stiffness (vertical displacement of center of mass)
• Contact time
• Specific strength (hips, ankle, etc.)
• Foot/calf conditioning
• Vertical force development

Will these capacities get developed better than with sprinting? Unlikely. Will they be developed to a higher degree than if not sprinting at all? Yes!

In that effort, we’ll focus on three primary applications: speed development, extensive tempo running, and return to play.

1. Speed Development

To get fast, you need to sprint. However, tethered running is a fantastic means to work on various sprint drills, low-intensity plyometrics, and other coordination drills. If you subscribe to the “Feed the Cats” training style, these could also be great additions to the X-Factor days.

Sprint Drills

Even though a sprint drill doesn’t necessarily make someone fast, it creates context for an athlete and can develop specific postural strength, rhythm, and relaxation. When used in a tethered fashion (as opposed to in-place with no tether), the athlete can use the resistance of the band to adopt a more leaned-in body angle. This much more natural feeling position will also cause the athlete to strike the ground in a more favorable manner (under the hips) as they try to push away from the anchor point. This increases posterior chain involvement and improves foot placement.

The “Big 3” to start with are marches, skips, and runs (See Video 1 below). The sets/reps can be either repetition-based or time-based. For example, with the Tethered March you can do 2-5 sets for 10-30 seconds with 20-50 foot contacts. I’ve found multiple sets of lower repetitions for these drills work best to keep fatigue at bay and movement quality high.

Other drills include (see Video 2):

• In and Out Skips
• Unilateral Skips
• Ankle/Skin/Knee Dribbles
• Booms
• Multi Boom series
• Arm Action Drills
• Power Skips
• Scissor Runs
• Snowball Runs

You can also increase the intensity of each drill by altering arm position (i.e., overhead holding a dowel) or introducing some light external resistance, like a medicine ball, as the second half of Video 1 shows. This introduces novelty, movement variability/challenge, and overload without needing to design a new drill.

Low-Intensity Plyometrics

Pogo Hops, or Stiffness Jumps, are a great tool to develop elastic-reactive qualities of the lower leg, preactivation (i.e., dorsiflexion), and leg stiffness. When space is limited, adding the tether is a fantastic way to get more work out of these drills.

With the athlete now getting resistance from the tether, the recruitment strategy is different compared to simply jumping vertically on the same spot. It requires more calf involvement, and the ground reaction force will be angled slightly forward rather than straight up. Similarly, you can increase the intensity with light external resistance in front or to the side of the body (i.e., medicine ball). Repetitions would be anywhere from 8-20 seconds depending on whether you want to emphasize contact time or power or 20-45 seconds for more of a conditioning effect. Sets can range from 1-6 reps.

Great options include (see Video 3):

• 2-Foot Pogo
• 3 Mini + 1 Big (Different Amplitudes)
• Single-Leg Pogo
• Shuffles
• Mummy Shuffle
• Astride Jumps

Max Effort Drills

Obviously, the neuromuscular component of sprinting can’t be matched without actually hitting the track, and we don’t want to solely perform submax drills and jumps. We will still need to address the CNS component even if we are confined to our homes. A variety of max-effort drills can be performed with the tether. These should generally be done in short bursts (around 6-8 seconds or 3-5 reps, depending on drill) to ensure maximal outputs and high movement quality. Some of these drills take some getting used to in terms of feel and coordination, but what are you going to do…not train speed?

Drills include (see Video 4):

• Sprint Arms
• High Knees/Power Runs
• 2-Point, 3-Point, 4-Point Starts
• Kneeling Start
• Broad Jumps
• SL Jump to DL Landing

2. Extensive Tempo Running

Used by many great sprint coaches, tempo running is a fantastic tool in a coach’s toolbox. Particularly if you subscribe to the high/low model of structuring weekly training, it is a great way to get a lower intensity session to improve aerobic qualities and overall blood flow without the impact or CNS load. Increasing chronic running volumes and improving the efficiency of the aerobic engine will make the athlete more robust and able to handle higher training loads year after year, thus improving the quality of training and reducing injury risk.^1,2 With limited space or limited access to quality facilities, this could be a massive component missed by athletes.

Fear not, tethered running is here to help.

Hunter Charneski wrote a great article detailing tethered tempo runs. To perform them, you run in place against the tether for a designated period of time, in an interval fashion. In terms of the sets and reps, I believe Carl Valle summarizes it nicely in this article: “The density of work has to be high enough that the body is in a constant state of deficit but not too hard that the aerobic strain can be felt at the muscular and tendon level.”

The aerobic system needs to be challenged and should be the limiting factor, not the tissues. Tempos are typically performed around 70% intensity. So, during tethered tempos, it should be a steady pace where you feel you are working, but never to the point you need to slow down due to fatigue—though you will get sweaty and your calves/hip flexors will be tired the first few times!

There are endless combinations, but I tend to defer to 25-45 seconds of work, with a 1:1-1.5 work-to-rest ratio (the athletes’ fitness levels will determine the ratios). Similar to other forms of tempo, the level of intensity is not the key, but the total volume. Thus, you should default to lengthening the duration of the run, shortening the rest periods, or increasing sets/reps rather than making the athlete move quicker. In Charneski’s article, he details approximate sets/reps to correspond with actual track distances, and session volumes for various sports and positions (refer to that article for more detail).

True, you could do this in-place without a tether, but the more natural position afforded by the band makes it much more enjoyable and easy to maintain a steady rhythm. I should note that due to the limitations of tethered running compared to running over the track or grass, I find the hip flexors get more fatigued. So, you may need to modify sets/reps/rest for particular athletes.

In terms of technique, I find a slightly lower knee lift, somewhere around one-third to one-half of max knee height, works well. This way you can still work on rhythm, arm action, crisp foot contacts, and relaxed shoulders. You can even perform this on a thin exercise mat for a more compliant surface to dissipate some of the forces going through the lower leg.

Another great way to extend the aerobic challenge—without adding more running—is to incorporate medicine ball exercises, flexibility circuits, or low-volume calisthenics before, during, or after the workout. This would be more than adequate as a low-intensity session for an athlete at home or in a small facility during the Canadian winter.

A great initial session I do with athletes, either on a lower intensity day or for an at-home session, is the following:

• 30” on/30” rest x 4-5 reps x 2 sets
• **1-3 minutes between sets depending on athlete fitness levels

Here is an example of a pyramid tempo workout:

• 30”+30”++
• 45”+45”++
• 60”+60”++
• 45”+45”++
• 30”+30”
• + = 30” rest

And an adapted tethered workout based off Charlie Francis’s “Big Circuit”:

• 30”+30”+30”++
• 30”+30”+45”+30”++
• 30”+45”+45”+30”++
• 30”+45”+30”+30”++
• 30”+30”+30”
• + = 30” rest

3. Return to Play (RTP)

The applications for tethered running aren’t just performance-based, as tethered running also has a very real place in rehabilitation because it increases tissue tolerance in RTP scenarios. After an acute or chronic overuse injury, part of the RTP process is to gradually reintroduce graded training stimuli to improve tissue remodeling and tolerance without exacerbating symptoms. This generally begins with low-intensity/low-volume interventions, and then gradually both of those criteria are increased based on athlete tolerance, until the athlete can handle full training.

In the case of a sprinter or field sport athlete RTP scenario, this generally means progressing to some sort of full-effort running. Not exposing an athlete to the types of speed and external forces that they will experience in their sport during the RTP process is a surefire way to increase the likelihood of flare-ups and reinjury. Additionally, specificity is key, so for athletes who need to run, intelligently designed running progressions will provide an adequate means for progressing tissue tolerance and specific strength.

Tethered running is a great way to recondition an athlete’s lower half after an acute injury (e.g., ankle roll, hip flexor strain, pulled hamstring) or overuse injury (e.g., shin splints, plantar fasciitis), or for other injured body parts that can’t handle the load of full-effort sprints (e.g., strained erectors, rotator cuff surgery). This modality can even be useful when adequate space is available, but a modification in volume and intensity is required during the rehab process.

Let’s take an acute ankle sprain as an example. Once preliminary examinations/imaging are performed, initial therapies to restore functional ranges of motion and strength are incorporated, and the athlete is more or less able to bear weight (though full weight-bearing is not required to begin), then we can introduce tethered rehab strategies. Like any rehab situation, you will want to find an “entry point” where the athlete can perform some amount of training without substantially increasing symptoms (i.e., pain, swelling, inappropriate movement strategies, etc.). In the case of an acute ankle sprain, this entry point would likely be the standard March Drill.

The following flowchart shows how a coach can increase the training demands over time, thus improving adaptation, by progressing the dynamic effort, external load, or volume of the drill.

• Ensure athlete demonstrates proper dorsiflexion and pre-activation before advancing a drill.
• Sets/reps can be anywhere from 1-4+ sets depending on severity of the injury.
• Allow full recovery periods to prevent fatigue from being the limiting factor in technical execution.
• Can be partner-assisted to allow the athlete to travel forward at a slow pace.

A safe way to progress each drill is to start with what the athlete can handle. For example, use the March Drill for two sets of 10 seconds, then increase the sets to three and then to four sets of 10 seconds. If the athlete responds well, drop the sets back down to three and increase the duration to 20 seconds and progress back to four sets. When the athlete is accustomed to this workload, drop back down to three sets of 20 seconds, but introduce external resistance like a medicine ball, and similarly build up to four sets. Once this is not an issue, you would then introduce the next most dynamic drill (i.e., Low Skip), start at a low volume, and progress in a similar fashion.

Whichever route you take will depend on what the athlete can handle and how they respond, but ultimately you will want them performing the most difficult drills prior to clearing them to resume regular training (or at least reincorporate portions of regular training).

This logical progression of low intensity/low volume to high intensity/moderate volume will improve muscular strength, tendon/ligament stiffness, proprioception, and endurance qualities of the lower leg, which would surely have regressed during the initial stages of rehab. Additionally, the athlete’s tolerance to training will be somewhat reinstated, allowing them to handle higher volumes of sport-specific training sooner than if no run training had been performed. Similarly, they will have developed overall coordination, rhythm, relaxation, and fitness qualities, allowing for a more global training effect—rather than simply focusing on the ankle—and leading to a more optimal RTP scenario.

Not a Replacement, but a Good Addition

In terms of true speed development, if the training modality isn’t flat-out linear sprinting, then there will obviously be limitations and drawbacks. Though tethered running has many benefits, especially for our confined athletes, it is not a replacement. It will not replicate the ground reaction forces or vertical force development seen in upright running. It will not produce as much tension or load through the posterior chain, particularly the hamstrings. It will not reproduce identical motor patterns (i.e., foot strike, heel recovery), flight times, or stride lengths. It will also not replicate the neural drive seen at higher speeds.

However, this should not discourage its use as an adjunct to proper sprint training, especially if the other option is to do no form of sprint training at all.

Moving Onward

My hope with this article was, first, to inspire coaches in similar situations as myself, who may not have adequate facilities to sprint year-round or who are relegated to coaching in small spaces for many months due to poor weather. Secondly, my goal was to shine a light on the many useful applications tethered running can have, especially because it is a low-cost and easily accessible form of training. It can be a useful means to develop (or at least maintain) several speed qualities through specific sprint drills and low-intensity plyometrics, and aerobic qualities through tempo running, and it can be a valuable training tool in RTP protocols.

Now grab a band and get moving!

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

Malone S., Roe M., Doran D.A., Gabbett T.J., and Collins K.D. “Protection Against Spikes in Workload with Aerobic Fitness and Playing Experience: The Role of the Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio on Injury Risk in Elite Gaelic Football.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2017;12(3):393–401.

Malone S., Owen A., Mendes B., Hughes B., Collins K., and Gabbett T.J. “High-Speed Running and Sprinting as an Injury Risk Factor in Soccer: Can Well-Developed Physical Qualities Reduce the Risk?” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2018;21(3):257–262.