Blog

When is it time for your high school athlete to begin adding weight to the bar? When is it time to stop adding weight? These topics are often discussed, but they’re not often written about.

Over the last year I have written a series of articles describing the athlete layering process we use at York Comprehensive High School. In those articles I have gone in-depth into our body weight/load ratios, which are a big factor in dictating the steps of our vertical integration program. I have detailed our progressions and how we advance our athletes from an exercise standpoint. However, I have not really laid out our plan to advance our athletes from a progressive overload point of view. This article will explain how we use the most basic and simple concept in sports performance to force the adaptations we desire from our athletes.

While we can’t deny that progressive overload is a simple concept, in my experience it’s often only looked at from a load perspective. I truly believe that one of the most overused terms by sports coaches is “we need to get stronger.” While that is often a true statement, it doesn’t always fit the individual athlete’s situation. However, it is a universal phrase that most of us have heard ad nauseum.

Load being moved isn’t always the best way to force adaptation in our athletes, but it’s the most commonly understood one, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Load being moved isn’t always the best way to force adaptation in our athletes, but it’s the most commonly understood one. I will take a look at how high school coaches can expand on that highly important, but sometimes overutilized, aspect of the concept. I will also go in-depth into how we use multiple ways to force progressive overload in our athletes at each layer of our block system.

Many Paths to the Same Destination

While adding weight to the bar is the most common form of progressive overload, there are many ways to skin that cat. We can all agree that younger athletes need to be taught the best movement patterns and techniques possible before we begin adding weight. How do we get to that point? When is it time to permit the athlete to load the bar? When is it safe? What are we looking for from the athlete before we do so? Let’s dive into those questions.

First Off: A Word of Warning

I will give you one piece of advice that I have learned the hard way over the years: Don’t be in a hurry to load a young athlete. Somebody once asked me what my biggest mistake was as a strength coach. That answer is as simple as progressive overload; pushing athletes who are not proficient movers to load weight on the bar because MY ego wanted to see it. If you do this, your athletes will suffer.

I look back over many years of coaching and cringe at things I did as a young football coach trying to learn the art of coaching. Do you want the strongest 15-year-old sophomores in the league who will probably suffer a greater number of injuries because they were pushed too soon? You can absolutely have that using progressive overload and loading up the bar. Wouldn’t you rather have the healthiest, most powerful, and available 16- and 17-year-olds? Be patient. Learn from the most common mistake I’ve seen in my 21+ years of doing this job. Your ego can cause life-long damage to kids. Be patient!

I will give you one piece of advice that I have learned the hard way over the years: Don’t be in a hurry to load a young athlete, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

As discussed above, the most common method of progressive overload is probably the use of increasing load. It’s really so simple that anyone can do it. This is a great thing but also a curse at times. Because of the ease of this method (especially when combined with the anatomical adaptations that come so easy to teenage athletes), every coach who has ever stepped in the weight room seems to believe they are an expert in the field of strength and conditioning. I actually had a head football coach who told me once “we were stronger before we started hiring strength coaches.” Well, that’s great…if we competed in powerlifting. I’m sure you had fewer concussions when the offensive coordinator was also the “athletic trainer,” but that’s not an ideal situation.

As we know, there is most definitely a point of diminishing returns from a strength standpoint. We are here to keep the athlete healthy while improving athletic performance. Strength is a necessary by-product but isn’t the only prescription.

As I told this same coach, making athletes stronger isn’t really that difficult. In fact, I could teach a five-year-old to take athletes into the woods and tell them to pick up a rock today, repeat but pick up a heavier rock tomorrow, and do this for six weeks. Guess what? The athletes will be stronger. If your claim to fame as a strength coach is “I make people stronger,” it may be time to hire a sports performance professional to help you out.

Basic Variations and Overview

I heard something at the gym in 1986 that rings true even today. I was 15 years old and learning how to train on my own. I had a guy at the gym describe progressive overload to me (many years before I knew what that term meant!) by giving me this advice: “Every day you come in here, add a small amount of weight to the bar and do five reps. When you get to a weight you can only do four reps, use that weight until you can get six again and then add 5 pounds.”

That launched my lifelong journey into human performance. That simple advice covered two of the four ways I use progressive overload today: load and volume. We have already discussed load. Everyone understands that one. Volume is, in my opinion, the second most prevalent way to pursue adaptation. You could use the same weight forever and just keep adding volume, and you would continue to adapt. The body is in a constant state of adaptation. The test for us as coaches is to understand what specific adaptations we need for maximal increase in athletic performance.

The body is in a constant state of adaptation. The test for coaches is to understand what specific adaptations we need for maximal increase in athletic performance, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Using volume can be a very efficient way to progress our athletes, particularly in the novice and advanced stages that sandwich the major strength-building cycles. The third variation we use to force adaptation is time. The faster you move a load, the more power you develop. We use velocity-based training in our program on a regular basis. Power=Force*Velocity is a formula and a scientific law. Using bar speed will result in the progressive overload of your athlete.

The fourth variation we use is time. An example would be to give an athlete 10 seconds to do as many reps as possible at a certain load. When the reps done in that time frame go up, add some weight and once again…adaptation.

Now that I have laid out the basics, it’s time to get into how we use these protocols within our block layering system. What and when signals us to add weight to the bar? What signals us to stop adding weight and use velocity?

Block 1 New Lifter (Freshman) Athletes

As we begin to transition our athletes from Block 0 to Block 1 (ideally in the summer between eighth and ninth grades), the main focus of our program is technical proficiency and teaching intent of movement. Load is a very secondary consideration during this time. Again, I need to reiterate that patience is a virtue during this period. You will have a wide variety of maturity among the athletes who come to you at this point. Just because an athlete looks 16 or 17, it doesn’t mean they have a training age to go with that.

For the sake of the athletes who trust you and depend on you, make them earn weight on the bar with an extended period of movement practice. Our first step with this group is to review the basic movements using bodyweight that we taught in Block 0. Next, we preload or assign a very light load to each movement. It’s important to remember that, at this age, anything they do will result in improvements (be patient).

For the sake of the young athletes who trust you and depend on you, make them earn weight on the bar with an extended period of movement practice, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

For this article, I will assume that we are working with a group that has graduated from our Block 0 program. Below is the final step in exercise goals we set for graduation to the three main movement variations we use initially in Block 1.

Once we have technical proficiency in these areas, we begin our 5×5 program using these exercises. Step 1 is coach-loaded bars or assigned. The one caveat here is that, for us, athletes must earn the front squat with mastery of the goblet squats. This means our athletes all move into that movement at their own pace.

A second small adjustment is we start many of our block 1 athletes on a plate-elevated hex bar deadlift. Once they show us that they can hold a strong position from top to bottom, we remove the elevation. Once again, you see the patience we have with our athletes. Our motto is: Give them what they need, not what we want them to have.

Let’s take a closer look at the hex bar deadlift. On day 1 for a graduated to the floor athlete, we load each bar with 100 pounds. This is an extremely light weight for most athletes, but we feel it’s a place we can start where all of our athletes will be successful. Once the athlete completes all 25 reps with 100 (usually that day), we add volume. The following session they will complete five sets of 6, then five sets of 7, and finally five sets of 8, all with the same load of 100 pounds.

This is the time we teach them intent and use our coach’s eye to coach technique and breathing. I will say that, in a few instances, I have allowed athletes to move to 140 during this initial four-week period. Use your coach’s eye. I will not allow any athlete to go above that load during this initial four-week period.

In the second block we begin to vary the load while still using our volume plan. We go back to our 5×5 but now have the athlete begin at 100 (or 140) and add 10 pounds per set as long as they hit the reps. For example:

In the scheme above, if the athlete misses any rep, they will stay at that weight for the remaining sets. An example of this:

The athlete above would then repeat this same scheme until they are able to complete all the reps at the designated load.

If the athlete completes the entire program at the designated load, that tells us it’s time to add a little weight. We slowly move from a program where volume is the main consideration to a load-based program. For the week following the completion of the last set of 5 at 140, our athlete’s sheet would look like this:

You see that we have added a “plus” set to begin to take individual performance into consideration in the loading process. The plus set gives the athlete the opportunity to go as far as eight reps in the fourth set and use the chart below to adjust the load for set 5.

We now reach a point where things begin to take off. Our athletes begin to work toward the percentage-based programming they will graduate to in Block 2. Let’s say the athlete in question was able to hit 140 for eight reps (+3). They would then add 15 to the last set and attempt 155 for five on their final set. If they are successful, the fifth set weight will now go into their fourth set for the following week, and we adjust sets 1–3 accordingly. Here is their next week’s chart:

This athlete will again repeat the process of adjustment and could go as high as 170 the last set for 5. You can see that once we get to this point, the athlete is on track for successful strength adaptations.

One major note here: Only clean reps count. We DO NOT allow struggle at this point. Failure is not a goal here. Technique with bar speed is not to be compromised. This method has proven successful for us in balancing the teaching of technique and intent with the loading of weight onto the bar. We use the same basic progression for all three of our major strength movements. By the spring of their freshman year, most of our athletes are well-prepared and ready to graduate to Block 2 intermediate.

Block 2 Novice (Sophomore) Athletes

By the end of our Block 1 program, all of our athletes have a projected 1 rep max to work off of. The basic program is in the chart below:

We assign each athlete a training max that is 90% of their predicted 1RM to start. This ensures that our athletes stay in an intensity that allows max bar speed for transfer to sport (70–85%). So, when you see the sets at 88%, 90%, and 95%, keep in mind that those are based on 90% of the actual 1RM. As you can see, we use a traditional program with an inverse relationship between volume and intensity.

In Block 2 there is just one plus set every four weeks. As above, we have no interest in blowing up our athlete’s central nervous system with sets to failure. Our goal is moderate to moderately high intensity with great technique and at max bar speed. Transfer is always our No. 1 consideration for sports performance programming. So, the question of when we add weight to the bar is pretty simple during this block. We follow the plan.

You do not need advanced techniques to force strength adaptations. Keep it simple and trust the process (and be patient), says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

This method has produced very good results for us, and I highly recommend it. Keep in mind the age of the athlete in this block. You do not need advanced techniques to force strength adaptations. Keep it simple and trust the process (and be patient). By the spring of their sophomore year, most athletes are ready to graduate to Block 3.

Block 3 Advanced Athletes

Our Block 3 athletes shift to yet another form of primary progressive overload. While we still use intensity increases to force adaptation, we now also use an undulating wave volume system as our primary path of progression.

We progress with a slow increase in volume of 10% (all reps over 50% for squats, cleans, snatches, RDL, presses, and pulls constitute the total volume) every four weeks. During this phase we use ranges of relative intensity for each major movement. Every four weeks the RI of each movement also increases 2% total for each movement. Our goal is to do 750–850 total countable reps with the vast majority in the 70–85% range by the final two phases.

While we still use intensity increases to force adaptation with Block 3 athletes, we also use an undulating wave volume system as our primary path of progression, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Within the four-week phase, we have one session that includes a plus set exactly as we do with our Block 2 group. This allows us to give a mid-term-like exam to our athletes at least twice between testing phases. In addition to this, we use our athlete monitoring system to initiate a conversation with any athlete who seems to be at a high level of readiness about possibly adding weight to set. At the same time, it can also lead to a conversation about lowering weight if the athlete’s readiness is not in a good place. This is where the art of coaching comes in. Know your athletes and use your coach’s eye to make every attempt to give them what they need when they need it.

Block 4 Elite Athletes

Not every athlete will make it to our Block 4 Elite program. In general, only my year-round, over a long period of time athletes reach this level. For that reason, a large number of football players (I see them 235 sessions a year!) and a smaller number of other athletes are in this group. The differences between Block 3 and Block 4 are not great. For the most part, it’s two major changes.

One is the use of velocity-based training and the bodyweight ratio for each individual athlete (also described in an earlier article). For our major movements, the main mode of overload is a combination of volume and speed. Relative intensity guides our load but the athlete’s bar velocity on a day-by-day basis dictates it.

The second difference is that these athletes have earned my trust to be able to adjust the weight using their perceived readiness in combination with meters per second. Here is an example of an initial back squat workout with our elite athlete block and VBT. This time the plus set is the athlete going until there is a 10% drop in average velocity and then adjust for set 5.

We allow the Block 4 athlete to choose what the adjustment set will be based on how they feel for that set, as long as they stay at or below the recommendation. In this case, the athlete could have added up to 10 pounds but chose just a 5-pound adjustment. Our online programming platform will note this adjustment and adjust this athlete’s predicted 1RM as well. Using VBT allows us to correctly adjust load for the specific adaptation we seek each and every session.

As you can see, the most basic and simple aspect of strength and conditioning can be used in multiple ways to force specific adaptations in your athletes. While the advice given to me as a young athlete about just adding a little weight each time is, without a doubt, progressive overload in its most pure form, it’s not the only road to take. When making decisions to allow your athletes to load the bar, remember that while overload is simple, your decisions should not be.

Give the athlete what they need, when they need it. Too many coaches pride themselves on “I can make them strong” egotistical chest-thumping and not enough on precision in programming. Making an athlete strong isn’t an achievement of great thinking and skill. That’s literally the easiest part of our job. The tough part is mastering the art of making athletes the best version of themselves they can possibly be.

Too many coaches pride themselves on “I can make them strong” egotistical chest-thumping and not enough on precision in programming, says @YorkStrength17. Share on X

Unless you only coach powerlifters, powerlifting protocols won’t transfer well to sport. Until they decide the winner of two teams tied at the end of a game by breaking out a bench and bar, stay focused on evidence-based practices designed to maximize your athlete’s ability to thrive in the arena they choose to compete in.

A presentation of this article is available at PLAE Academy, where you can collaborate with the author and earn a certificate of completion to apply toward CEUs.

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

Sports science and sport coaching are essentially a saturated marketplace. By this, I mean the field is full of very intelligent, qualified people doing good work, and there’s considerable competition for jobs. Thanks to the internet, access to information is no longer a problem. Provided you can afford to buy them, everyone has access to the same books, websites, and social media streams. This suggests to me that there’s potentially no performance advantage for us to gain by accessing new information—because everyone who can access it will. Instead, we might gain improvements either by using the information differently or by making better decisions about which information to use in our daily practice.

To that end, I’m interested in smarter thinking—as opposed to accessing new information—and trying to analyze and use information differently than others.

One book that has been hugely influential in this regard is Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions, by Zachary Shore. At the time he wrote the book, Shore was an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, and he believes in learning the lessons of history to enhance future decisions. While the book uses historical lessons to inform future military policy (understandable, given Shore’s job), the stories it tells cover a broad range of subjects and past events. And it’s easy to see how the lessons might apply to sports coaching.

The book, as suggested by the subtitle, is primarily about judgment calls—specifically bad ones—and how otherwise intelligent people fall into a common set of cognition traps that set them up for a downfall. In the book, Shore defines cognition traps as:

• Rigid ways of approaching and solving problems
• Inflexible mindsets formed by faulty reasoning
• Ways of approaching a problem based on preconceived notions and pre-set thought patterns
• Often linked to an emotional response

To avoid cognitive traps, an easy, immediate solution is to keep the four points above in mind and take a flexible approach to problems, check your thought processes and reasoning, attempt to minimize pre-set notions, and avoid emotional decision-making or responses. Building on these, Shore proposes seven cognition traps for us to consider; by being aware of their existence, hopefully, we can avoid them.

1. Exposure Anxiety

Exposure anxiety is the fear of being seen as weak, and the belief that failure to act firmly will weaken one’s position. I’m sure we’ve all experienced the challenge of making a suggestion and having someone respond negatively or behave disrespectfully. An example is arriving late to training. Often, our first instinct is to punish the person, but that doesn’t take into account these second-order effects:

• What is that person’s response to your punishment?
• How does that affect your wider team?

An example given in the book is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, in which Israel responded to a small attack by Hezbollah with a massive retaliation of air and artillery strikes as well as their invasion of southern Lebanon. By the time the UN brokered a cease-fire agreement, 165 Israelis had died and up to 500,000 were displaced. The Arab nations unified in support of Lebanon, and Hezbollah’s standing in the Arab world significantly improved.

Instead of using excessive punishment to respond to key problems, like arriving late to training, remain as balanced as possible, says @craig100m. Share on X

Conversely, in some circles, Israel was viewed as unnecessarily aggressive, which harmed their international standing. Israel’s initial aggressive response was borne out of the belief that Hezbollah, and the wider Arab world, viewed Israel as weak. By executing a massive retaliation, Israel hoped to signal its strength; instead, they harmed their standing. The key learning point for this cognition trap is not to overcompensate by using excessive force or punishment, but to instead remain as balanced as possible in your response to key problems.

2. Causefusion

With this cognition trap, we confuse the causes of complex events, leading us to think we have an explanation when we don’t. A great example is back pain, which many of us suffer. It’s tempting to believe that back pain has a simple, underpinning cause; there’s something wrong structurally and resolving the issue will reduce (and hopefully eliminate) pain. This is the basis for MRI scans for back pain—to understand what is wrong with the patient structurally and find a fix.

Generally, when a patient has an MRI scan, some structural issue is spotted, and it’s assumed to be the cause of their pain. A level of complexity comes into play when we realize that many people without back pain have the same structural abnormalities as back pain patients. Often, what we think is the cause of back pain may well be a normal part of the aging process. And this causes further problems for back pain patients; when they get the results of their MRI, the way clinicians explain the results to them can cause additional pain and delay recovery. This isn’t to stay that structural issues aren’t a cause of back pain, but they’re not the cause of all back pain—and assuming they are often leads to more problems.

Several variations of causefusion are built upon:

• overlooking important causal links
• overemphasizing an overly simplistic explanation
• believing the consequence of an issue is the cause of it (you’ll have to read the book to see this issue in action, explained through the history of schizophrenia)

What’s the solution? Be aware that we don’t fully understand complex events, and factor this into your thought processes. Consider what you might be missing, and whether A causes B, B causes A, or B happens when A happens because of unknown cause C. By keeping an open mind to the cause of key events—and understanding that we might not ever be able to explain complex phenomena fully—we can hopefully reduce the incidence of this cognition trap.

3. Flatview

Flatview occurs when we view things as binary, black or white choices. In essence, we perceive things as very discrete, while the real world tends to be continuous in nature with a lot of “fluffiness” and context. As an example from sport, we might consider a particular exercise—in European circles, the power clean is a good example—as crucial within a training program. This is a flatview: the exercise is determined to be good, and by extension, training programs that don’t include it are bad. It ignores any context, such as individual differences between athletes or timing. We see this type of thinking all the time in online arguments. People often believe the person they’re arguing with is either completely with them or completely against them, with no in-between.

With a flatview, one determines an exercise to be *good*, and by extension, a training program that doesn't include it as *bad*. It ignores any context, says @craig100m. Share on X

Clearly, flatview has a huge potential to harm our thinking. How do we guard against it? First, we have to avoid overly simplistic explanations, which, by their very nature, tend to be binary. Instead, we must embrace context and nuance and filter our thoughts and decisions with these in mind. Second, we need to cultivate empathy; why does the person who disagrees with me think like that? What could be different about their knowledge, experience, or perspective that leads them to have a different belief or viewpoint? By seeking out and embracing different views and rejecting simplistic explanations, we can prevent ourselves from falling victim to a flatview.

4. Cure-Allism

Squats are a useful way to build leg strength. By getting stronger in the squat, we get stronger leg muscles, which makes us faster. As a result, all sprinters should squat.

The above sentence is clearly nonsense, and yet it’s what happens with cure-allism—where we hold a dogmatic belief that a successful theory can be applied indiscriminately. We see this all the time in the diet world; someone tries a diet, and their health improves successfully (by their definition). As a result, they push this particular diet—be it keto, paleo, low carb, high fat, vegan, or carnivore—as the one true cure everyone should follow.

When one is successful with a diet and they push that diet as the one true cure for everyone, they're falling into the trap of cure-allism, says @craig100m. Share on X

Similar to flatview, this approach removes nuance and context from our thinking. It’s similar to Philip Tetlock’s Hedgehog vs. Fox thinking. Hedgehogs know a lot about one thing; they are big idea people, and they try to use that big idea to explain everything. A strength and conditioning (S&C) coach may view an athlete’s issues as strength-related while a physiotherapist may see the same problem as load-based. This desire to use our predominant theory and mental model to explain everything harms us. Instead, we should endeavor to be like Tetlock’s foxes, who know a little about a lot and are more accepting of nuance, context, and different approaches. 

5. Infomania

Infomania represents an obsessive relationship with information. We live in a world saturated with data to the point that our relationship with it is potentially dysfunctional, turning us into infomaniacs. Shore believes there are two types of infomaniacs:

1. Infomisers who hog information and don’t want to share (the coach with the secret plan)
2. Infovoiders who actively seek to avoid information, thinking that doing so will keep them from being misled

Both types of infomaniacs are in for a hard time. By not sharing information, infomisers won’t have their thoughts and beliefs evaluated and developed. Conversely, infovoiders will never become fully informed if they don’t actively seek out information, especially the information that contradicts their viewpoint.

Let’s take a coach who is potentially interested in understanding patterns of fatigue and injury in their athletes. An infomiser would likely collect a range of information on training loads, volumes, and intensities and keep it to themselves. However, if they were open to sharing the data with their support teams, such as a physiotherapist or S&C coach, they might achieve greater insight.

In contrast, an infovoider wouldn’t have collected any data, possibly out of a fear that it would illustrate their approach was wrong. Both types avoid tapping into the knowledge and wisdom of others (see flatview), but in different ways. The outcome is incomplete knowledge and understanding. The key is to collect the right amount of data and share it with those who could enhance your understanding and decision-making processes.

6. Mirror Imaging

I’m sure we’ve all discussed with someone a reasonably simple issue that escalated into an argument, all because we assumed—in this case wrongly—that the person we’re speaking to has the same viewpoint as we do. This is the mirror imaging cognition trap, where we assume that the other side will think like us. In the vast majority of cases, though, they don’t. Perhaps they have different information, life experiences, or a different grasp on many key underlying concepts.

We see this in armed conflicts the world over: one nation’s army thinks the other nation has the same motivations and incentives as they do. As we see time and time again, however, this is rarely the case. In recent years, for example, it’s become clear that normal disincentives don’t work against suicide bombing. Generally, we assume that people don’t want to cause themselves harm, but in this scenario, the attacker is fully prepared to die. This has forced a shift in tactics for those dealing with suicide bombers. They’re required to see things from the bomber’s perspective and change their defensive procedures accordingly. Similarly, recent occupations of countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq have proved difficult for US forces because they often don’t have the contextual and historical understanding of the local way of life and belief systems, which is far removed from what they are used to back home.

So how do we guard against this?

Awareness of this trap is important. We need to be aware that other people likely see things differently than we do. So the first step is to understand how they see things—typically by simply asking them. Second, building the ability to be empathetic can be hugely useful when guarding against this trap, as would knowledge of the context and history of the people you’re dealing with, especially if they’re from a different culture or background than your own. Finally, the risk of mirror imaging suggests that teams made up of people from a diverse range of backgrounds can very useful. Especially if there is a culture of trust, as everyone would likely have a different perspective—as subtle as it might be—on the issue at hand. 

7. Static Cling

We often hear that first impressions are everything. When it comes to the last cognition trap, this couldn’t be more true. Static cling refers to the continued holding of a static image or belief around something, one that doesn’t change with updated information—often because you reason heavily against considering the information to update your worldview.

We see this in businesses all the time. An organization has success making one type of product, but can’t respond to—or predict—a change in demand for something else. Car manufacturers will struggle if they cling to the idea that their customers want inefficient petrol cars at the expense of the cheaper, cleaner electric power that will be heavily supported by governments. The situation is similar to mobile phone manufacturers who didn’t adequately respond to the development of the smartphone—driven by Apple’s iPhone—in the late 2000s.

Successful teams & coaches are those who innovate & adapt to rule changes quicker than others, avoiding static cling thinking, says @craig100m. Share on X

When it comes to sport, we see that successful teams and coaches are those who innovate and adapt to any rule changes quicker than others—often turning the rules in their favor. In the early 1990s, for example, soccer introduced the backpass rule. Before this, players could pass the ball back to their goalkeeper, who could pick it up and punt it down the pitch. This often slowed the game down, making it boring. The introduction of the backpass rule, however, meant that the keeper could no longer pick up the ball when it was passed to him by a player on their team.

The rule caused teams to adapt. They could either stop involving the goalkeeper in their play or change the position into a more dynamic one. Slowly, we’ve seen goalkeepers evolve from being relatively poor with the ball at their feet to today’s goalie, who is essentially an additional field player. Pep Guardiola, potentially the most innovative manager around, changed the goalkeeper’s role even further by selecting goalkeepers based on their passing as opposed to the more traditional skills. By adapting their definition of what a goalkeeper is, these teams and coaches rapidly altered their worldview and avoided falling victim to static cling. They responded to the rule changes much quicker and set themselves up for sustained success.

Tips for Better Thinking

Based on the cognition traps detailed above, here are some clear ideas we can take moving forward to improve our thought processes: 

• Read widely. To be more like a fox, you have to know a little about a lot. Exposure to new ideas makes you more prepared to understand what you don’t know and allows you to consider multiple explanations for a given phenomenon.
• Cultivate empathy. If you can open yourself up to different viewpoints, you’ll likely understand why people made the decision they did or have the perspective they hold. Thinking through things in the other person’s shoes allows you to view the problem differently.
• Collect some data. Don’t have your head in the sand, and share your information appropriately with people who can enhance your understanding.
• Develop mental flexibility. Hold several competing models and explanations in your head, and hold your opinions loosely. Be open-minded, and guided by evidence—but understand that your own biases will potentially prevent you from correctly weighing evidence in your thought processes.
• Develop a sense of nuance and context. Avoid simple explanations for complex processes and black or white thinking.

By doing these things, we should hopefully guard ourselves against many cognition traps identified by Shore while enhancing both our thought and decision-making processes. The result will be better decisions around various factors that support performance, hopefully propelling your athletes to a personal best.

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

When you are about to embark on a journey with a group of athletes, such as at the start of a season or with a new intake of school or college kids, what is the first thing you do? Most of you would probably answer that question with one word: plan. As suggested by the famous Abraham Lincoln quote about being tasked with chopping down a tree, it’s in our best interests to not jump straight into doing random training and instead spend a fair bit of time sharpening the axe.

Within the strength and conditioning field, planning is often synonymous with the term “periodization,” and with that comes a large body of research underpinning it, says @peteburridge. Share on X

Within the strength and conditioning field, planning is often synonymous with the term periodization—and with that comes a large body of research underpinning it. When devising my own training plan, I always have the endpoint in mind and need to ask what is the end goal? Then, I can best plan the route to take my athletes on and make sure I understand where any potential pitfalls may lie along the way. Working with academy rugby players, the best way of summing up my ultimate purpose is:

To build the general physical capacities, to give athletes the platform to express their rugby skills, and ultimately to progress through the pathway.

The outcome is obviously progression through the pathway, but it’s more about the process. I need to provide the guide rope and get them to the top of the mountain to “make it” as a rugby player. Obviously, rugby is king in this process, so it doesn’t matter if they squat 300 kgs and can finish the beep test—if they aren’t any good at rugby, then those physical qualities are useless.

First Step: Performing a Needs Analysis

For each athlete I work with, I have to ask the question: Where are the movement skill gaps? What deficiency in movement skill is going to limit their progression through the pathway? Then, how can I fill these gaps to help them climb up the mountain? For example, rather than looking at it just through the lens of an S&C coach—do more deadlifts or improve their clean numbers—I need to look at it with a top-down approach, putting rugby first.

For instance, it might be that a player can’t drop his body height to effectively tackle. Or, in football they may not possess the braking ability to handle the high number of intense decelerations to play the high pressing game that many modern top sides employ. The remedy may still be to improve their squat or deadlift, but I have to look at it from the movement skill first and then work backward from there rather than just chase ever-increasing squat numbers and hope it all just magically transfers to the field.

From there, I need to do my best psychic impression and a bit of “forecasting.” This is because rugby as a game is developing at a very fast rate: In only 10 years the game has changed tremendously, with the physical demands becoming much, much more substantial.¹ In all sports, players are getting bigger, faster, and fitter, but in rugby it is exponentially so, in part because the game was amateur only 25 years ago.

The game may be completely different in six years’ time, so I need to also think about what challenges and movement skills the player will face in the future game, says @peteburridge. Share on X

You only have to look at clips from the All Blacks of yesteryear versus the All Blacks now to recognize we are dealing with very different animals! With that in mind, if I have a player come into our system at 16, in all likelihood he will be around 22 by the time he breaks into the first team. The game may be completely different in six years’ time, so I need to also think about what challenges and movement skill problems the player will face in the future game.

Finally, in this needs analysis I have to do some problem solving—Why does the player possess this movement skill gap? Is it that he can’t, he won’t, or he doesn’t know how? This then dictates our strategy and how we set up the long-term plan, as well as the medium- and short-term plans (macro, meso, and micro cycles, for all the periodization purists out there!).

Applying the Needs Analysis in Training

As a rugby example to explain this process, let’s use the skill of jackaling (which you can see on the pitch in this montage). This is where a player competes at the breakdown to steal the ball: It requires speed, decision-making, strength, mobility, and a mindset to get whacked by an opposing player while in a vulnerable position.

1. It may be that a player can’t: He doesn’t have the hip mobility to get into that jackal position and maintain his balance, and so may need to work on his mobility to make improvements to his body height and body position.
2. It could be that he won’t: Perhaps he has gotten injured in that position previously and there is some apprehension to get into that position again. (A quick YouTube search of “jackal injuries” brings up some quite gruesome highlights.) In this case, I may have to reduce the risk and slowly expose him to more “live” competitive situations to build confidence. Then, expose him to some outcome success (through constraining drills and training) to get him to be more willing to do it. Failing that, if it’s a deeper psychological issue, then I may have to enlist a sports psychologist to help him get over the mental block.
3. It might be he doesn’t know how: He may not possess the decision-making skills to read the game to know when to go for the ball or not; he may not know how to put his body in a position to be successful and easily gets counter rucked off the ball. Enlisting the help of expert technical coaches is key to helping fill this gap.

Getting the player faster may give him more time to process the cues to make better decisions. Extra strength could also allow him to get away with poorer technique, similar to the old Russian weightlifter adage: Technique is for the weak. (That quote works better with an Ivan Drago accent!) Again, it still might lead to squatting and cleans (if that is your chosen tool to develop these general physical capacities), but at least you’ve arrived at that decision from a much more informed place to get them better at the key bit—rugby!

Once we understand what the movement skill gap is, we can then go about purposefully attacking it with our training. However, we must always be aware that making a change in the body always carries with it a cost, and we must take this into account when making programming decisions. When the player has progressed through the pathway into the first team, where fixtures are regular and freshness is key, doing a large amount of physical development work will steal from the player’s freshness for competition.

It’s better to sacrifice a bit of freshness at the developmental stage because winning isn’t the main goal, says @peteburridge. Share on X

With this in mind, more costly exercises are better performed at the development stage where there is less game pressure. Meaning, it’s better to sacrifice a bit of freshness now at the developmental stage because winning isn’t the main goal. Often, this takes some education at first, but when they trust the process (#TTP!) they understand my mantra: 

You’ll play at 95% today so that you can play at 110% in the future.

(What does our academy training look like? You can see our club’s performance environment in-depth in this longer video here.)

I’m going to take advantage of the window now when game pressure is lower by being more aggressive with players’ training and looking to (safely!) push the boundaries, so that when they do become a full-time professional, they don’t have to do as much work to maintain what they already have. At that point, as they get older, they can bias their training more toward freshness.

There is actually some cool science to support this: It takes around one-sixth of the work to maintain what you have once you’ve got it than what it takes to initially achieve it.² What does this mean? It takes me far less time to stay squatting 150 kgs than it does to work up to getting there. Due to this phenomenon, when working with a younger athlete, if I can bias my training toward development over freshness it will pay off in the long run, as I won’t have to invest as much time to maintain strength levels.

Practical Periodization Strategies

One of the best ways of managing the cost of training is with designated training windows where a real focus can be put on physical development. This has an added positive effect because restrictions to on-field training vastly reduces the players’ energy expenditure, providing a ripe environment for growth.

Let me ask you a question: As a coach, how often are you faced with the situation where you get access to an injured player for an extended period of time and they come back much stronger, having put on lots of size because of that extra development time? Why should we wait for a player to get injured to have this in their development plan? If physical capacity might be what stops them progressing through the pathway, why not combat it early when you can? The only way you can get that opportunity is if you have smart coaches who trust you and understand the overall holistic development of a player.

This thought process is what I imagine many of you already employ when working with your athletes. However, when you first learn about periodization, it can be very easy to be blinded by the long terms, fancy bar charts, and mystical Soviet methods.

In fact, early in my career I went on a CPD trip across Florida to many college programs and professional sports franchises for some further learning. When I got there, the first question often asked of me was: What system do you run? I was a bit baffled by the question, but I put on my polite British voice and tried to answer. When we got into further discussion, the coaches I spoke to basically wanted to know what periodization strategy I employed. Did I follow a conjugate method? Had I ever reverse-periodized? Did I set my program up to be high to low, or low to high? I took a stab at an answer that really meant uhhh…It depends.

Does it have to be that complicated though? All periodization means in my eyes is the systematic planning and sequencing of athletic training to maximize either performance or development. Why do I have to pick a side with something as simple as the planning and sequencing of my training? As long as I can justify why I am doing what I do, does it really matter if I’m #TeamUndulating or #TeamBlockPeriodization?

All periodization means in my eyes is the systematic planning and sequencing of athletic training to maximize either performance or development, says @peteburridge. Share on X

Obviously, this isn’t a swipe at many of the “Original Gangsters” of our field like Hans Selye, Leo Matveyev, and Tudor Bompa, who were the godfathers of the field when it came to periodization. Some of their work still informs a lot of what I do today, and Tudor Bompa’s textbook, Periodization, was actually the first book I ever took out of my student library at university. However, these “systems” were built upon the assumption that the body adapts to stress placed upon it in a fairly linear way, and working with young team sport athletes has shown me that at times this can be a little too rigid to follow my purpose stated above.

Having an understanding of the era that these models were born out of can provide a bit more context for why they may have built their “system” in the way they did. Grigory Rodchenkov (Russian anti-doping advisor and inadvertent star of the Netflix documentary Icarus) shed light on his use of different periodization models when he said: “Doping begins when harm from their heavy training workload becomes more dangerous than harm from using doping.”

Considering that much of the work on periodization came from this era, it has far-reaching consequences for you if you try to blindly follow these methods. Suddenly trying to get your athletes to “do Smolov” to get them strong or do “German volume training” to get them big may not be the best long-term way to set up someone’s training. This isn’t to tarnish some of the great work done by these coaches, but what’s best for a doped-up ’80s Eastern European shot putter might not be best for an 18-year-old rugby player!

Periodization Then & Now

After initially starting out in the Eastern Bloc, in more recent times periodization research has been further developed in Western Europe by researchers from Portugal and Spain, such as Victor Frade and Alberto Mendez-Villanueva, who introduced the concept of “tactical periodization.” Whereas some of the classical Eastern methods often take a very physical-centric view of planning training, these methods aim to piece together the technical-tactical element alongside the physical one. This perhaps aligns better with the more holistic view of performance planning I mentioned above.

Tactical periodization is the zeitgeist of sport science at the moment, and has started to gain greater attention with coaches like Jose Mourinho (football) and Eddie Jones (rugby), who have implemented it with great success in their respective sports. However, much like if you were to put 10 S&C coaches in a room to decide whether conjugate or undulating methods are best, you would get just as much disagreement if you were to ask how to best implement tactical periodization.

When implemented well, at its best it encourages a joined-up, multidisciplinary approach to training planning linked heavily to the head coach’s game model/philosophy. This can lead to a top-down approach to training, where physios, strength and conditioning staff, and technical coaches no longer sit in silos operating as separate entities. Instead, the approach more readily encourages the multidisciplinary team to work together with an aligned vision.

At its best, tactical periodization encourages a joined-up, multidisciplinary approach to training planning linked heavily to the head coach’s game philosophy, says @peteburridge. Share on X

However, sometimes tactical periodization gets held up as an argument (often in football) against any “true” physical-based training by sport coaches. This negative view of gym-based training has helped foster a culture of noncompliance in professional football to physical preparation occurring anywhere outside of the training pitch. This may be one of numerous reasons why hamstring injuries have, in fact, been increasing despite lots more research into preventative strategies.³

There is growing evidence, however, that periodization isn’t as big a deal as I was led to believe when I was a junior coach. For example, John Kiely argues that periodization in the classical textbooks takes too much of a biological view of the body and that, in fact, things like genetics, psycho-emotional state, cognitive state, and numerous environmental factors play just as much of a part in dictating the adaptation that we get from training.⁵

Furthermore, some studies have shown that there were no differences in strength or muscle mass following 16 weeks of periodized or non-periodized approaches to training.⁶ Norwegian researcher Thomas Haugen has shown that there are big differences in elite sprint coaches’ approaches to periodization, and argued more people in the sprint world are becoming skeptical of classical periodization models.⁷ Finally, some prominent track coaches have offered up some choice words on the topic, such as Jonathan J. Marcus: “All periodization models are wrong. They are too complex and don’t work.” In addition, Tony Holler has said: “Periodization is bullsh*t…we sprint always.”

Taking all of this contemporary research in, I think blindly following a classical method because it appears in a textbook may be an over-simplified approach. For starters, why in every traditional periodized plan is there a down week on the fourth week? (The cynic in me can think of one pharmaceutical reason!) What if my athlete is dominating his training in week 3, but I have to back off in week 4 because my “system” dictates he should have a down week? On the flip side, what if in week 2 he is already too fatigued from the training, but in week 3 I have an “overreaching week”? Am I meant to carry on driving the athlete into the ground, risking poor performance and injury because my “system” says I should?

For coaches who don’t work in Olympic sports, the likelihood of you running your program in sequential blocks building toward two or three competitions is very low. A much more likely scenario in team sports is a game every week. It gets even worse in sports like football or basketball, where you may have games every three or four days! How on earth are you meant to peak and taper on a macro level like that if you have big games week-in and week-out?

Key Considerations in Training Teen Rugby Athletes

On an individual level, biochemical factors linked to nutrition and sleep play a much larger role in an athlete’s ability to adapt to training than classic periodization models account for. For example, when working as a university S&C coach, I knew that the first two weeks of the year were “Freshers Week.” In England, this meant my athletes would be consuming copious amounts of alcohol, getting minimal sleep, and partying for at the very least 6 out of those 14 days. No matter how I’ve drawn up my blocks of training, this reality is going to affect the adaptations I can get from the training and I had to account for it.

Often, we overstate our impact as coaches and don’t give enough credit to the role of someone’s genetics in determining the adaptations we achieve. The systems of talent development now are designed to force the cream to rise to the top, and in team sports everyone at the top is a freak. It’s just the way it is.

Often, we overstate our impact as coaches and don’t give enough credit to the role of someone’s genetics in determining the adaptations we achieve, says @peteburridge. Share on X

One glance at the NFL Combine numbers shows that to succeed in the NFL, you likely have to be a genetic beast. It’s not that they had a better periodized plan, it’s just that they had better parents!! There is a large body of research showing that responsiveness to training is largely dictated by genetics: For example, the HERITAGE study showed the level of responsiveness to the same aerobic training is drastically different when looking at the % improvements made in VO2 max.⁸

When working with academy players, I have the added element of academic stress that can affect someone’s responsiveness to training. To complicate things further, there are large individual differences within the group. For example, I might work with an athlete who is stressed out of his eyeballs as he tries to get the grades to go to Oxford or Cambridge. Equally, I will have athletes who subscribe more to the Cardale Jones philosophy of schoolwork—they don’t “come to play school!” With these guys, I might not need to change their training at all; however, with the future Cambridge student, I may need to reduce the volume of his training while he focuses on getting into medical school.

Working with adolescent boys, there is another key stressor outside of rugby and academics for me to contend with…girls! Both in a good and bad way. I’ve had spikes in life stress caused by athletes breaking up with their girlfriend, and as a coach I’ve had to play the role of counselor. Equally, I’ve had a few occasions where the wellness monitoring has shown up as sleep 2/10, but mood 10/10. I will let you work out the probable cause of that!

The lesson here is that when sitting down to plan out your training, can you really account for a player struggling with a breakup or something quite the opposite? Taking a more flexible, agile approach better allows you to navigate these scenarios. That way, you can ride those waves of emotion and better target the windows where your players are in a positive state to adapt to training.

Using monitoring tools can help this, whether RPEs, questionnaires, velocity-based training, sub max bikes, jumps, or the best monitoring tool going: talking to the player. These can all be keys to glean information to tweak and adjust your programming. Sometimes, the simple question how are you feeling today? can give you all the insight you need to effectively change your training plan. Often, far better than any wellness or RPE Z score ever could.

Hearing these criticisms, you are probably thinking that I don’t “do” periodization, and that I now have to be struck off the UKSCA and NSCA accreditation boards forever! The answer is that I just take a much more reactive approach. There is still a training plan, but it is way more fluid. You have to know your players and pinpoint times of the year where you think you know how they might respond, but build fail-safes into your program to allow flexibility. If I just hammer on with my periodized plan without factoring in all these things, I will run into issues that hamper my athletes’ development.

My Approach to Periodization

Where possible, you want to provide a high-potency/low-cost stimulus, so if you can pick up technical/tactical outcomes alongside a conditioning stimulus, you’ve saved some of your training budget to be spent elsewhere. This is the beauty of a tactically periodized approach with coaches who understand what you want as an S&C coach as much as what they want as a technical coach from a session. A secret of our academy is we do very minimal conditioning sessions. Why? Well, if your training on-field is at a good-enough intensity, then you won’t need to. Obviously, through the year you’ll have guys who need top-ups or individuals with a specific need, but whole team-based conditioning? If you can get it from rugby, why layer on more fatigue?

The number of other things you have a chance to develop doing it this way is huge for a developmental athlete. You can still introduce them to the #Grind™, but if they get a chance to work on their decision-making and tactical understanding too, surely that will lead to better outcomes? For example, you can have someone who can complete the beep test or knock out monstrous scores on the watt bike, but if they don’t do the “rugby” bit, it’s pointless! This is where small-sided games and utilizing constraints such as rules, dimensions, and tasks help promote both physiology and skill development.

This approach could be seen as a dangerous one to adopt in professional sport, especially with coaches and senior management challenging performance departments with “we aren’t fit enough” so regularly. I could write a 10,000-word essay deconstructing that entire comment, but often these comments are suspiciously linked to the win or loss column. Fitness obviously is a contributing factor to performance, but often rather than just doing mindless conditioning, the best kind of conditioning is being so good technically and tactically that you never waste energy making mistakes or being in the wrong position.

The best kind of conditioning is being so good technically and tactically that you never waste energy making mistakes or being in the wrong position, says @peteburridge. Share on X

This leads to a mixed approach, where both S&C and technical coaches need to work together. If you look at some of the greatest in their sport, like Lebron James and Lionel Messi, they are expert walkers. They know how to conserve their energy for times when they really need it. Equally, because they so rarely give the ball away, they don’t actually have to work that hard in transition because the pass always hits the mark, or the shot always goes in!

The key message here is that the sport is king, and often being less-accomplished technically or tactically can be perceived as a “fitness” issue. I had one such experience working in football when a player was substituted in part because the coach wasn’t happy with his physical output. His GPS, however, showed he had done more high-speed running than any other player, by some margin. The problem was he kept giving the ball away and having to run the length of the field tracking back! Now, he’s shown me he was capable of a far greater physical output than anyone else, but the issue was he needed to do so much because he was so bad technically! Was this a fitness issue, or would he be better off working on his passing so that he didn’t have to keep physically covering for his technical errors?

One of the other reasons that we do “less” conditioning at the younger ages is that the time for increases in VO2 max training is very short—a week even! But these athletes plateau after about six months. If the central adaptations (i.e., their VO2 max) isn’t quite fully developed but takes only six months to develop fully, I would rather that than them having a strength or hypertrophy “gap” that takes a much bigger training investment. It takes time to put on good-quality muscle mass, and this is time they probably don’t have at the first team end, where they need to be playing and contributing at their absolute best because winning matters more at that level. So, there is no better opportunity to push toward a strength-focused program than when athletes are young. When you get a window of opportunity, take it!

Despite the heavy investment, those strength improvements stick around longer. For example, once you’ve laid down satellite cells, they stay with you for at least 15 years, if not your lifetime.⁹ Due to strength underpinning so many athletic actions, if I can lay a good foundation early, I equip my athletes with the “master key” to unlock all movement skill doors. This then allows them to have the physical capacity to solve any movement problem that the sport throws at them. Not only that, it also equips them with a coat of armor to withstand the rigors of the sport, keeping them on the field and off the treatment table. This then gives them even more opportunity to hone their skills and develop on the field.

What It Looks Like

I view my training planning through three lenses:

• The satellite view
• The helicopter view
• The magnifying glass view

This allows me to stay flexible for all the bumps in the road with my programming, but it still gives me a rough idea of where I want to be in the end.

The ‘Satellite’ View

Figure 8 shows my annual plan. This plan might look nice with fancy colors, but in fact it changed multiple times through the course of the season. It gives me rough ideas of typical windows where I can be more aggressive and other red flag areas where I might need to reduce the athletes’ training load. Periodizing their education to align the pertinent messages is something I would recommend for all development-level coaches to add to their program so that players get a deeper understanding of how to behave like a professional.

The ‘Helicopter’ View

My monthly-based plan, as seen in figure 9, is a little bit more focused, as it shows more detail. This gives me a base idea of what I’d ideally like to do and what the focus of the block is, but this is where things change quite a bit. Often, I plan for, say, a four-week block, but it works so well that I may extend it to a five-, six-, or even seven-week block.

The ‘Magnifying Glass’ View

My weekly plan (figure 10) is what the athlete sees day-to-day. You’ll notice that different athletes do different lifts outside from a one-size-fits-all program and a few tweaks made in-session different from the daily plan. For example, if we look at Athlete #5, he didn’t meet the prescribed load for his lower limb exercise because he came in beat-up from the games, and we had to reduce the load lifted. This may not have fit my fancy periodized progression graphs, but it was the athlete I had to coach on the day so that’s what happened. Equally, Athlete #2 ended up outlifting his prescribed load because he was feeling good that day. Having an adaptable plan is key so I can constantly make adjustments on the fly.

Periodization probably doesn’t need to be as complicated as some make it out to be, and “classical” periodization is probably too linear and too rigid for team sports, says @peteburridge. Share on X

All in all, periodization probably doesn’t need to be as complicated as some make it out to be, and “classical” periodization is probably too linear and too rigid for team sports. You absolutely need a plan, but you don’t want to be completely married to it. Finally, when looking at the year as a whole, you should consistently hunt for opportunities and threats to the plan and tweak it to meet the needs of each individual you work with.

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. Dubois R, Paillard T, Lyons M, McGrath D, Maurelli O., and Prioux J. “Running and metabolic demands of elite rugby union assessed using traditional, metabolic power, and heart rate monitoring methods.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2017;16(1):84–92.

2. Bickel CS, Cross JM, and Bamman MM. “Exercise dosing to retain resistance training adaptations in young and older adults.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011;43(7):1177–1187.

3. Ekstrand J, Waldén M, and Hägglund M. “Hamstring injuries have increased by 4% annually in men’s professional football, since 2001: A 13-year longitudinal analysis of the UEFA Elite Club injury study.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50(12):731–7.

4. Oliveira JG. F.C. Porto: Nuestro microciclo semanal (morfociclo); VI clinic fútbol, base fundación osasuna. 2007.

5. Kiely J. “Periodization theory: Confronting an inconvenient truth.” Sports Medicine. 2018;48(4):753–764.

6. de Freitas MC, de Souza Pereira CG, Batista VC, et al. “Effects of linear versus nonperiodized resistance training on isometric force and skeletal muscle mass adaptations in sarcopenic older adults.” Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation. 2019;15(1):148–154.

7. Haugen T, Seiler S, Sandbakk Ø, and Tønnessen E. “The training and development of elite sprint performance: An integration of scientific and best practice literature.” Sports Med Open. 2019;5(1):44. PubMed ID: 31754845 doi:10.1186/s40798-019-0221-0

8. Bouchard C and Rankinen T. “Individual differences in response to regular physical activity.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2001;33(6 suppl):S446–51;discussion S452–3.

9. Gundersen K. “Muscle memory and a new cellular model for muscle atrophy and hypertrophy.” The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2016;219(2):235–242.

The neck will almost certainly be mentioned in any discussion or article spotlighting areas of the body which are underutilised (or omitted completely) in conventional strength training for athletes. A ‘shoulders down’ approach underpins most programmes, and while there is discourse about this omission, it has yet to result in consistent, confident, and rounded periodisation of neck training. This is not to underplay the value of work in this area, with multiple posts on this website providing valuable practical insight into approaches being used by strength coaches. My purpose, rather, is to highlight a lack of consensus or sustained longitudinal approach.

This absence is despite the benefits of neck training tending to be generally accepted. It appears likely that neck strength, endurance, and anticipation can be trained using simple methods, such as banded or harness isometrics (Hrysomallis 2016). Naish et al. (2013) demonstrated a reduction in neck injuries following the introduction of neck strength in juvenile rugby players, while greater neck strength was shown to be effective by Collins et al. (2014) in reducing concussion. Given the potential complications of injuries to the neck, and from concussion, any modifiable risk factor is potentially a crucial opportunity to protect athletes.

In addition, it seems likely that technical coaching of sports-related tasks like heading in soccer or tackling in American football, rugby, or Australian Rules (particularly relating to tackle height and head position) may provide athletes an alternative technique for absorbing energy through the neck and shoulders, which could reduce upper quadrant injuries and concussion.

Challenges in Neck Rehabilitation

The net result of the ongoing discussion is a general acceptance across sport that neck strengthening should have a role and would be a worthwhile pursuit. Unlike other areas of strength training, however, principles of this training have not yet been fully explored. In addition, this knowledge gap is heightened following injury, where restrictions may be placed on the athlete and precision is required to avoid worsening an injury. While injuries to other body parts follow established guidelines—particularly in terms of progression and criteria-based rehabilitation to guide exercise selection and clearance for return to play—these simply do not yet exist for the neck.

Sports rehabilitation often relies on established strength and conditioning practices to dictate reconditioning periodisation, but in the absence of clear pathways, considerations for exercise selection for the neck tend to be narrow and general. In many cases, the only strategy utilised are low load, control exercises for the deep neck flexors—perhaps using a band, or perhaps not. This leaves a vast, unexplored chasm to bridge the gap between such exercises and the chaotic demands placed upon the neck in sports performance.

While injuries to other body parts follow established guidelines, these simply do not yet exist for the neck, says @fearghalkerin. Share on X

Testing the strength of the neck muscles is useful as a tool in attempting to predict, prevent, and rehabilitate injuries, allowing this previously unknown variable to be quantified. However, the modality commonly used is an isometric test from a neutral position. Such testing—though clearly worthwhile—only provides clues as to a single component of neck function. This omits a variety of contraction types and positions, as well as the challenges posed by the randomness of sport-specific positions. Relying entirely on this data for neck rehabilitation would be comparable to only using isokinetic knee extensor torque in knee rehabilitation in order to gauge return to play. Or more precisely, a strategy that focuses on this position alone is akin to omitting plyometrics, running, or change of direction training following an anterior cruciate ligament injury.

This simply would not happen at other joints where there is higher injury frequency (such as the knee or ankle), since wide-ranging testing procedures, protocols, and variations in training approaches already exist. This situation highlights the importance of developing expanded rehabilitation pathways for the neck, where it is likely that a lack of familiarity may prevent the gap from being bridged between the early stages of rehabilitation and return to sport. Also, with such an approach, outcome measures must be developed that can guide return to sport clearance.

Assessment

It is beyond the scope of this post to detail the full assessment procedure following a neck injury, though it is worth noting the key points. The first principle should be to ensure the safety of the athlete, and this may require further imaging, investigation, or opinion. Often, range of motion is the first area to assess and treat. Small changes in range of motion can result in big changes in function and comfort, while also giving an indication of the level of the problem and the spectrum within which it is appropriate to work.

The first principle should be to ensure the safety of the athlete, and this may require further imaging, investigation or opinion, says @fearghalkerin. Share on X

While getting an indicator of strength is useful, in most cases, during the initial stages it is most appropriate to assess the ability of the patient to recruit their deep neck flexor muscles in a neutral position rather than any kind of resisted or eccentric test, or outer range loading.

Assessment should include consideration of the scapulothoracic joint and shoulder, and addressing dysfunction—particularly around range of motion or strength in this complementary joint—may define the success or failure of the rehabilitation process, regardless of how appropriate a loading strategy is applied to the neck column itself.

Strategies aimed at local strength recovery of the arm, forearm, and hand may be indicated in the case of radiculopathy or compression or distraction injuries to the brachial plexus following a “stinger.” Hypertrophy training may be indicated if atrophy or wasting is noted.

Consideration should also be given to the kinetic chain, as this underpins athletic motion; being at the top of the chain as it is, the neck will ultimately be influenced by the actions beneath.

Global Overview

Another important early strategy is to give broad consideration to the athlete’s programme—particularly if the injury is not preventing them from completing running or strength training. As an example, pushing (for example, bench press) or pulling (chin-ups) exercises will challenge the ability of the neck to maintain cranio-cervical neutrality, so these can be considered a high load, isometric, neutral task for the neck. Consequently, it is worth considering if such exercises—with appropriate cueing—provide an opportunity to further reinforce the goals and messaging during rehabilitation. Alternatively, poor performance of these tasks may indicate that the synergy of the kinetic chain has failed (for instance, shoulder mobility, rotator cuff, trapezius, or abdominal dysfunction), and may be implicated in the initial problem.

Ultimately, the clinician should view every dynamic task as an opportunity for the neck to be trained. A global review of the athlete’s programme should be considered, allowing minor adaptations as necessary to provide training opportunities. This will allow an integrated approach to rehabilitation and for different aspects of the programme to complement others. For instance, change of direction mechanics during side-stepping will provide an eccentric, side flexion torque to the neck, which may irritate the athlete if they have not demonstrated appropriate range or capacity before carrying out the task.

Ultimately, the clinician should view every dynamic task as an opportunity for the neck to be trained, says @fearghalkerin. Share on X

It goes without saying that tasks such as tackling include an inherent risk to the neck, but as mentioned previously, strategies can be provided to mitigate these by improving technical proficiency. As a result, this too will prepare the athlete for returning to play.

Pathway

A progressive model is presented below which provides suggestions for how rehabilitation can be staged and progressed, with a consideration of multiple variables. The model is not meant to be a dogmatic hierarchy, given that the relative importance of some variables could be debated or interchanged. In addition, an athlete could achieve competence in one aspect before another one that is presented higher on the chart, and these factors may vary depending on the injury, training age, or profession of the athlete. For instance, if later-stage goals for an NFL player following injury are to withstand impact from opponents, perhaps even blindsided, several characteristics of this impact should be considered and trained for. The athlete may require great range of motion, in multiple planes, while producing rapid, high eccentric force following an unexpected collision.

Clearly, there are several challenges in replicating this safely in rehabilitation. However, it is upon the clinician to prepare the athlete for this by applying a step-wise algorithm.

Variables

An initial point to consider is the range in which training is carried out. The term neutral is used instead of mid-range, and range should be considered from a craniocervical, upper-, mid-, and lower-cervical perspective. However, most rehabilitation will begin in a neutral position to teach the athlete the principles of recruitment with low load, high volume, isometric neuromuscular control exercises. The deep neck flexors act as stabilisers during movements in each direction, meaning that once volitional control has been established, there are multiple options for progression of this prime exercise. Increasing the volume (longer repetitions or extra sets) or increasing the load are obvious options, but changing the range of motion to a comfortable point in range in a different plane is also an important component.

Once pain-free, isometric control at an appropriate duration or load is established at a point in range or plane, concentric training should be utilised. This may initially be done with a slow, controlled build up against manual resistance, before progressing to higher loads (for instance using a harness, bands, or plates). Caution must be used when introducing eccentric training, by again reducing and rebuilding the load applied, as change in contraction type has the potential to exceed the capacity of the neck and cause irritation, soreness, and setbacks.

As has been long established in the upper and lower limb, rate of force development is a core component of rehabilitation. This relates to the athlete’s ability to create force quickly, something that is protective in contact sports given the speed at which tasks are completed. Exercises where the athlete has to respond to a visual or audible stimulus and create force quickly should be used. At an appropriate point in range and low load, this type of training can be introduced relatively early in the process.

While the terms control and anticipation may seem similar, they refer to separate components of rehabilitation. However, they may both be thought of as higher-level aspects that require particular proficiency at most other competencies before being introduced. Regarding control, exercises that combine loading with movement of the body or extremities will challenge the athlete’s ability to control the task. For instance, carrying out a head-over-heels roll, grappling, or landing on a soft mat following a tackle will train the athlete in instances where they do not have control over the loads applied and the positions the neck will find itself in.

Finally, preparing for unanticipated loading is a crucial component of the process. While initially this may be low-load, manual pressure from varying directions, perhaps to a Swiss ball in contact with the athlete’s head, the athlete must ultimately be able to train feed-forward mechanisms to tolerate being blindsided in contact from an opponent—with direction and force that can equate to being abruptly rear-ended or hit side-on by a car.

Progression

The variables can be manipulated to provide a pathway for progression—for instance, while first increasing the range in which the athlete is applying load, the clinician may simply reduce the load. If they are introducing eccentric loading, they may ensure that it is anticipated, controlled, and at a demonstrably safe range. Progression then can be gauged by the introduction of these progressive tasks, which will relate to the demands of sports-specific tasks. This allows clinicians and athletes to clearly identify the importance of an exercise on the road to match play.

The challenge in many cases is identifying key performance indicators that ascribe confidence that the athlete is now competent at each stage of progression, says @fearghalkerin. #NeckInjury Share on X

The challenge in many cases is identifying key performance indicators that ascribe confidence that the athlete is now competent at each stage. However, if considering neck strength testing with a strain gauge, this could be assessed at different ranges, contraction types, and different levels of anticipation. Similarly, symmetry could be assessed, or simply successful task tolerance may be an appropriate gateway for progression.

Moving Ahead

A lack of established guidelines around neck training have resulted in a knowledge vacuum that is particularly notable around post-injury rehabilitation. The clinician or coach then requires an understanding of the competencies that challenge the neck, so these can be included or mitigated against during training and reconditioning.

This post has attempted to provide a framework that allows for the progression of exercise across multiple domains. By combining alternate progressions, there can be confidence that rehabilitation is being advanced at an appropriate speed. Lastly, by understanding where these competencies exist in a rehabilitation spectrum, key performance indicators and criteria can be agreed upon, which may guide at which point the athlete progresses to advanced tasks including full contact and match play.

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

Collins, C. L., E. N. Fletcher, S. K. Fields, L. Kluchurosky, M. K. Rohrkemper, R. D. Comstock & R. C. Cantu (2014) Neck strength: a protective factor reducing risk for concussion in high school sports. J Prim Prev, 35, 309-19.

Hrysomallis, C. (2016) Neck Muscular Strength, Training, Performance and Sport Injury Risk: A Review. Sports Med, 46,1111-24.

Naish, R., A. Burnett, S. Burrows, W. Andrews & B. Appleby (2013) Can a Specific Neck Strengthening Program Decrease Cervical Spine Injuries in a Men’s Professional Rugby Union Team? A Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 12, 542-550.