Blog

Like numerous strength coaches across the country, I have a front row seat to the year-round sports specialization saga. Regardless of our professional setting—private sector, high school, or club—we all have eyebrow-raising stories our athletes have passed along about another coach, or about situations we’ve witnessed in person. In my current role as a high school strength coach, I have my own deep collection—but one experience in particular stands out.

Two years ago, my women’s soccer team made it back to the playoffs, which is always momentous. I remember my head coach telling me some of the girls would be late to our game because they had a club tournament that night as well.

“Excuse me…what?”

Sure enough, our playoff game was well underway when I glanced over my shoulder and saw those girls sprinting through the parking lot, their soccer bags flailing behind them, cleats in their hands. They’d already played a full soccer game and were potentially about to enter another, with high-stakes and playoff intensity. That scene in its entirety has cemented in my mind the picture of specialization, and a picture really is worth a thousand words.

The playoff game is merely circumstantial, this example is meant to illustrate the mindset and demands of year-round specialization, which regardless of sport or age is the norm for millions of youth athletes. Specialization is just part and parcel of modern-day coaching, for all parties, at all levels. While it poses some barriers and requires a fluid process, it should not exclude the consistent practice of sound weight training.

While it poses some barriers and requires a fluid process, year-round specialization should not exclude the consistent practice of sound weight training, says @rachelkh2. Share on X

I often receive questions from coaches trying to figure out the best training plan for their specialized athletes, and I’m met with varying degrees of frustration and indecision. Naturally, the reality is somewhere in the middle. That realistic middle ground can be covered by General Physical Preparation—or GPP—and lots of it.

Defining General Physical Preparation

For those unfamiliar with the terminology, according to Siff and Verkhoshansky: “The GPP is intended to provide balanced physical conditioning in endurance, strength, speed, flexibility and other basic factors of fitness, whereas the SPP (Specialized Physical Preparation) concentrates on exercises which are more specific to the particular sport.”

Note: If you read Bompa and Haff, it’s general physical training, or GPT, but for consistency we will stay with GPP.

Bompa specifically emphasizes the importance of GPP with young athletes because it provides the basis for future training and the capacity to tolerate training—the latter being especially important for specialized athletes. He writes:

“Exercises for general physical development are nonspecific exercises that contribute to the athlete’s physical development. These exercises develop strength, flexibility, mobility, aerobic fitness, and anaerobic capacity. Exercises for general physical development lay the foundation for further training by improving basic motor qualities that are central components of a multilateral program.”

Keyword takeaways from both definitions: balanced, basic, nonspecific, development, foundation. Music to any strength coach’s ears (well, most anyway).

Needless to say, specialized athletes will particularly benefit from GPP, given their chronic exposure to everything *except* balanced and nonspecific training, says @rachelkh2. Share on X

Commonly, we see GPP utilized in the early off-season as a welcome reset, both physically and mentally, following the intensity and grind of in-season. If I use my volleyball athletes as an example, their high school and club seasons combined can span upwards of 48 weeks a year. Needless to say, specialized athletes will particularly benefit from GPP, given their chronic exposure to everything except balanced and nonspecific training.

GPP Framework

GPP training is highly simplistic, or should be. Along with numerous others, I was inspired by Dan John’s five basic human movements, and developed my own list based on my preferences and the athletes I train. Everything we do, including GPP, is inclusive of the following seven patterns:

1. Squat
2. Lunge
3. Hinge
4. Knee-dominant hamstring
5. Upper push
6. Upper pull
7. Core: anti-extension, anti-rotation, anti-flexion

GPP provides a way to successfully manage the stress of the high school and club seasons, while simultaneously contributing to development, as it provides practical and realistic solutions to the unique needs of this population, for four primary reasons that I outline below.

1. Training is Training

With two competitive seasons, endless practice sessions, and many other unknown variables, there is likely little capacity to recover from intensive or neurologically demanding weight room sessions. I emphasize *likely* because without the resources or tools to monitor stress, I cannot say definitively that more intensive training isn’t possible. However, based on the information I can assimilate, the risk of causing harm is not worth the attempt.

This is not a reason to refrain from load or to retreat from training. We must view all training as stress with the potential to either help or hurt, rather than have a myopic view that a session must contain X, Y, and Z exercises. Should we always endeavor to include ground-based, multi-joint movements that can be traced back to the basic patterns? Yes. But the mechanism of load or the classification of an exercise as a regression does not take away from value, or more importantly, that it is stress.

We must view all training as stress with the potential to either help or hurt, rather than have a myopic view that a session *must* contain X, Y, and Z exercises, says @rachelkh2. Share on X

The training goals of specialized athletes who play the same sport year-round are not necessarily going to mirror those of athletes following a traditional model of one succinct competitive season (like football). In other words, weight room training should be focused on ways to keep the athletes healthy enough to play year-round. With this population, maximizing the basic fundamentals in various ways still contributes to development and health.

GPP is training. Goblet squatting is training. Dumbbell snatching is training. Training is training.

2. Variability Improves Ability

Thousands of hours in ankle braces, thousands of repetitions of the same movement, and thousands of hours in stagnant postures. If they aren’t part of a comprehensive strength and conditioning program, most athletes probably aren’t moving outside of their sport.

This creates two extremes on a movement continuum. When they are moving, it’s confined to practice and games; when they’re not, they’re sitting in class all day or hunched over a screen. Both chronic extremes, with little or no variation.

This is where GPP and a qualified strength coach can help athletes become better, more coordinated movers through movement variability in the weight room. Variability doesn’t mean novelty for the sake of novelty. Variability should be recognizable as modifications of the basic movements listed above. Variability reflects itself in what I term modifiers, some of which I list below:

• Stance: split, b-stance, kneeling, half kneeling, tall kneeling
• Plane of motion: frontal, sagittal, transverse
• Unilateral or bilateral
• Offset position or weight
• Mechanism of load: landmine, med ball, dumbbell, etc.

One of my favorite tools to use in GPP training is the landmine, because of its versatility and ability to challenge and improve coordination. For taller athletes, it can be especially beneficial to help increase body awareness and control with their longer limbs. I like implementing it in many ways, but specifically as a unilateral press in a half-kneeling stance because it improves several things simultaneously, including:

• Global stabilization, including anti-extension and rotation of the core
• Coordination
• Scapular upward rotation
• Upper body pressing strength

Another example—and more recent addition to my exercise bank—is the split stance RDL. I’ve implemented these with my volleyball team, and although they’ve previously mastered bilateral hinging, this movement was unfamiliar. So, coaching the athletes to own this new position was a learning experience for all. Changing the context of a pattern should not be complicated. I like using a split stance simply because it builds on previous mastery, helping to form a more competent mover. Additional reasons I like to use a split stance:

• Lower leg stability
• Balance is not a limiting factor for weight as opposed to a single leg RDL
• Unilateral strength and size development for posterior chain

The short answer for getting athletes to move better is to get them moving! GPP provides a platform to expose and load joints in new ways, which helps correct movement restrictions and improve motor learning. While prioritizing safety and transferability, there are numerous ways to modify the basics in order to create variability and improve overall movement ability (some of which you can see HERE).

GPP provides a platform to expose and load joints in new ways, which helps correct movement restrictions and improve motor learning, says @rachelkh2. Share on X

3. Develops Athleticism

Heavily researched and heavily debated, early specialization (or participation in a single sport before puberty), can begin as young as seven years of age. A study in 2017 by Buckley et al. showed the average age a current high school student began specializing was 12.7 ± years old. So, by the time they reach high school, kids who specialize have been doing so since middle school, or before. If they go on to play collegiately, some will have been playing one sport, year-round for a third of their life.

Specialization is the quintessential representation of the expression “run before you walk.” Developing a base of general movement proficiency, although contradictory to the premise of specialization, is advantageous for athletes in numerous ways.

In his book Range, author David Epstein elaborates on the importance of breadth and how some of the most successful people, including athletes, did not begin with a narrowed or specialized focus: “Breadth of training predicts breadth of transfer. The more contexts in which something is learned, the more the learner creates abstract models, and the less they rely on any particular example. Learners become better at applying their knowledge to a situation they’ve never seen before, which is the essence of creativity.”

Simply put, the more diverse scenarios an athlete can experience, the better. Unfortunately, by the time they reach high school, it can be difficult—although not impossible—for specialized athletes to pick up another sport. This is where the role of a strength coach and the weight room become invaluable for athletic development.

Returning to volleyball as an example, during GPP, most of the athletes’ power work is done with med balls in the transverse plane. Teaching them how to express power in non-specific helps them become better athletes first, then better volleyball players. We also work simplified sprint mechanics for the same reason.

When athletes learn to demonstrate new and unfamiliar movements with proficiency, it also builds confidence—and that may be the most valuable asset a strength coach can cultivate, says @rachelkh2. Share on X

One population that often gets forgotten about and lost in the fray of team sports are distance runners. Although the structure of their competition is different, the hours they spend in the same posture and the high rep nature of their sport very much fits them in the “specialized” category. For distance runners, getting in the weight room is perhaps the single best thing that can be done to improve performance. One of the ways I aim to develop their athleticism (and yes, it helps runners to be athletic) is by prescribing unilateral and bilateral jumps in the transverse and frontal planes. Learning to express power and develop stability in these unfamiliar planes builds their athleticism, making them more efficient runners.

My goal in using GPP to build athleticism is to help athletes not look like fish out of water while performing any unfamiliar task at hand. When they learn to demonstrate new and unfamiliar movements with proficiency, it also builds confidence—and that may be the most valuable asset a strength coach can cultivate.

4. Increases Performance

It’s possible to observe performance gains with GPP. With young athletes, performance gains can be recorded using the bare minimum due to their training ages—I get it. But when working with specialized athletes, if you’re keeping track of practice hours and competition (and you should be), performance metrics are hardly, if ever, a priority.

GPP is commonly prescribed in higher volumes and moderate intensities, but I scale it back to moderate volume and moderate-to-low intensities in efforts to prevent soreness and overtraining. This enables them to safely continue lifting while competing for their club teams. The goal is to keep their training stimulus a trickle rather than a stream, allowing them to recover and continue improving.

Would these graphs indicate greater improvements if I could get them under heavier weight during club season? I’m positive the answer is yes. But as far as I’m concerned, healthy athletes with a bonus of consistent progress is a win.

Implementation in Your Sport

As the title suggests, specialized athletes need GPP, and lots of it. How much is a lot? That’s dependent on a host of factors unique to each program.

My volleyball team spends anywhere from 7-10 weeks in a GPP phase at the end of the high school season, which then spans well into half their club season. Truthfully, we could probably do it longer and continue to see benefits. It comes down to knowing your athletes, their needs, and the direction of your program.

For those reading who aren’t strength coaches, GPP will not only be highly beneficial for all your athletes, it’s also a simpler way to develop your weight room coaching skills, as much of GPP is less technical than many of the traditional barbell movements. This is not to say GPP requires less coaching. Every movement in the weight room—whether highly technical or regressed—should be coached with equal fervor and attention.

I hope this has shed some light on training specialized athletes. By no means is GPP a replacement for getting under a heavy bar, but when utilized and coached meticulously, it has the potential to help your athletes while preparing them for more intensive training down the road.

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

Bompa, T. and Haff, G.G. (2009) Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training (5^th ed.) Human Kinetics

Brenner, J.S. and COUNCIL ON SPORTS MEDICINE AND FITNESS (2016) “Sports Specialization and Intensive Training in Young Athletes.”Pediatrics, 138.(3).

Buckley, P.S. et al (2017) “Early Single Sport Specialization: A Survey of 3090 High School, Collegiate, and Professional Athletes.”Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Jul 5.(7),

Epstein, D (2019) Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. Riverhead Books

Verkhoshansky, Y. and Siff, M.C. (2009) Supertraining (6^th ed.) Verkhoshanksy

This article was co-written by Derek Hansen and Robert Panariello.

Sports are such a big part of our culture, and not having an event to attend or watch on television due to COVID-19 shutdowns has left a significant void in our lives. This void is accentuated when people are cooped up in their homes without an outlet for their emotional energy. Those who work in sports—including athletes, coaches, and the staff of professional teams, sport institutes, universities, and high schools—are all dealing with an equal void because their professional lives have been significantly disrupted until further notice. They aren’t permitted to go to work and put in the long days of training, effort, and preparation leading up to a season. Some competitive seasons were interrupted mid-stream, and it’s uncertain whether those seasons will be adequately concluded, including post-season events. Everyone is left feeling empty and helpless, hoping the outbreak will subside so they can soon resume normal routines.

We’re all hoping that continued tragedy and loss of life can be averted in the coming weeks and months ahead. It may take significantly more time before governments are prepared to allow people to gather and resume their normal daily routines. For professional teams, this will include practices, meetings, rehabilitation visits, and workout sessions.  While it may not initially include fan attendance in stadiums and arenas, the first order of business will be to allow teams to prepare as they normally would for a return. However, there are possible hidden risks for players as adequate training has been an uncertainty during the shut-down period. Rapid returns by teams to conclude playoff games may result in significant player injury that could impact numerous careers and livelihoods.

In this article, we provide guidelines for returning from the COVID-19 shutdowns and the possible consequences on both player performance and health as part of the return-to-sport process. We’ve already been working with many professional teams and universities to prepare for such circumstances, consulting with them about various scenarios and contingencies. We want to ensure we maximize player health while establishing rational and pragmatic guidelines around performance training and sport-specific practice. While there is no perfect way to handle this matter, we must focus attention and care on the preparation and requirements for both sport training camps and competitive demands when returning from a health crisis never experienced before.

The Reality of Training During COVID-19 Restrictions

It’s no secret that an athlete’s training during the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult at best. Depending on which part of the country you reside in, restrictions can vary from strict orders to avoid public spaces to not gathering at private facilities located on school and university properties. As all gyms are closed, most athletes can’t participate in optimal weightlifting. The professional athlete who has a home gym might be able to accomplish their appropriate workouts, but this likely includes a small percentage of athletes. If they’re confident to go outside, they may be running on a sidewalk or street, though optimal training distances could be limited. The swimming athlete faces greater challenges to replicating their regular training sessions and can only attempt to preserve their basic physical qualities. To state the obvious, training with peers is definitely out of the question, unless they live with you. We are now fully realizing the physical, psychological, and social realities of training during a global pandemic.

We now understand the realities of training during a global pandemic and must assume that training qualities are deteriorating. Share on X

Therefore, we must safely assume that all training qualities are deteriorating during this time. The magnitude of this detraining phenomenon will vary from athlete to athlete depending upon genetics as well as how much mitigation training they perform via bodyweight, resistance band, and modified running programs received from their coaches. The longer COVID-19 distancing measures continue, the deeper the hole dug. Realistically, all plans moving forward after this pandemic must take into consideration the depth of this deconditioning hole. It’s also unlikely that any return to normalcy will transpire rapidly. It’s more likely that a phased approach will be instituted when returning to normal daily activities. Gathering in large collective groups probably won’t happen as quickly as sport coaches, staff, and athletes desire.

We have the time now to prepare our athletes against injury and ensure they're ready for competition once the COVID-19 measures are lifted. Share on X

How this presents may not be apparent to schools and professional teams until we have a few months of flattened numbers and regressing positive tests. Because of the uncertainty and the number of questions that remain, organizations must plan for every possible eventuality. The positive aspect of this situation is that we have a good deal of time and availability to prepare for an optimal return to sport to ensure our athletes are both protected against injury and ready for competition. We must do the work now, however, to prepare us for later.

Implications of Detraining During Lockdowns for Injury Risk

Injury resiliency must be the highest priority for all organizations moving forward to a full return to sport. Due to athletes’ containment in a less than optimal training environment (i.e., home, apartment, absence of training facilities, etc.), an overall deconditioning of the physical qualities of the body, including the athlete’s work capacity, will likely occur. A deficiency in work capacity could set the stage for overuse soft tissue injury (strains, sprains). And excessive fatigue may result from limited work capacity, as demonstrated by an athlete’s inability to maintain optimal and consistent physical and mental performance during high-intensity sport practice sessions. The onset of excessive fatigue places athletes at the following physical disadvantages:

• Diminished optimal and consistent repetitive muscle force (strength and explosive strength) quality output
• Poor reactivity to the ground surface (i.e., propulsion, deceleration, change of direction)
• Diminished kinesthetic and proprioceptive awareness (i.e., foot and hand placement when moving at high velocity)
• Diminished ability to concentrate on specific tasks during the practice session
• Diminished ability to optimally physical recover after repetitive maximal efforts
• Diminished ability to optimally physical recover between sport practice sessions

Maintaining (or re-establishing) an athlete’s physical condition is imperative while they’re residing in a contained environment. HOF S&C coach Al Vermeil’s hierarchy of athletic development is one option we can use as a guideline for an athlete’s “home” COVID-19 training sessions to help them achieve as optimal a physical development as possible. The initial focus for the athlete’s work capacity in our current restricted training environment will give them the ability to maintain consistent, repetitive performance until the time return to sport arrives. An appropriate work capacity also allows for suitable recovery between maximal effort repetitions as well as sport practice sessions. There are various methods available to establish and maintain an athlete’s work capacity. One to consider for restricted training environments is the Javorek exercise complexes, which require minimal equipment (barbell, dumbbells) and training space.

The Javorek exercise complexes are the brainchild of Romanian S&C coach Istvan (Steve) Javorek. They incorporate two basic components: total body exercise performance benefits and work capacity enhancement. The complexes are traditionally performed with either a barbell or dumbbells and include performing 6 prescribed exercises consisting of 6 repetitions each for a total of 36 executed repetitions. One executed exercise immediately follows another to conclude 1 set or cycle.  Initially, 3 cycles may be performed 3 times per week with an initial weight intensity of 15% bodyweight (BW) progressing over time to 5-6 cycles performed with a weight intensity of 35%-50% BW. You can review specific exercise complexes from Coach Javorek’s literature or his website. You can also modify the complexes according to an athlete’s medical history, needs, etc. The selection of exercises and the number of cycles should progress weekly. An example of a modified cycle includes performing the following exercise sequence:

• Mid-thigh pull  X 6
• Muscle clean X 6
• Overhead press X 6
• Back squat or front squat X 6
• Good morning or RDL X 6
• Bent over row X 6

Javorek complexes assist in enhancing the following qualities:

• Work capacity
• Joint mobility and soft tissue compliance
• Exercise technical proficiency
• Neuromuscular development
• Strength levels

Once an adequate work capacity is established, the athlete needs to emphasize their strength levels. The physical quality of strength is the foundation from which all other physical attributes evolve. Stronger athletes have demonstrated faster sprint (i.e., 10, 20, and 40 yards) and change of direction times, deceleration abilities, and higher vertical jumps when compared to weaker athletes. Stronger athletes also demonstrate lower injury rates. Dr. Tim Hewett, who is well renowned for his ACL prevention research, has shown that weaker athletes are considered ligament dominant. In other words, they are more dependent upon ligament contribution for joint stability when compared to stronger athletes. With athleticism and skill levels being the same, the stronger athlete usually prevails.

While at home, athletes first must establish adequate work capacity (Javorek exercise complexes) & then enhance strength with bodyweight exercises. Share on X

Ideally, we can enhance the physical quality of strength by applying an external unaccustomed high-intensity stressor (i.e., weights) during exercise. Some athletes may have limited, if any, access to high-intensity exercise equipment. And some may find themselves in circumstances where their BW is the only resistance variant available. These BW conditions will require them to play the preverbal “hand they are dealt,” needing maximal efforts to transpire during the exercise. The following are some recommendations for BW activities to enhance strength as well as improve the other physical qualities in Coach Vermeil’s hierarchy.

• Isometrics. Training with isometric exercise is beneficial in both the rehabilitation and performance training environments. Isometrics are used for reducing pain, increasing muscle hypertrophy (when performed at longer muscle lengths), greater neuromuscular activation (with ballistic execution), rapid force production, and increased recruitment of the motor unit pool available. They also improve muscle efficiency at submaximal loads and enhance oxidative metabolism. Guidelines for isometric exercise prescription are as follows:

• Hypertrophy: 70-75% max force, 3-30 seconds per repetition, 80-150 repetitions per training session performed at longer muscle lengths

• Strength: similar or higher forces as hypertrophy, 1-5 seconds per repetition, 30-90 repetitions per training session

• Tendon: similar to strength guidelines

• Ballistic isometrics are best performed for rate of force development (RFD)

• Squats. BW squats and, more specifically, overhead squats ensure joint mobility and soft tissue compliance and help maintain and increase strength levels. Regardless of the squat variation used, this BW exercise should be performed at different tempos and with appropriate exercise depth. Although squat depth and applied external intensity go “hand in hand,” studies have presented squat depth as related to relative muscular effort (RME) during exercise performance. RME is the muscle force required to perform a task relative to the maximum force a muscle can produce. Concerning RME, squat depth is accentuated over intensity for quadriceps muscle enhancement. Squat depth was also found to be just as essential as applied exercise intensity for hip musculature strength development.

•  Jumps up stairs. Most homes and apartment complexes have a set of stairs. Wooden staircases are better than cement ones due to the reduced ground reactive impact forces placed on the lower extremities. Single maximal effort jumps up a set of stairs will provide explosive strength efforts with associated low impact upon the body as each subsequent landing surface is higher than the step of the take-off surface. Multiple successive jumps up a set of stairs will also comprise reactive strength abilities.

• Lateral bounds. Although there are various track and field drills we can use during this COVID-19 time, it’s important not to exclude exercises for the lateral hip musculature. Lateral hip strength contributes significantly to the prevention of knee injury as well as athletic postures necessary during high-velocity performance. Our good friend Dr. Donald Chu would test his athletes by performing a single maximal effort lateral bound on a standard track. He taught us decades ago that athletes who cover the greatest distance laterally (the most track lanes) likely have the fastest linear velocity.

• Sprinting. Sprinting will occur outside the home while athletes adhere to social distancing. Sprinting is the purest of all plyometric activities and includes all physical qualities in the hierarchy. Sprinting also maintains and enhances the athlete’s linear velocity and work capacity. An often overlooked benefit of sprinting is the establishment and maintenance of the neuromuscular timing of the hips and lower extremities that’s necessary for both injury prevention and optimal athletic performance for high-velocity movement. Take caution if sprinting activities take place on cement or asphalt surfaces (sidewalk, street, parking lot). These surfaces are not very forgiving and are extremely taxing on the body. Performing work up a slight hill or incline, as well as reducing overall volumes of sprinting on a hard surface, will go a long way to minimizing impact stress and overall eccentric load on the body.

Program all exercise performance safely and based on the athlete’s medical history, training history, present physical condition, and environment available for training. The program design should also include a prescription of maximal executed exercise efforts.

Exploring the Concept of a Reverse Taper for Return to Sport

Once teams and sports organizations determine an appropriate return-to-sport date, we’ll need to draw up plans to prepare the athletes in a conventional setting to ensure they’re physically, psychologically, technically, and tactically prepared for an effective resumption of sport. Let’s be clear, though—we have no idea what this will look like since it’s uncharted territory. We don’t know if there will be restrictions on group gathering size, duration of sessions, differing requirements for indoor versus outdoor sessions, virus testing requirements, and many more logistical details that may be phased in over time. We can only approach this from a known position: returning to sport as we previously knew it. If athletes are allowed to return to their professional team facility or university campus, how would this look in terms of providing safe and effective training, COVID-19 restrictions aside?

We’ve been proposing an approach to prepare athletes both adequately and expediently. We also acknowledge the reality that different leagues may not provide enough time to prepare for resuming a season or introducing post-season play in a condensed format. Given that the road back to high-level, competitive sport is laden with many challenges, we must adopt a strategic approach to minimize the risk of injury.

Since the road back to high-level, competitive sport is laden with many challenges, we must adopt a strategic approach to minimize the risk of injury. Share on X

While the conventional approach to improving athletes’ physical qualities traditionally has involved gradually introducing both volume and intensity over a protracted preparatory period, volume has typically increased at a greater rate than intensity. Higher volumes of work with reduced recovery times often go a long way to naturally limiting output intensities, whether they involve strength, power, or speed. While this approach allows for general fitness qualities to improve in a relatively linear fashion, we can limit exposure to higher intensity training elements such a sprinting, jumping, and weightlifting until the end of the preparatory period. This is illustrated in Image 1, with not much volume accumulated at these higher intensities. This phase is typically followed by a specific preparatory phase where we accrue larger volumes of high-intensity training for both performance and injury resiliency.

When time is in great supply, the conventional approach to loading can be quite effective at limiting exposure to risk and gradually accumulating safe volumes of work. However, when time is constrained, we must consider alternative strategies. Our experiences with Olympic athletes in track and field, swimming, and cycling has demonstrated that high-intensity work can be maintained—albeit at lower volumes of work—as part of the taper to peak competition to maintain athlete readiness while keeping them fresh and recovered, as illustrated in Image 2. These tapers can often occur over 7 to 14 days—a relatively short timeline leading up to a major competition—with significant results.

Extending our competitive taper concept and understanding that high-intensity work can be introduced and tolerated at lower volumes of work, we decided to reverse the direction of the taper with some of our professional team athletes to ensure they were prepared and ready for the shorter preparatory timelines experienced in pro sports.

We successfully reversed the taper with team athletes so they were prepared for the shorter preparatory timelines experienced in pro sports. Share on X

The example illustrated in Image 3 depicts a scenario where athletes have a two- to three-week preparatory period before a two-week training camp leading into a competitive season. We introduce very low volumes of tolerable high-intensity work throughout the micro-cycle to make sure the athletes are exposed to these stresses relatively early in the preparatory period. This allows athletes to accumulate high-intensity work from the first week onward, inoculating them against the risks of higher velocity and higher load activities they may experience in training camp and the competitive season.

The efficacy of any stress inoculation program is to determine the optimal dosage and exercise prescription for the early phases of the preparatory period. Given our proficiency with both sprint work and plyometric activities, we devised training programs that took advantage of short-accelerations and medicine ball throws in low doses but relatively high frequencies in the early stages of the return-to-sport preparatory program and had great success.

Image 4 illustrates the distinction between the proportions of high-intensity training elements (i.e., sprints, throws, jumps, lifts) and low-intensity components (i.e., general conditioning, strength endurance, aerobic endurance) that can vary subtly throughout a preparatory period.  On average, the proportion of high-intensity work to low-intensity work may be in the order of 40% to 60%, give or take 5% for the preparatory phase. Older athletes may limit exposure to higher intensity work and modify the ratio to 30:70 or 25:70 (high:low) given their longer recovery requirements and overall “mileage” on their odometers. Understanding the distinction and allocation of these work classifications is important for maximizing comprehensive resiliency and minimizing the risk of both contact and non-contact injury.

Similarly, Image 5 illustrates the distinction between the proportions of general work (i.e., sprinting, weightlifting, plyometrics, conditioning) and specific work (i.e., practice, skill work, tactical work, sport-specific agility, and movement patterns). General work predominates in the early stages of preparatory training, with specific work progressively growing in volume from week to week as athletes develop physical capacity and competence with both high- and low-intensity training elements. Once athletes fully return to competition, they must maintain a baseline of general work; the maintenance and further development of performance qualities will pay off in the long run.

Sprint training is exceptional for the high-intensity aspects of training while keeping the work general in nature, minimizing risk of injury. Share on X

Once again, sprint training is an exceptional means of addressing the high-intensity components of training while keeping the work relatively general in nature, minimizing the risk of injury during the preparatory phase. Over relatively short distances, an athlete can develop both lower and upper body strength, power, speed, and overall conditioning in a relatively short time. The problem with quickly resuming weight training is that many athletes will not have had access to weights during the layoff period, and muscle soreness will be a significant side effect of re-establishing conventional strength training approaches. The delays in returning to faster, more powerful movements created by the delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) will further restrict the rate of return to full sport and competition preparedness and readiness.

To allow sport coaches to understand the full importance of progressing gradually to specific elements, we must present this information in a practical way. There’s an inherent compulsion to rush back into every training element—both general and specific—as soon as possible to “hit the ground running” once competitions resume. However, most sports will re-enter playoff series or regular season competitions, and one game will not make or break a season. Playing the long game in this respect will pay more dividends for the individual players and the sport organizations as a whole. Live to fight another day is the mantra of civilizations across the planet. Sport teams should be no different.

 

Concluding Remarks

As with every aspect of the global pandemic, there is no blueprint for a successful return to normalcy. Sport organizations and performance directors must take a day-by-day approach using constant monitoring and ongoing communication. In many ways, the return-to-sport model will closely resemble the return-to-work models and the overall economic rebuilding of cities, states, provinces, and nations. Planned phases of recovery and reflection must be part of any return-to-sport approach. Rushing to be the first off the line is not a prudent means of managing the situation over the long run.

Planned phases of recovery & reflection must be part of any return-to-sport approach. Rushing to be the first off the line is not a winning strategy. Share on X

Slow and steady may not be the answer either, but strategic, calculated, and deliberate will be the preferred approach by those with the patience and intelligence to lead their teams back to success. This is going to be the time when true leaders emerge in every sector of society, and true champions seize the moment with purposeful intent and precision. Perhaps the successful return of sports will be the truest indicator of our return to life as we once knew 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

In my previous article on the strategies and opportunities presented by velocity-based training (VBT), I mentioned another advancement in technology sweeping across the strength and conditioning field: strength programming software. This software was made possible by the advent of smartphones and tablets, which gave us the opportunity to collect and visualize data. Prospects are stronger than ever in the field of electronic program builders (e.g., BridgeAthletic, TeamBuildr, TrainHeroic, etc.), but PUSH is, to my knowledge, the only company that allows comprehensive integration of a velocity-based measurement system paired with the ability to write, visualize, and schedule workouts between the coach and athlete.

PUSH is a rapidly growing company. It originally offered a VBT option that was only worn on the arm, but it can now be attached directly to the barbell as well, allowing for wireless measurement and smooth interaction during a training session. Not only are they advancing the field as an inertial measurement unit for VBT, but PUSH has simultaneously tackled giving coaches in a team setting the ability to manage their programming, assign workouts, and monitor all the valuable information that occurs during a session to be referenced as the training unfolds with their PUSH portal program builder.

Quantifying Training Load with Software and Time Management

Data is the greatest driver for the shift to a paperless portal. The sport science and data analytics groups that have integrated with the strength coaches and sport organizations around the world created the opportunity to improve probability and progress. If you don’t have a system with the ability to log workouts electronically, data gets lost (e.g., actual volumes experienced, loads lifted, velocities performed, total weight, session duration, session RPE). PUSH allows for the collection of all this information.

Data is the greatest driver for the shift to a paperless portal. If you don’t have a system with the ability to log workouts electronically, data gets lost, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

Equate it to the data that was once lost on the practice field, now captured through GPS (e.g., distance covered, speeds achieved, accelerations and decelerations). Strength programming software provides us with the chance to quantify training loads experienced in the weight room and gives us more objective data that we can pair with the subjective reports both pre- and post-workout. This data allows a coach to monitor training load, showcase progress over time, and provide direct feedback to staff and athletes for their efforts.

Yes, training and weight room work are not the only factors impacting the athlete, but these training metrics provide potential explanations as to why a specific quality (i.e., max strength, power, speed) has or has not changed. Performance happens each and every day in the weight room and, from a management standpoint, having a record of what an athlete has accomplished will be important for long-term athlete development at the high school, collegiate, professional, and elite levels.

You can zoom out further than the days, weeks, and even months on a given workout sheet and look across the year to compare multiple seasons based on workload and performance. Daily readiness is no doubt important, but we do not want the focus on the present to distract from the overall preparedness of the athlete over time. Instead of being overly consumed with the microcycle, the PUSH portal allows us to truly visualize the results of the macrocycle. Rather than a periodized layout that waves in and out of phases, peaking at just the right time for championship competition, the monitoring and tracking of training data showcases progress and performance.

Instead of being overly consumed with the microcycle, the PUSH portal allows us to truly visualize the results of the macrocycle, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

That is a coach’s ultimate goal—constant improvement, especially at the developmental levels. A coach wants to be able, year after to year, to implement a training program that creates an adaptive response and leads to physical developments that, in turn, transfer to improvements in sport and success at a championship level. Progress is a process, and being able to see how far an athlete has come can be very telling.

Evaluation and Reflection

The ability to visualize this objective information provides usable feedback for the coach in rating the effectiveness of training and enables the athlete to either be motivated or challenged by the results. If a performance marker decreases, it forces the athlete to reflect and redirect; if something improves, it can encourage them to continue on the path they started and reinforce their training habits and actions. The same can be said for the coach who prescribes and implements the program. What is the training target? Did that target improve? Why not? What needs to change?

That is the difference between working out and training. Working out is a singular session aimed at breaking a sweat and challenging the body with a possible no-pain, no-gain mentality. Training, on the other hand, has a purpose: multiple sessions that stimulate rather than annihilate, with an end goal of the athlete looking to improve.

Strength programming software allows information to be saved and analyzed rather than having to flip through the pages of a sweaty, smudged, and scribbled-in training journal to find notes on exercises, sets, reps, or weights. But the dedicated athlete who keeps a diary of training progress is in the minority. The majority of coaches and athletes in the team setting simply throw their workout sheets into the recycling bin when complete—a day’s, week’s, or month’s worth of training lost and only just a memory.

Strength programming software allows information to be saved and analyzed, rather than being thrown into the recycling bin when workout sheets are complete, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

I’ve tried stapling successive sheets to each other for reference, and I’ve been a part of programs that have filed workouts away. Neither of these are long-term solutions and both take an unnecessary amount of time and energy.

Time Management

Time is a precious commodity, so anything that improves efficiency, effectiveness, and interaction is beneficial to coaches and athletes. I know coaches, myself included, who have taken the written sheets from the weight room floor and gone back and forth between sheet and computer screen, punching in the numbers from a session to save and catalog them for later reference. But this is not a long-term solution either.

How would you justify doing it for one and not all, especially with a large organization or in an athletic department setting of multiple teams? In light of the large number of athletes that many coaches work with and everything else that being an athletic performance staff member entails, if this process is going to be sustainable, it has to be time-efficient.

The Tried-and-True Opportunities of Excel

Programming software presents many opportunities, but in my professional career, all I’ve ever known is creating hard-copy workout sheets through Excel. As I said previously, Excel allowed me to put my vision of a training session and block into action for an athlete to see and understand. Excel starts with a blank canvas and allows countless options for creativity, editing, and adaptation for any workout, text, graphic, color combination, and format. I have also benefited from the knowledge and skills of others (e.g., colleagues and tutorials such as ExcelTricksforSports on YouTube) to push the limits of Excel via equations, macros, and pivot tables.

Mladen Jovanovic’s Strength Card Builder showcases how Excel’s near-endless possibility and adaptability can help create a system from scratch. It’s a pseudo software that allows the sometimes-scattered mind of a physical preparation coach to organize thoughts and exercises and quantify loads and volumes. This is a product I encourage you to check out. The work Mladen does is always top-notch, and it may be just what you’re looking for on this front to help organize and improve your daily operations.

I realized when watching Mladen explain his most recent update that I’m late to the party. Since I did not develop the sheets from scratch, as he has, I do not necessarily understand all that it offers and how to work through creating a program. It may be at a point where it is too complex to understand. Rather than me personally building the worksheet within the Excel file, I come to an already-created document that has equations and interactions that I do not comprehend. It can be overwhelming, especially in a framework of trying to simplify and improve.

Remember, too, that Mladen’s goal may be different than a TrainHeroic or PUSH program builder, as schemes (i.e., recipes) are offered. A system like this may be geared more for a younger coach than someone looking for the freedom to implement their own programming. I’m sure it offers both opportunities and is potentially worth a look if you haven’t explored it already.

Do not fall victim to “paralysis by analysis.” This is a roadblock that I often come to when vetting numerous programming software options. Rather than simply being able to type in an exercise or a line of text, or map out sets and even use rep ranges, there are numerous clicks and proverbial hoops that you have to jump through when trying to translate a training program onto the page.

Furthermore, I argue that, at times, it is far too complex in the first place. It is not necessary to have every exercise categorized, and dropdown menus of VLOOKUPs and specific recipes for training programs or progressions are a pipe dream for effectiveness. Before you know it, you can be lost in an incredibly complex system of sheets, macros, pivot tables, etc., but if you build it yourself, you may understand how to effectively navigate and make it work smoothly for you. I simply lack the computer skills to create a workout builder that intricate and respect that is not my area of interest or expertise. But I do understand that Excel offers some very impressive opportunities, so all the more power to those who are able to use their creativity and intelligence to make it work for them and the likely massive number of athletes they train.

Don’t let programming software take you away from working directly with an athlete and actually coaching by forcing you to spend more time on the computer, warns @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

The process has been an internal struggle for me, personally, in transitioning to something different than an Excel workout card and annual plan. What this really ends up doing is pulling the coach away from being a practitioner. It makes them work more with a computer than with an athlete directly and reduces opportunities within the day for conversation and relationship-building. It takes a coach away from actual coaching— helping the athlete understand how to operate in a weight room and execute a session effectively.

As I’ve said before, execute the proper session at the right time and with the proper amount of volume and intensity. All this happens on your feet and with intuition from experience and practice, observing, discussing, and interacting. This is something that can’t be predetermined or decided with a programming software.

First things first, and a strength programming software system is not that. Focus on the athlete first, instilling proper technique and training principles and developing a trusting relationship with the work you’re asking the athlete to perform. The workout sheet is an opportunity to show you care, and I take great pride in the preparation of an athlete’s workout card. Use it as a catalyst to remind them of their commitment, challenge their values, and spark their fire.

But do today’s athletes get as excited as I do about having colors, logos, and quotes on a sheet of paper in coordination with their exercises, sets, and reps, and little notes to guide them through the session? Have the generations shifted to where athletes these days like the screen interaction, the ability to touch and navigate and receive immediate feedback, and no longer having to worry about finding a pen that works or a sharpened pencil with a decent eraser?

Programmers to the Rescue

I believe this has been the goal of the strength programming software companies—empowering coaches to coach and letting those with computer skills create effective and easy-to-navigate software that improves programming and data collection. As with all technology, this software presents a great opportunity but does require vetting and a beginner’s mindset. All the thoughts, ideas, and planning in my head have come out onto the screen in a simple Excel file. It has been my workflow and it has gotten the job done.

I believe this has been the goal of the strength programming software companies—empowering coaches to coach, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

However, for a coach striving to truly be and offer the best for their athletes, it is a disservice to not explore an option that fits your thought process and workflow and, most importantly, improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the process. So much of what we do within our administrative operation relates directly to the principles of training. We understand that it is not simply the act of using and implementing programming software with our athletes, but also the timing by which we do so. It has to be done strategically and should not interrupt the ultimate goal of teaching an athlete to train.

There are a lot of moving parts and many of them can be overwhelming at times for an athlete, such as learning to power clean while simultaneously interacting with a phone or tablet. Be sure that it is not distracting to the process of interaction between coach and athlete. Timing is everything, and the proper fit with a programming software offers another layer to work with as opposed to work through. Through all my resistance and internal struggles, the greatest motivators for me were my colleagues Ashley Renteria and Zach Walrod, as they have made the transition and have implemented the PUSH program builder with all of the teams they work with.

The Steps I’ve Taken and the Results from the Process

That said, I took the plunge and began navigating the foreign territory of the PUSH program builder. It is truly like learning a new language, with various windows to navigate through and terminology to understand. (This includes builder versus programming—they are not the same thing—as well as sessions, programs, components, and modules.) It is a lot to take in initially and easy to talk yourself out of.

While I had numerous excuses to not take on the challenge, I was glad to have the help of Ashley Renteria for quick reference to her workflow, as well as PUSH’s chat option that provides a near immediate response (within an hour) for customer service and helped steer me in the right direction. Not to mention that there are numerous articles and tips covering the creation of workouts and how to schedule them for athletes (e.g., glossary, moving/creating/editing folders). PUSH is working to provide a great experience for their customers, and their service has been immediate and excellent.

So here we go: building a program, creating the session, piecing together the components (i.e., warm-up/prep, speed/agility/conditioning, resistance training, cool-down/recovery), and generating modules within each component along the way. Still with me? If this doesn’t make sense, it’s because I’m writing in “PUSH”—I told you it was a new language.

Although you can work solely in the PUSH program builder, I would suggest that it is best practice to still outline your workout in a separate application that works for you. Share on X

Although you can work solely in the PUSH program builder, I would suggest that it is best practice to still outline your workout in a separate application that works for you (e.g., Microsoft Word or Excel, Notes, etc.), to simply lay out the framework and progression and have a blueprint to reference as you build your sessions. In my opinion, not only does this allow you to build out the program more efficiently when using PUSH builder, but creating an outline also gives you a document to print for a hard copy and reference. Although there is an opportunity to view all of the components at once, a visual of all the components plus the exercises, sets, and reps is not an option right now.

When creating the all-important resistance training component, you’re only allowed one within a session. However, the exercise database is large to start, with videos included, and it gives you the ability to create new exercises very quickly and add video links if interested. This is helpful, because when the athlete using the system clicks into the workout, a pop-up of the workout video comes up immediately and demonstrates the exercise. It also displays notes that the coach has included.

The thing to understand with PUSH program builder is that PUSH is not trying to be a full-on programming software like you find with TrainHeroic or BridgeAthletic. PUSH is a VBT device first, with the option to build a program, and an online portal that allows you to visualize session data. Within training, we often mention the KISS method (keep it simple, stupid), and the PUSH portal and builder may provide the simplicity needed to be user-friendly and improve workflow.

Once you select or create the exercise, there’s a place for sets, reps, a predetermined load or percentage, a rest period, tempo (EPC: eccentric, pause, concentric), and an opportunity for notes. (This last part is where my colleague Zach Walrod has worked the most, to expand the program builder’s limitations and allow for specific explanations on execution.)

The PUSH portal and builder may provide the simplicity needed to be user-friendly and improve workflow, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

You can also list things like rep ranges, which I prefer to use quite often, listing 8-12 reps instead of a hard 10 reps. The athletes I work with know that when they see a rep range, the range represents quality reps—a guaranteed eight, with each subsequent rep completed only if they can maintain technique and quality. This is where the PUSH builder and device combine, as you can denote whether or not the PUSH Band is, in fact, required, as well as a “custom velocity target” with both a minimum and maximum for the athlete to reference.

Once you create the session, you are able to schedule and assign it to specific athletes within the roster. Each athlete has a profile to reference and a calendar that allows you to zoom out, view the month, and schedule workouts accordingly, as well as note other events, competitions, practices, etc.

I’m not sure why, but my first attempt to sync the PUSH portal with the application failed terribly, as athletes went to their respective “timeline” and found no workouts had been scheduled for completion. A little patience, along with a quick close out and re-open, did the trick to allow workouts to be seen and created. It was somewhat nerve-racking compared to the confidence of preparing for a session and having sheets printed and ready with nothing to worry about. Technology is great, but only when it works.

Comparing to the Reliable Workout Sheet

Although the notes section allows for details and specifics, it is rather more cumbersome to reference previous workouts than a sheet that has written notes, weights, and details from previous weeks. It takes navigating backward through at least five windows before an athlete is able to view a previous session and visualize what loads were used. So, it is possible, but not ideal.

The inability to see what weights you used during the previous week can be an annoying glitch in workflow and functionality for athletes looking to make progress, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

The inability to see what weights you used during the previous week is not a deal breaker, but for athletes looking to make progress, it can be an annoying glitch in workflow and functionality.

Shifting the Way We Think and Operate

Despite my resistance and hesitation, an opportunity for growth emerged with a shift in the framework of the session through the building of components. Although there is only a place for one component of resistance training, there is a possibility to create multiple modules in the warm-up/prep or cool-down/recovery sections. In building those modules, you can create a progressive loading of dynamic mobility work—both general and specific movement preparation—as well as priming or barbell skill work. The same for the cool-down/recovery components, creating ancillary circuits that allow the body to coordinate in multiple planes or complete supplementary exercises that are not technically resistance training but help to increase work capacity or simply start the recovery process. This is where the opportunity for more of a systematic training unfolds and a coach can use and reuse these modules for multiple programs quickly and easily while only having to build it out once.

It may take time to build the workout, but the PUSH portal program builder can work well, allowing the coach to communicate and relay the workout to the athlete. It is the latest and greatest for training in the 21st century, using not only the VBT IMU device, but collecting data from the session along the way.

The paperless world comes to life in the weight room, and athletes are able to interact with a smartphone or tablet via the PUSH application. The app is user-friendly and offers some great opportunities to see rest periods and live feedback of either mean or max velocity, get the chance to “view trends,” and showcase the velocity or power across reps from multiple sets of an exercise. This can serve as a chance to autoregulate volume within the session, as discussed previously, as well as intra-set velocity drop-offs and opportunities within settings to create a visual cutoff based on velocity performance.

The Good, the Bad, the Uncertain

Regardless of the errors seen within the PUSH band, it does drive a sense of motivation, intent, and competition for the athletes using it. With that said, it always depends, as weight rooms today are bigger than ever, with more racks, barbells, and athletes all working at once, multiple teams, and (hopefully) multiple coaches. Essentially, it is controlled chaos at times, and the question looms as to whether athletes having their own sheet is best practice. They have the ability to take notes and reference previous weeks of training by simply shifting their eyes, as opposed to clicking multiple times on a screen.

The majority of individuals today already have levels of “screen time” that are absurd and distracting to true social interaction. Even grade schools are striving for a 1:1 student-to-technology ratio, but is this the direction we want to take? Are we creating another roadblock to relationship building? Are we changing the way we coach and taking the easy road, ignoring the malfunction of social cues and conduct? It’s a question of philosophy and values when it comes to determining whether tossing more devices at them is for better or worse.

It’s a question of philosophy and values when it comes to determining whether tossing more devices at athletes is for better or worse, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

The reality is that workouts vary, adjustments happen, and modifications need to be made on the fly. Regardless of the athlete’s situation and level or the macrocycle, mesocycle, and microcycle, today is the most important. Coaches have intuition, but they are not psychic when it comes to the readiness an athlete will experience along the way.

The programming software definitely creates a deeper layer by focusing on the load used. This is something that’s hard to predict, as athletes are not robots, and it is difficult and maybe negligent to prescribe specific loads. Prescribing a set load can create a challenge for coach and athlete, as the athlete narrows focus, and technique or velocity may take a back seat. The load prescribed may be too light or too heavy.

Obviously, there are ways to navigate around this, but proceed with caution and keep a watchful eye on the athlete, as there is a deeper focus on weights and numbers than on putting in productive work and feeling technique. Use of both the device and the program builder takes maturity and a disclaimer to ensure that the younger athletes using it appreciate the primary goals of the session and training itself.

Beyond the volumes completed, weights used, and velocities performed, the other valuable piece of data that is allowed is the “End Session” RPE (0-1 “very light,” 2-3 “light,” 4-6 “moderate,” 7-8 “vigorous,” 9 “very hard,” and 10 “max effort”). As with any RPE scale, this requires a shared understanding between coach and athlete, but allows for a further quantification of training load based on volume load (weight x reps), session duration, and active minutes of training. PUSH does not currently offer a pre-session questionnaire, but it may be something the powers that be should consider creating, as it would provide further valuable and actionable information. This may be a stretch and could create a “jack of all trades” system for PUSH, but will they be a jack of all trades or a master of none?

Some who have detached themselves completely from Excel seem to be free from the mundane in formatting countless cells and creating numerous worksheets. But all of this limits the collection of data and operation in the 21st century, as the athlete simply records their efforts on the printed sheet in pen/pencil. Some say it is a dream come true: Their beginner’s mindset has allowed for a new workflow and the session operates consistently with the media and touch screens that our athletes are used to.

No Right Answer

All in all, I completely respect finding a way to improve workflow and making things more effective for both coach and athlete. The ultimate goal of a programming software is to capture the work being done for others to view, understand, and use. The small parts add up and create a potentially greater whole, with technology used not as a crutch or scapegoat, but as a productive partner for effectively training and progressing an athlete across months and years.

Technology creates opportunity, so be open to change, but continue to stay true to the foundational training principles that you have found to be effective, says @Cody__Roberts. Share on X

The only right answer is the one that works for you. The challenge is to believe in what you use and allow it to empower the process. Technology creates opportunity, so be open to change, but continue to stay true to the foundational training principles that you have found to be effective. Experiment, learn, and evolve the way you think and operate. Change is inevitable, and it is doubtful you will find the answer immediately, but you will certainly grow through the process.

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

An ongoing argument among coaches these days revolves around the issue of transference. Those who have delved into this subject may also know it as dynamic correspondence, and Dr. Verkoshansky is credited with initially using this concept to classify exercises. The five criteria he used serve as a gauge to determine transference:

1. Same muscle groups
2. Same range of motion
3. Same type of muscular contraction (regime)
4. Emphasis of a portion of the ROM
5. Magnitude of force and duration applied

Examining this deeper, it’s not an all or nothing proposition but rather a classification process that can help coaches determine the “degree” of transference. This is evident in Bondarchuk’s “complex” system, where a training program encompassed exercises of high transference (CE/SDE) to lower transference (SPE/GPE).

Even though this sounds complicated and can prove to be a time-consuming endeavor, Dr. Michael Yessis (creator of the 1×20 system) broke it down into three categories, where most coaches can see their exercise sets in the gray areas:

1. That the exercise duplicates the same neuromuscular pathway as seen in execution of the competitive skill.
2. That the exercise develops strength over the same range of motion as it is displayed in execution of the competitive skill.
3. That the exercise duplicates the same type of muscular contraction as seen in execution of the competitive skill. ¹

For those of us working with young athletes in their critical developmental stage, the path of simplicity, efficiency, and frugality is in high order. Our goals are to drive improvement at a low cost and leave room for progress during a high-performance stage. Given that field and court sport athletes are best served by developing the major qualities of speed, power, change of direction, and strength in congruence, our exercise selection should give us a bang for our training buck. Regarding the athletes I discuss in this article, I’ll reveal how we drove improvements in speed and power markers with general training that covered a broad spectrum.

We can drive improvement at a low cost and leave room for progress during a high-performance stage using high repetition and low load, single-sets. Share on X

For me, the discovery of high repetition and low load, single-set exercises validated the effectiveness and efficiency of this method—especially when training the year-round athlete who has limited developmental time and reserve capacities due to the demands of their sport. Here, we’ll delve into the broad spectrum of transference that general exercises have on multiple athletic qualities. This is a follow-up to my post on applying velocity based training in the 1×20 system.

Quality I: Power Measures

I’ll begin with power measurements but won’t go on and on about how broad jump and vertical jump improvements are correlated to athletic performance, as these are well known. I’ll explain how improving the basic ability of power not only underpins the quality at which we do our sporting movements, but also bridges the gap of a strength exercises to applicable movement.

The quality of power production (and absorption) is particularly evident in a sport such as soccer with the many cutting and start and stop actions in pursuing or defending the ball:

In order to make a change in direction while in motion, especially a quick one, you must have adequate levels of strength (eccentric, concentric, and isometric), speed-strength (explosive strength), flexibility (ROM) and coordination (technique). Also included is speed of movement which is related to your strength levels. ²

For optimal projection to occur, the muscles of the hip, knee, and ankle must absorb, stabilize, and contract in a quick, powerful, and coordinated manner. I understand that the transfer of more specific drills (plyometrics, altitude drops, etc.) plays a vital role in the development of these movements, but these means incur a high cost if the athlete is not prepared. In other words, our athletes are only as strong as their weakest link—especially among an over-competed and under-trained population such as women soccer players.

Establish a base of preparedness from general means in the developmental stages with the foresight of preparation for a high-performance model. Share on X

The way I see it, coaches must develop needs sequentially: establish a base of preparedness from general means in the developmental stages with the foresight of preparation for a high-performance model. Even though both of the young women featured in this article are Division 1 signees, their base athletic metrics were at a relatively low level.

As you can see, both athletes made substantial progress over the respective time periods, especially in the broad jump. The beauty of using BABA (Build A Better Athlete system, a.k.a., 1×20) was two-fold. Performing one high-rep set for broad-spectrum (general) exercises helped build strength along the repetition spectrum. It also gave us time to work on other aspects of athleticism without draining the neuro reserves. These included cutting technique, sprinting, specialized exercises, and variations of broad and vertical jumps.

Side Note: This phenomenon became even more evident as Meg and Katelynn had their early morning team “conditioning” requirements as well as side jobs that included babysitting and shoveling snow for multiple hours a day. Jeff Moyer mentioned circumstances like these in his TFC presentation covering “strength as a spectrum,” as he explained the “why” behind the minimal effective dose philosophy.

What’s also interesting are the improvements in average power, a metric that includes jump height in relation to body weight. There are two ways to look at these improvements:

1. Jump height remains relatively unchanged as body weight rises, which applies to athletes looking to put on quality muscle mass. This scenario mainly pertains to athletes in weight-class-dependent sports looking to bump up a class or two as well as underweight footballers or rugby players. I don’t believe in gaining weight at the sacrifice of our power production capabilities.
2. Body weight remains relatively unchanged while vertical jump (countermovement style) rises, which applies to our athletes in this scenario. The low exposure to total volume (and time under tension) in this minimal dose, broad-spectrum strategy helped keep their body weights unchanged.

• Yessis also referred to the 20-rep sets as strength-aerobic, in which the cardiovascular system is stressed via cardiopulmonary response. Remember the old Super Squats program by Randall Strossen? Your heart would be beating out of your chest and you’d be breathing hard by rep 10.
• Capillarization is also a hypothesized effect where the growth of new BVs occurs.
• Aerobic style training is typically associated with mobilization of fatty acids, which may help keep a lean physique.
• The effect of Henneman’s size principle with this method lends itself to FT fiber growth without the risk of heavier loads.

The total volume remained stagnant (20-rep sets in the half squat), as each exercise was executed for the same amount of reps aiming at improving technical execution of the jumps and specialized exercises while making minimal increases in load in the strength exercises from week to week. This is unlike classic strength approaches in the West, where overall barbell loads (volume and intensities) and the number of exercises increase over time. While this approach may be optimal for those in barbell sports or the gym rat who wants to work out longer and harder, it will most likely eat away the adaptive reserves of those who merely need to use strength to develop athletic abilities.

Quality II: Agility

Devoting time to the specialized drills and jumping exercises (while sparing the adaptive reserves) was imperative to bridge the gap between our strength exercises and “on-field” work. While these young women improved their strength, they simultaneously learned how to apply that strength without running the well dry.

As you can see, both young women made great progress in the basic 5-10-5 test. Note that I did not introduce the specialized exercises for the side and forward cord lunges until the second week of January (these are described in the many resources provided by Dr. Michael Yessis and better shown in the Coaches Corner video section of the CVASPS Community site). This may be why we saw the larger improvements in Megan’s time from December to February. Part of this decision was two-fold:

• I felt Meg needed to develop strength in the spinal erectors, abductors, and adductors
• My comfort level with teaching the exercises, which was made easier with the videos on the CVASPS Community site (excuse my shameless plug for Jay DeMayo)

In hindsight, I probably would have introduced the lunges in a more basic manner with dumbbells, or possibly isometric holds, to make a smoother transition into the cords. Still, there is nothing wrong with the progress we made. Here are my takeaways on how we did this.

First: The protocol of half squats was not simply doing a set of 20. While I may get flack for this, I used a form of triphasic modalities in two warm-up sets preceding the 20-rep set (what we call our push set). The importance of eccentric strength in cutting cannot be understated, as it’s a key strength skill (a coordinated strength effort) in executing effective change of direction movements.³ I waved the method of slow-lowering to the half squat position (for a six-count), holding the half squat position (for a six-count), and slow lowering with a bottom hold (each for a three-count). We did this in three-week waves.

My reasoning here was for them to learn the position, posture, and pace of the pattern (apologies for the tongue twister). The loads represented fifty and seventy-five percent (respectively) of the load in the push set, which was just enough to prime them for it. In the grand scheme, loads this light may not have been sufficient to completely train eccentric or isometric qualities enough. But, given the training age of the athletes, I felt it was necessary to use the TP method as a learning tool to effect posture and position more than anything else.

Some may ask: Why the half squat? In short, a really smart guy in Whitewater Wisconsin told me in a phone conversation that half squats transfer to cutting and quarter squats transfer to sprinting, referencing the Rhea paper about joint angle specific adaptations.⁴

Second: As mentioned previously, the ability to spare training time and the nervous system allowed us to develop technique simultaneously. Below are a series of pictures at the “plant point” of a cut.

From this perspective, you can see a couple of things that stand out as inefficient. First, her head and shoulders are in front of her hips (center of mass). Second, her hips are closed, not turned, and are too late in positioning her body to run in the opposite direction. The lack of strength in her erector muscles is evident as her torso angle dips into her shin angle. The lack of position causes her head and hips to swing around her plant foot as she pushes off, which forces her lead foot to swing back and to the side roughly at a 45-degree angle from her intended direction (as marked by the circle), detracting from the sharpness of the cut.

In this case, her lack of technique and postural strength force her to lose a step in the direction she wants to change to.

Notice the more balanced and centered posture in the picture above, along with a pretty good hip turn. You can also see that Meg’s lead foot is more perpendicular to the plant foot as well as “in the air,” ready to receive the ground off the push-off. What used to take Meg two movements (and more time) to execute now takes a single movement. Look at the torso and shin angle—nearly perfectly parallel and into that ankle beautifully—so she can now apply the developed strength optimally.

Quality III: Confidence

I believe I heard Joe Kenn say in one of his presentations that “confidence transfers,” and this is a quality often overlooked in developing young athletes. It’s easy for us coaches to get lost in the numbers, but if there’s one intangible I’ve learned in this project, it’s that if we can measure, we can motivate. These two things go hand in hand, giving both coach and athlete an idea of where we’re going together and giving both equal ownership in the progress made.

If there's one intangible I've learned in this project, it's that if we can measure, we can motivate. Share on X

Gratification is a great thing, both as an athlete and coach: it keeps us in check with the athlete on the intent of effort, and for the coach, it pushes us on the critical thinking end. I believe it was Tony Holler who wrote in a recent article (or one of his million twitter posts per day) about a dopamine release when kids see their numbers. If this is true, is this not the neuro-rich environment we want our kids in? Hell yes, I say—because if they can see it, we can sell it! All this talk about buy-in is made simple.

In working with this pair of female athletes thus far, they’ve given me a hard time about having to go pants shopping because their legs had grown out of their current size. I, of course, joked, “As if you two ever needed another excuse to go shopping?!” This type of interaction is vital in relationship building. My young eighth-grader (whose numbers were not featured in this article as her training is mostly to garner technical competence and basic strength) has also experienced a similar confidence boost.

Recently, she scored a goal while playing as a defender during her indoor season—since she was on a shorter pitch, she was able to score from a long-distance kick. She and her parents were surprised and elated, and her mother told me that she would never have had the confidence to attempt that type of shot before. A couple of weeks later, her father told me how she now pursues offensive attacks with her arms up, unafraid to engage with larger players as she plays a level up against high schoolers. With that said, it’s hard to argue with the positive effects of a minimal effective dose approach that does not bash our kids into some archaic and ass-backward mantra of no pain, no gain.

For the private sector coach, this outcome is imperative, as keeping steady improvements throughout your time with athletes will make for a more enjoyable training experience—which also keeps parents and coaches happy.

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. Michael Yessis, PhD. “What Is Dynamic Correspondence?” SportLab (blog).

2. Michael Yessis, PhD, “You Must Have Adequate Levels of Strength (Eccentric, Concentric, Isometric),” in Women’s Soccer: Using Science to Improve Speed, (2001, Wish Publishing), pg 47.

3. Michael Yessis, PhD, “Strength Along with Coordination Is Very Important, Especially Eccentric Strength,” in Explosive Basketball Training, (2003, Coaches Choice), pg 130.

4. Matthew R. Rhea, et al. “Joint-Angle Specific Strength Adaptations Influence Improvements in Power in Highly Trained Athletes,” Human Movement 17, no.1 (March 2016): 43-49.

In order to graduate with a degree in exercise science, The University of Scranton requires students to complete an internship in a desired career path. This requirement led me to research and apply for internships in both the collegiate strength and conditioning field and the private sector. After filling out questionnaires, shooting exercise demonstration videos, and interviewing over the phone, I was fortunate enough to be selected to spend this past summer as a strength and conditioning intern under Coach Sal Alosi of the University of Connecticut (UConn) Men’s Basketball Program.

Students and graduates typically undertake Internships to gain relevant skills and experience in a particular field. While these were influential in my choice to intern at UConn, my primary motivation was being able to study under and be mentored by Coach Alosi, who has coached at both the professional and collegiate levels, and who was spoken of very highly by a professor of mine at The University of Scranton.

While there are numerous experiences and lessons that I learned in those three months, I decided to highlight three that I believe will benefit other young coaches attempting to break into the strength and conditioning field.

Lesson 1: Experience Triumphs Over Knowledge

Like most 21-year-olds would, I entered this internship thinking I knew more than I did. Having completed three-quarters of my undergraduate degree in biochemistry and exercise science, I would say the amount of knowledge I had obtained was fair—I understood basic strength and conditioning concepts after having read a ton of Mike Boyle’s stuff, I’d watched a few of Glenn Pendlay’s videos, and I had over a 3.70 overall GPA to show for it (humble brag). My thoughts quickly changed during the first couple weeks of my internship, as it was the first time I was actually in a weight room and able to work with athletes as a “coach.”

I entered this internship thinking I knew more than I did. That quickly changed during the first two weeks when I was able to work with athletes as a “coach,” says @blakehammert. Share on X

Words and pictures do not do UConn’s weight room justice—it is something iron enthusiasts need to see and experience for themselves. It is heaven: grey turf running down the center of the weight room with UCONN written in white and red letters, Eleiko barbells and bumper plates, Watson dumbbells ranging from five kilograms to 50 kilograms, glute ham raises, reverse hyperextensions, kettlebells, maces, clubs…you name it, this weight room has it. While I stood there in awe of the weight room, I was equally amazed by every athlete who walked into the weight room towering at least 6 inches above me.

I was not necessarily coaching every single athlete, but there were times when I instructed athletes in warm-ups and cooldowns and had to cue athletes on specific movements. It is one thing to know how a book describes and teaches the Romanian deadlift—“A hip-hinging pattern that emphasizes the hamstrings and glute maximus… set core, slight bend in the knee, push hips back, keep the bar close to your leg, go to mid-shin level, etc.”—just as it is one thing to be able to memorize concepts, such as that a 10-rep maximum is roughly 75% of your one rep maximum. It is a whole different ball game, however, when an athlete does not understand what you thought was such a basic task in asking them to perform a Romanian deadlift, and now you have to figure out additional cues to give him.

Using a cue like “It’s a hip-hinging pattern” or “Don’t bend your knee and turn the RDL into a squatting pattern” does not necessarily work well with an athlete who has spent limited time in a weight room. Rather, my choice to use the cue “Try to get your hips to touch the wall behind you” was easier for athletes to understand and did a better job.

During this experience, if you are familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I was essentially a living version of it (see figure 1).

I would not consider myself to have gone through a full cycle of the Dunning-Kruger Effect over the duration of my internship—although I learned a great amount over the three months, I am still far from an “expert” and probably have an additional 15-20 years of coaching before I begin my second ascent. More or less, I learned to stay levelheaded. I am also not knocking getting education or self-educating yourself, as I believe investing in yourself over the long haul will prove to be beneficial. What I am saying, and what I wish someone had told me, is to go coach.

It does not have to be at a big Division I program; it can be with local high school athletes. Go somewhere based on the coach(es) there; where you can learn, gain experience, and be mentored. Sure, a Power Five school with a well-known logo looks great on a resumé, but if your main job is picking up weights, cones, and cleaning, how beneficial is it to you as a coach?

For your internship, go somewhere based on the coach(es) there; where you can learn, gain experience, and be mentored. Share on X

Knowledge can be understood as guidelines. You should use the guidelines provided in textbooks just as they sound—as guides. A great coach takes these guidelines and can alter them based on an athlete’s needs, using the “eye of the coach.” The only way to develop an “eye” is to get experience coaching. Prior to this internship, I would have done everything by the guidelines and never strayed. Being able to attend weekly strength and conditioning staff meetings, ask questions regarding athlete’s programming, and be present in strength and conditioning sessions allowed me to gain both knowledge and experience as a coach.

At the end of the day, a coach who has a base of knowledge, can draw from multiple experiences, and has been mentored by a great coach will be more well-rounded than a coach who simply picked up equipment for three months.

Lesson 2: There’s More Than One Way to Skin a Cat

Go on Twitter or Instagram and you will see coaches pushing their philosophies and reasoning as to why their program is superior to other programs. A program can be rooted in (variations of) Olympic weightlifting, the Conjugate Method, or even jumps and medicine ball throws. While I would tend to say one is better than the other, that is not the point of this article, and I am sure if I looked hard enough, I could find teams that have won championships using all three of these methods.

Some coaches have athletes execute lateral box hops with the front foot performing the hop versus the back foot. Is one superior to the other? Tough to say—I would ask what the goal of the exercise is. If you are programming the exercise to develop lateral agility or lateral power using Chris Doyle’s PAL mechanics, you would program an athlete to jump off their back leg. “P” stands for “Push to move”—an athlete is stronger pushing (using their back leg) than they are pulling (using their front leg). A statement that came up in a strength and conditioning staff meeting is particularly relevant in this scenario: “The only exercise that is inherently bad is one programmed without a purpose.”

I entered my internship with the belief that all athletes should perform a bilateral squatting pattern of some sort, as they will have the ability to maximize the load used. But what happens if an athlete cannot necessarily squat bilaterally due to structural imbalances? Do you force them to squat bilaterally, increase their risk of injury, and ultimately not let them progress in the weight room? Or, do you alter their program slightly and have them perform unilateral squatting patterns?

This experience occurred with an athlete this past summer. The choice was simple: Rather than spend two to three of his four years trying to fix a structural imbalance that most likely will not be fixed, we could have him perform unilateral squatting patterns and let him progress on them and get stronger. That is not to say athletes did not squat bilaterally—all (but one) did, to proper depth, and extremely well. This was just one specific circumstance.

In the sport of basketball, an athlete may be big enough for their position. So, does the coach continue to program this athlete in a similar manner to the other athletes? Or does the coach alter this athlete’s program to increase other athletic qualities such as explosive strength, elastic/reactive strength, or speed? The choice should be, yet again, simple—do not use one program for every single athlete. It’s a disservice to the athlete. Look at their specific needs and training age and go from there.

All in all, there is no “one-size-fits-all” method for getting athletes stronger and increasing athletic performance. Nor is any program inherently bad. A program that is well-thought-out and created with a purpose, is adaptable to the needs of an athlete, and is coached with intent will provide athletes with far more benefits than a program that was blindly created for them.

Lesson 3: Read, Read, and Read

Prior to my internship, unless it was a textbook for school, I did not read. You can imagine my thoughts upon seeing an internship curriculum that required me to read and summarize eight books and eight articles, as well as numerous videos. Nonetheless, I got through them and am glad I did. I think a quote by Coach Johnny Parker sums this lesson up well—“Ordinary people have big TVs; extraordinary people have big libraries.”

To be extraordinary, you have to want to learn and grow. One simple method of doing so is through the self-education process of reading. The books do not necessarily have to be strength and conditioning based, they can be books about leadership, culture building, and even how to stop procrastinating. The more a person pushes themselves to grow, the more they will achieve. Essentially, being “forced” to read tested my work ethic and discipline, helping me grow as an individual and coach.

Essentially, being “forced” to read tested my work ethic and discipline, helping me grow as an individual and coach,” says @blakehammert. Share on X

One of the books I read over the summer that I highly recommend is Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin. While this book is not necessarily strength and-conditioning based, it will both make you want to become a Navy SEAL and provide you with lessons that you can apply to the field of strength and conditioning.

One detail that I found very interesting regarding Extreme Ownership was the idea that leaders do not take credit for their team’s success. Rather, they give credit where it’s due—to the subordinates of the group. This can be exhibited in the strength and conditioning world very easily: A coach should not take credit for and/or brag about the success of their program; rather, they should give credit where it’s due, to the athletes who trust in the program and give 100% inside and outside of the weight room (including sleeping, eating, warm-up/cooldown, etc.). This is extremely important, as it can help develop a team’s culture at every level, creating a high-performance, winning team.

While it is important for leaders to give credit where it is due, in my opinion, it is equally, if not more important, for them to set the standards. A leader’s attitude will set the tone and either drive performance or make it crash. The key to “driving” (and not crashing) performance lies in what a leader tolerates. In essence, the only part of a “bad team” that is “bad” is its leader.

During the internship, an assistant coach’s remark to a player about wearing compression pants with holes one Saturday was, “How you do one thing is how you do everything.” While the coach was joking (I think), this quote hits the heart of what a leader’s attitude should be—one of intent. Do the small things right, and over time they will add up and lead to success.

If a coach stresses that athletes properly warm up, eat, hydrate, sleep, and perform every lift as if it is the most important rep of the block, they set a tone that will drive performance. Leaders need to push the standards and let others follow. Additionally, coaches must establish consequences in preparation for substandard performances; otherwise, these poor performances will become the new standard—the “norm.”

Leaders must believe in the mission, the bigger picture. By doing so, they do what is best for the team. Likewise, the subordinates must understand why the leader requires them to do this. Examples can be seen in athletes understanding why they perform Olympic Lifts (they are explosive, ground-based movements that require 100% motor unit recruitment and eccentric strength to finish) or why they are required to strength train (increase athletic performance/ decrease risk of injury). There should be a purpose behind everything a leader does. By telling subordinates (athletes) the why, leaders build their subordinates’ trust and belief.

My Three Internship Takeaways

In summary, from my internship with Coach Alosi, the three lessons I learned and benefited from the most were:

1. Go get experience coaching by­—you guessed it—coaching.
2. Program with a purpose, coach to the best of your ability, and do not be close-minded to other programs.
3. Read and never stop self-educating.

I was fortunate enough to be mentored by a coach who I believe is one of the best, not only in Division I basketball, but in collegiate athletics as a whole. Additionally, being able to work with and help a program with a top-notch work ethic and culture, even in very small ways, was an experience I will never forget. Furthermore, my desire to work in the collegiate strength and conditioning field has never been greater, and I look forward to applying these lessons I learned day-in and day-out wherever I find myself coaching 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