Blog

Strength and core training in golf is much like the game itself—traditional and steeped in years of “we do it this way because that’s how we’ve always done it” thinking. The uptick in sports science being done in the field has challenged that belief in recent years. This comes at a time when the young stars of the game are defying many of its old ideas: from fashion to etiquette to what really matters when it comes to cashing a check.

The last couple of years of stats on the PGA and LPGA tours have proven that the age-old saying of “Drive for show and putt for dough” is inherently wrong. The updated saying for 2020 is now: “Drive for show and cash checks for millions.”

These seven types of training and exercises are valuable in golf performance training but are often left out of traditional golf fitness plans. Share on X

What follows are seven exercises and types of training shown to be valuable in golf performance training, but often left out of traditional golf fitness plans. These are things that Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, and even Tiger Woods had no idea about in their primes. In fact, many of the top Tour players and their trainers are still discovering the value and place that these seven critical elements hold in the best performance plan for a golfer.

kPulley Straight Arm Rotation

Rotational training is nothing new in core or strength training for golf. It has been around since the invention of training for the game. Medicine balls, bands, cables, and anything else you can hold while you rotate are all used to “train the core” for better separation in the golf swing. “Without a strong core you can’t create separation” is a common saying you will hear from a trainer whenever they work with a golfer. While we don’t know if it is true, we do know that if we train rotation with a specific intent, we can produce 150% better gains in swing speed than seen in traditional rotational training.

The kPulley is a machine that helps coaches train golfers with rotational eccentric overload in a way that has not been available in the past. The flywheel and Bluetooth outputs allow a coach to train different traits of a golfer, from speed to power and many things between.

The straight arm rotation was the exercise we used in our 2018 study, which demonstrated 150% more swing speed gains in golfers in six weeks compared to just using bands or cables in the traditional way. Raw numbers, for perspective, were a 2.5 mph gain compared to a 1 mph gain, which equates to about a 5-yard difference in gain off the tee.

Video 1. This exercise is more stabilization and strength than power. Using a bar enables an athlete to focus on the trunk rather than using the upper body too much.

The straight arm rotation on the flywheel offers a couple of options to the coach in terms of sequencing and ground force applications that can be trained depending on the goals of the exercise. If straightforward rotational “core strength” is the goal, having the athlete stand while keeping the hips straight forward and just moving the upper body is a way to isolate the upper half and be able to load the pattern with upward of 30% overload eccentrically, as we have seen in training. This would obviously require lower body stabilization and separation of the lower and upper halves.

If a coach wants a more athletic-looking movement that is similar kinematically to the golf swing, another approach to take with this exercise is to have both the upper and lower body moving through, with active use of the lower body to assist with the rotational horizontal pull. The benefits of taking this approach also include the opportunity to coach the athlete on proper use of the ground with a focus on load and horizontal drive initially off the instep of the trail foot and then working into torsional (and even vertical drive, if desired) as each repetition is completed.

Five yards gained off the tee using this exercise is massive compared to traditional methods employed more predominantly in golf today. Share on X

The coach can best decide when and how to use this exercise with the overall program in mind; however, I cannot understate the benefit of this exercise. Five yards gained off the tee when this exercise was specifically used is massive compared to traditional methods employed more predominantly in golf today.

kPulley Wrap Low to High

The strap that wraps around a golfer or other rotational athlete has been around for a while now. Its popularity is spreading mostly via social media campaigns and higher profile athletes utilizing it in various social media posts. Beyond that, however, the use of a strap-wrap to drive performance gains continues to remain on the sidelines of traditional golf performance programs. When coaches utilize it, they’ve brought it in for variety’s sake or to combat boredom by athletes here or there; it doesn’t often have a targeted performance-based purpose.

I will contend that while the strap has value, as I will discuss shortly, the real value in this exercise is in what the strap connects to. This is why we utilize it with the kPulley with our golfers.

Video 2. Rotation and twisting can become difficult to differentiate in real-life. Using a strap with solid leg drive is an awesome overload option for golf and other sports.

As described with the horizontal rotational pull, the eccentric flywheel proved to produce superior results to the traditional tools of bands and cables when it came to creating gains that transferred to the sport because of the eccentric overload opportunity that the device offers. For this reason, we aim to utilize the eccentric flywheel whenever we can with our rotational strength training work.

The other added value that we have seen with the use of the flywheel along with the wrapped strap is the increased opportunity as a coach to have your athlete focus on how they kinetically use the ground. Because they do not have their arms connected to anything, the only way that they are able to create movement is by using their legs. This becomes their only focus, and when coaching it, you can really help them tune into how they use the ground.

Most golfers sequence kinetically from horizontal to torsional and then finish vertically. This is how we look to cue our golfers to move when they use this exercise in their program. Even more helpful, though, is that if your player needs to work on more horizontal force creation, then you can help cue that. Move the connection to the flywheel higher so it is more at the hip level as opposed to truly low, like when you might want to train more vertical drive at the end.

Finally, as a coach, you can also look to train the athlete to focus on improved impulse on each repetition. This is becoming a buzzword in the golf world these days with some recent research findings, and rightfully so. The better the impulse a golfer is able to create, the faster their club speed will be. Helping them to work on getting to their maximal power output on each rep as fast as they can, as opposed to a long low-level ramp-up, is also a very important skill to focus on during this exercise.

Hop Back Iron Man Throw

Iron Man throws are not necessarily a new concept in the golf strength and conditioning world. The idea of when to use a hop back variation versus a standard throw versus a step behind variation versus a dropdown variation, however, is not so common in progressive and periodized programming, traditionally.

When looking at the types of training that are most effective for golfers across the age spectrum throughout their careers, triphasic training has shown to be very effective for golfers in their adult and senior years. That being said, it would make sense to periodize the plyometric/impulse training-focused exercises to progress through a triphasic program along with a strength component.

A hop back variation of an Iron Man throw is a great way to train a golfer’s ability to absorb and store force during an eccentric phase. It is also a great way to start to help the golfer understand what it means to load and use the ground correctly. Many times, we see golfers roll to the outside of their trail foot the first few times they try this exercise. We also see them fail to get down “into” their trail hip, leading to them “floating” through the throw. They are not able to use the ground appropriately, and this leads to significant decreases in how they create force.

Video 3. The Hop Back Iron Man Throw isn’t common, but the benefits are more than they appear. This demonstration shows controlled use of the hip, and as athletes progress, the speed can increase as well.

When measured on force plates, we have noted that how you coach the athlete to load directly impacts the kinetic sequence as well as the magnitude of ground force that is created in significant ways. We cannot understate the importance of the athlete’s focus on the quality of how they use the ground during this exercise.

I cannot understate the importance of the athlete’s focus on the quality of how they use the ground during the hop back Iron Man throw exercise. Share on X

The lack of this and other variations of medicine ball exercises being used incorrectly in traditional golf performance training are both, in my opinion, due to a severe dearth of understanding in how to use medicine ball throws with maximal efficiency. There have been a number of SimpliFaster articles on the optimal use of medicine ball training and the importance of periodizing medicine ball use throughout the year.

Unfortunately, more often than not, medicine ball throws such as the Iron Man throw are included to fill time rather than achieve a training goal need. If you can think about what the variation of the throws attempts to accomplish from a kinetic standpoint as well as a training system standpoint, it starts to become more apparent when and where to use them for maximal results.

Drop Rotational Box Jump

As mentioned in the Iron Man hop back variation, improving a golfer’s impulse is paramount for them to be able to produce more club head speed when they compete. The Iron Man variations allow for single leg focuses and are probably more “sport movement specific,” as they tend to mimic the way a golfer specifically moves in the golf swing. That being said, we all know that training does not have to look like the golf swing to be extremely helpful and transferrable.

The drop rotational box jump puts the golfer in an environment where both legs have to absorb force and then express it out as quickly as possible, with a torsional and horizontal component to rotate 90 degrees and land on the box to the side of them. This will lead to greater force generation and is generally easier to introduce from a coordination standpoint than a dropdown Iron Man throw.

As the athlete progresses, changing the height of the drop box as well as the height of the box they have to land on (if there’s one at all) allows the coach to manipulate the exercise based on the appropriate training goals for the athlete and where they are in their training.

One of the most common things that we see in traditional golf fitness programs is the misuse of box jumps and other jumps, similar to how medicine balls are used. You don’t have to look far to see golfers and others in the golf fitness industry touting how high they or their athletes can jump onto a box.

Video 4. Due to the planned motion, the exercise is safer than it sounds. Regardless, coaches need to program this only when the athlete is ready.

There are two common issues at play here. The first is the basic understanding of why we would program a box jump in the first place. Box jumps should be used to train improved impulse magnitude and, if we use a drop, to decrease the time of that impulse as well as the amount of force the system has to absorb. A higher box is easier for the system, not harder.

If an athlete has a vertical jump of 24 inches, then jumping and landing on a 30-inch box means that they have to flex their hips up at least 6 inches to land the jump. That is a negative 6-inch absorption of load. If, however, that same athlete steps off a 30-inch box and has to stick the landing, they just had to absorb way more load. So, which is more helpful? It depends.

If you want to decrease the load acceptance requirement for an athlete, a higher box jump is where you want to go. If, however, you want to maximally train an athlete for force absorption and impulse improvement, a drop jump is where you want to be. Understanding what the exercise accomplishes allows a coach and an athlete to start to figure out where and why it belongs in training. Without this first part, the second is impossible.

Higher definitely looks cooler for social media posts, but accepting load when dropping down off a box is definitely more challenging for the athlete’s system. Share on X

This confusion over which type of box jump is “harder” might be the biggest misunderstanding that I see in training golfers on a daily basis. Higher definitely looks cooler for social media posts, but accepting load when dropping down off a box is definitely more challenging for the athlete’s system.

Velocity-Based Resistance Training

Velocity-based programming or training, depending on who you talk to and what they like to call it, is definitely not traditional by any stretch of the imagination. It is relatively new, in general, and we all know that golf is not known for being at the forefront of anything when it comes to strength and conditioning. It shouldn’t shock you that velocity-based training is not traditionally in a golf-specific training program.

The apparent value of this type of training is becoming more and more obvious in the research and in practice. The idea that you essentially have a leading fatigue metric every day an athlete comes in to train that will self-regulate their load to keep them in the range you want them to train is extremely appealing. While it is a mind shift for any coach or athlete used to percentage-based training, it is one that comes relatively quickly and shouldn’t be a barrier to adoption.

One of the bigger logistical barriers is the need to assess athletes to determine their individual profiles for each lift. In golf, however, this is much less of a barrier, as golfers are individual athletes, and we don’t run into the issues that large football or other team sports do where a coach needs to profile 40+ athletes. Even at the collegiate level, where golf is a team sport, there are rarely more than 10 athletes, which makes it not an issue logistically.

In a recent article published by Dorrell and colleagues¹, there was a noted, significant improvement in strength and countermovement jump performance despite the group using velocity-based training having done less volume. The authors commented on the potential value of this for managing fatigue of athletes during competitive seasons. With golf at the professional levels being essentially a year-round sport at this point, this is a huge finding and potential benefit for golfers.

There is still an obvious barrier to the inclusion of this type of training in golf on a large scale. The travel that occurs during the long season means that athletes at the professional level do not have access to barbells and/or the technology all the time, making year-round use of this type of training challenging sometimes. That being said, the wearable market for velocity-based training is improving in its accuracy and ability to produce reliable readings for athletes to use it on the road when they travel.

As the research and the benefits of this training become more defined and the technology continues to improve, I would not be surprised if velocity-based programming and training starts to trend as the “norm” more than anything else on this list.

Lateral Sled Pulls

Sleds are not often used in traditional golf performance training as it is, never mind a lateral pull variation. The benefit of this type of pull is that it requires increased use of the adductor muscle group. This is an extremely difficult group of muscles to train in an explosive manner in the gym. As such, despite it being one of the most important muscle groups in the golf swing, particularly on the lead side of the golfer, traditional strength and conditioning programs for golf performance often overlook it.

The exercise challenges the athlete to extend the hip with adduction, which is the exact movement that the lead hip completes during the golf swing. You can vary the load depending on what attributes you are looking to train (strength vs. power vs. metabolic, etc.).

We utilize lateral sled pulls in our programs throughout the year with our athletes, but we do so differently, depending on where they are in their season and what the overarching goal of their training program is at that time. For instance, in the early off-season, we utilize the lateral sled pulls but with a focus on metabolic goals to build a base or capacity for the upcoming season. We utilize different variations of workouts from low load, low recovery to pyramid schemes, and everything in between.

When we get into the middle of the off-season, we often utilize this exercise as part of a superset on a low neural day to continue to challenge capacity while it is okay for volume to be higher. As their program progresses toward later off-season, and we concentrate on impulse magnitude and duration for maximal power output, lower volume with good power output and longer rests becomes more of a focus.

When the athlete is in season, we apply this specific exercise as a bit of a warm-up to make sure we train that pattern and keep it clean, but we don’t put a ton of stress on their system with it. They are playing and traveling so much that we focus more on the compound movements for our big power outputs and consider this an auxiliary lift at this point in their programming.

The biggest barrier to the mass adoption of lateral sled pulls in traditional programs is the access to turn and/or sleds as well as a long-enough runway to make it worthwhile. Share on X

The biggest barrier to mass adoption of this exercise in traditional programs is the access to turf and/or sleds as well as a long-enough runway to make it worthwhile for the athlete. Particularly when athletes are on the road, finding gyms with this equipment can be tough. When you are able to find a facility that provides the opportunity to implement this exercise, however, go for it. You’ll be happy you did.

Triphasic Strength Training

This is not a specific exercise, but rather a type of training that has been found to be helpful to drive clubhead speed gains in older golfers. In adult golfers, a gain in club speed of more than 50% was seen when the subjects utilized triphasic training as opposed to traditional training (progressive load without tempo considerations). The opposite effect was actually seen in junior golfers, which is interesting to note.

In the study outlined below, a four-week phase focusing on 5- to 7-second descent followed by a four-week phase focusing on a 5- to 7-second isometric hold at the bottom of each rep flowed into a four-week conversion to power phase. Because of the increased time under tension in the first two phases, the adult and senior golfers used lower loads to achieve the results of the increased club speed than the traditional training groups. Subjectively, the individuals were much more comfortable with less load on their bodies and, as such, self-reported enjoying the program.

When using triphasic training, we have also found it productive to periodize rotational work such as medicine balls, cable/flywheel rotational exercises, and jump training. As mentioned earlier in this article with the different Iron Man variations, utilizing hop back variations during the eccentric phases to focus on storing energy and progressing to step behind or drop variations during the conversion to power phase improves impulse magnitude and decreases duration.

Video 5. Eccentric tempo work is timeless and popular for a reason. Controlling the eccentric portion of the lift offers a great foundation before advancing to maximal and rapid overload options.

There are no barriers to using this type of training like there are with some of the other exercises or VBT mentioned above. The only thing needed to utilize this type of training with your athletes is for them to be able to count to five correctly. It is simple to implement triphasic training on the road, and athletes pick up on how and why they should implement it very quickly.

Keep Pushing Our Athletes, and the Field, Farther

The golf fitness and performance industry is progressing in leaps and bounds every year, and that is nothing but great for the game and the athletes who play it. As demonstrated above, there is still a high ceiling that we can reach for to continue to push our field and our athletes even farther.

As technology & research continue to make available new methods and modalities, coaches need to continue to educate ourselves on what’s worthwhile to share with our athletes. Share on X

The common thread here is to utilize each of these seven exercises or strategies first with an understanding of why you would use it with an athlete and why that athlete would potentially benefit from it. Then, we need to be crystal clear as to where it fits in their program and when it would be most beneficial for them to achieve transferrable results on the golf course. Finally, as technology and research continue to push forward and make available modalities and methods that were not available before, coaches need to continue to educate ourselves on what exists and is worthwhile to share with our athletes.

The future is bright for golfers and their ability to continue to perform at levels never before thought possible. These are only seven of the many elements that will continue to become more and more mainstream over the next decade as “traditional” continues to be redefined on an almost daily basis.

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. Dorrell, H. F., Smith, M. F., & Gee, T. I. (2020). Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(1), 46.

Like many of my professional associates and peers throughout the country, over the course of my professional career I have rehabilitated and/or performance enhancement trained the athletes placed in my care. In my four decades of practice, I personally have worked with thousands of athletes participating in many various athletic endeavors. Included in this athletic population are the subset of overhead athletes, such as baseball players, football quarterbacks, track and field throwers, volleyball players, basketball players, tennis players, swimmers, etc. These athletes have competed at the high school, collegiate, Olympic, and professional levels.

With regard to the overhead sport athlete in baseball, football, and basketball, my clientele of athletes, like my other professional peers in the same occupational fields of practice, includes $100,000,000-contract athletes as well as Cy Young award-winning MLB pitchers, NFL quarterbacks, and MLB and NBA all-stars. However, contrary to what many of my professional peers do (as expressed to me via direct conversations with them), I prescribe my athletes specific weighted overhead exercises during their rehabilitation and/or training whenever no valid contraindications are noted.

Contrary to what many of my professional peers do, I prescribe my athletes specific weighted overhead exercises during their rehab and/or training whenever there are no valid contraindications. Share on X

Specifically, with regard to the overhead athlete and the upper extremity, these individuals are rehabilitated, involved in post-rehabilitation return to play, and/or performance enhancement trained for a variety of physical conditions including, but not limited to:

• Non-operative shoulder rehabilitation.
• Non-operative elbow rehabilitation.
• Postoperative shoulder rehabilitation.
• Postoperative elbow rehabilitation.
• Post-rehabilitation return to play and/or athletic performance enhancement training in preparation for their particular sport of participation.

Although it appears that overhead weight training has had a greater acceptance in recent years, conversations of concern still exist with medical professionals, parents, coaches, and, at times, the athlete themselves. During these conversations, I often contemplate the days of Dr. Karl Klein and his support of medical professionals and coaches who condemned the squat exercise, as there was a time where this deep knee bend exercise was considered absolutely detrimental to the ligaments of the knee. This squat exercise concern was proven to be unsubstantiated at least 25 years ago¹. These discussions often leave me with the impression that overhead exercise performance is the latest “taboo” in the new millennium.

I mentioned the clientele of outstanding professional athletes to reinforce a point: If specific overhead training exercise were truly detrimental to an athlete’s career, how then could we possibly incorporate them successfully into the physical rehabilitation and performance enhancement training settings? How could they be accepted by these accomplished professional athletes who have so much to lose?

Skill vs. Athleticism

During the course of physical rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation return to play, and the performance enhancement training of athletes, the emphasis is on improving the physical qualities necessary for optimal athletic performance. This achievement assists in optimizing the demonstrated physical skills of the athlete through the transfer of these enhanced physical qualities via the repetitive practice of these physical skills over time. Physical rehabilitation and athletic performance training enhance the athlete’s athleticism.

Unless the rehabilitation specialist and/or strength and conditioning (S&C) professional is also a sport skills coach (i.e., basketball shooting, baseball hitting, baseball pitching, etc.), it is the sport/skill coach who will improve the athlete’s skill level. This article will discuss the rehabilitation, training opportunities, and guidelines for the inclusion of weighted overhead exercises for the overhead athlete.

Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development

We base our evaluation and programming for the rehabilitation as well as the athletic performance enhancement training of the overhead (or any) athlete upon the philosophy of USA S&C Hall of Fame Coach Al Vermeil’s Hierarchy of Athletic Development (figure 1).

These training and rehabilitation program philosophies have been described previously in both the literature^2,3 and a SimpliFaster blog post; therefore, a thorough review is not required at this time. A recommended self-review of this philosophical system will assist as a guide for the evaluation and testing of an athlete through the development of the diverse physical qualities necessary for optimal physical rehabilitation and post-rehabilitation return to play, as well as ideal athletic performance.

The Kinetic Chain of the Body

For the overhead athlete to achieve ideal levels of performance, it is critical for all muscle and neuromuscular activity of the body to transform from multiple individual segments to a single efficient entity. It has been demonstrated that the best athletes are those who can apply the greatest amount of force into the ground surface area in the shortest period of time⁴. For this phenomenon to occur, the athlete must establish a strong, stable base of support to maximize the forces initiated from the legs and hips, transfer these forces through the core, and conclude at the shoulder/upper extremity complex to the hand.

The automobile enthusiast may associate this relationship to an engine (i.e., leg and hips), where the forces established are transferred via the transmission (i.e., core) to the steering mechanism (upper extremities and hands) as upper extremity (i.e., baseball) velocity transpires from the ground up⁵. The kinetic chain of the body also assists to diminish the magnitude of the applied forces in throwing type movements and produce torques that decrease braking forces as a protective mechanism during the arm deceleration phase, the most stressful phase of throwing (overhead) cycle⁶.

Anxieties of Overhead Exercise Performance

The foremost expressed concern of overhead weighted exercise performance (i.e., the overhead/military press, push press, jerks, etc.) appears to be the potential injury to the rotator cuff musculature of the shoulder complex. The rotator cuff consists of four muscles: the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis (figure 2).

This apprehension is derived from the fear of the possible onset of rotator cuff “impingement” and/or tearing at the underside of the acromion (figure 3a) and/or the coracoacromial ligament/arch (figure 3b). Frequently expressed concerns also include the “dreaded” type III acromion (figure 3a) morphology, which, due to the extended osseous structure, reduces the subacromial space. This space is located between the inferior acromion and the head of the humerus and is approximately 9–10 mm in distance⁷.

It has been reported that at 0 degrees of arm abduction (arm at the side), the subacromial space is approximately 11 mm, at 90 degrees of upper extremity abduction it is 5.7 mm, and at 120 degrees of abduction it is 4.8 mm⁸. Investigators have also utilized Fuji contact film to measure pressures per square area on both the acromion and humeral head. With arm abduction performed from 60 degrees to full arm elevation, there was contact between the acromion and humeral head⁸. Therefore, it was concluded that contact between the acromion and humeral head during this range of elevation is normal.

The physical rehabilitation and S&C professional should take caution with overhead exercise performance in the documented presence of a type III acromion. As it is not financially prudent or even essential to perform diagnostic imaging on every athlete participating in a training program, it is necessary to investigate the scientific evidence to help determine where in the athletic population this specific type III acromion morphology may actually exist.

The concern of subjecting a young athlete to a possible increased risk of rotator cuff pathology due to the presence of a type III acromion is likely overstated. Share on X

In a study of 100 Division 1 college athletes (200 shoulders), it was determined that only 2% (four shoulders) exhibited a type III acromion⁹. In fact, there are a number of medical professionals who believe that the type III acromion likely presents in the later decades of life as a result of the accumulated physical stresses that may result in secondary changes, as occurs with any other aging joint surface. Therefore, it would appear that the concern of subjecting a young athlete to a possible increased risk of rotator cuff pathology due to the presence of a type III acromion is likely overstated.

Prerequisites of Overhead Exercise Performance

Prior to their introduction to formal training program design, the athlete must be prepared to ensure the safety and success of such training participation. Much of this preparation (including overhead exercise performance preparation) would occur during the work capacity phase of Coach Vermeil’s hierarchy. Unfortunately, this stage of training is often omitted in favor of direct participation in the formal training program. Once a work capacity is established, the following are some suggested additional criteria that the athlete should appropriately demonstrate prior to their initiation into a formal overhead training program.

Glenohumeral Scapulothoracic Mobility

The athlete must achieve 180 degrees of arm elevation (figures 4a and 4b), as shoulder flexion deficits of as little as 5 degrees or more have been found to increase upper extremity injury rates in throwers almost threefold¹⁰. The greater the deficit in shoulder flexion, the higher the level of stress placed upon the shoulder complex during repetitive overhead exercise performance. Also, 180 degrees of shoulder flexion will support the presence of the appropriate soft tissue compliance, thoracic spine mobility, and scapulohumeral rhythm (to name a few) required for overhead exercise execution. The accomplishment of full shoulder elevation via overhead exercise performance will assist in injury prevention due to the elimination of range of motion deficits, and the acquired full range of motion will be available for the start of the overhead sport’s pre-season and in-season activities.

Scapulohumeral Rhythm Alterations When Lifting a Heavy Load Overhead

There is a normal sequence of movement between the humerus and the scapula during glenohumeral (arm) elevation. The classic work of Inman and colleagues¹¹ has demonstrated a humeral (arm) elevation to a scapulothoracic upward rotation ratio of 2:1 during both sagittal plane flexion and coronal plane abduction between 30 and 170 degrees of motion (arm elevation). However, during dynamic humeral elevation the scapulohumeral rhythm changes, depending upon the phase of elevation and the amount of external load applied to the upper extremity. For heavy loads, this previously described 2:1 ratio changes to approximately 4.5:1¹². This adjustment in scapulohumeral rhythm is certainly reasonable, as a platform of stability (the scapula) is a prerequisite for the optimal mobility and dexterity of the upper extremity to successfully occur.

The Painful Arc of Motion

An additional concerning overhead exercise topic of discussion with healthcare professionals is the painful arc syndrome. The painful arc syndrome of the shoulder is characterized by pain, usually located at the lateral aspect of the shoulder and upper arm in the area of the subacromial space, the bulk of the deltoid muscle group, and/or its insertion. This shoulder pain may be felt at rest, usually at night, and is typically exacerbated during arm elevation in a specific shoulder arc of motion¹³. This painful arc of motion usually occurs during shoulder abduction and is situated between 60 and 120 degrees of arm elevation (figure 5).

Shoulder pain that occurs in this range of motion is usually indicative of a disorder of the subacromial region. During discussions of overhead exercise performance, some healthcare professionals have expressed the concern that non-symptomatic athletes exercising through this range of motion may develop the eventual onset of a subacromial shoulder pathology. I have found this concern, with proper preparation of the athlete, to be without substance empirically.

To help alleviate concerns over exercising through the painful arc of motion, initiate all overhead exercises from a racked position of the barbell with the shoulder at 90 degrees of elevation. Share on X

To help alleviate this concern, athletes should initiate all overhead exercises from a racked position of the barbell with the shoulder at 90 degrees of elevation (figure 6). Thus, overhead exercises with a barbell are now only executed through half (90–120 degrees) of this painful arc of motion. Avoidance of a starting racked position (elbow positioned low) still allows for exercise performance but will also include range of motion through the entire painful arc (i.e., 60–120 degrees).

To further address extreme concerns over the painful arc of motion, you may stack boxes (figure 7) to assist in eliminating the eccentric return of the barbell from the concluded overhead exercise in fully extended arm position. From this extended arm position, an athlete may drop the barbell to the extended box height prior to the execution of the next overhead exercise repetition.

However, there are substantial strength enhancements and additional benefits in performing the eccentric phase of the overhead exercise. Whenever appropriate, it is highly recommended to perform this eccentric (lowering) phase in asymptomatic shoulders. Eccentric strength qualities are essential during the deceleration phase of high-velocity overhead activities, as deceleration is the most stressful phase of throwing/overhead type activities.

To best avoid potential concerns with the overhead exercise in the painful arc of motion, it is recommended to: ensure proper shoulder and thoracic spine mobility, strength levels of the rotator cuff, and scapula musculature; perform overhead exercise in the plane of the scapula; and implement an appropriate exercise program design to avoid the onset of excessive fatigue. In my experience, following these guidelines, as well as Coach Vermeil’s hierarchy, resolves any apprehension of exercising through the painful arc of motion and allows for successful overhead exercise performance.

Perform All Overhead Exercises in the Plane of the Scapula

The scapula does not rest on the thorax in a position parallel to the frontal plane of the body. The scapula at rest assumes a position of 30–45 degrees forward from the frontal plane toward the sagittal plane of the body (figures 8a and 8b).

There are many biomechanical and anatomical advantages for performing arm elevation in the scapular plane of the body^7,14. Some of these advantages include, but are not limited to:

• The shoulder joint surfaces have greater conformity in this plane of motion.
• During arm elevation, the inferior capsuloligamentous complex and rotator cuff muscles remain untwisted.
• The supraspinatus and deltoid muscle group (rotator cuff-deltoid force couple) are optimally aligned for arm elevation.
• This plane of the body provides for the greatest scapula upward rotation.
• This plane of the body provides for optimal length-tension (force production) of muscles.

As previously noted, scapulohumeral rhythm adjusts from a 2:1 to a 4.5:1 ratio with the application of a heavy load. This change in the ratio implies an adjustment in the elevation and rotation of the scapula, as the application of a heavy load requires a strong platform of stability. Thus, overhead exercise execution in the plane of the scapula will ensure the optimal scapula elevation and rotations necessary to maintain an appropriate subacromial space to assist in prohibiting rotator cuff pathology.

An appropriate hand placement (spacing) on the barbell will ensure this plane of motion is “secured” throughout the overhead exercise performance. It is also important to note that, as the execution of the overhead exercise performance is now performed in the plane of the scapula and not pure shoulder abduction, the concern of the aforementioned painful arc of motion is minimized.

Rotator Cuff Muscle Activity During Overhead Exercise Performance

The execution of such exercises as the standing press, push press, and split jerk take advantage of the benefits of the kinetic chain in the standing position by initiating and transferring forces from the ground up, the same mechanism of force transfer that occurs during competitive sports. The overhead press also exhibits very high supraspinatus muscle activity¹⁵, the muscle most often associated with rotator cuff pathology. As a stronger muscle is less susceptible to injury, why would we not want to utilize the same philosophy with the rotator cuff of the shoulder, and more specifically, the supraspinatus muscle? The rotator cuff and deltoid muscle activity that occurs during the overhead press is presented in figure 9.

Also of note, the serratus anterior, a key entity in the serratus anterior-trapezius force couple, is also very active (82%) during the overhead press exercise¹⁶. A force couple occurs when separate and distinct muscle groups produce equal forces, creating a rotation by the pulling that occurs in opposite directions. This serratus anterior-trapezius force couple serves several critical functions in overhead activity^{17, 18}:

• Rotates the scapula, maintaining the glenoid surface in an appropriate position for the humeral head.
• Positions the deltoid muscle group to maintain efficient length-tension, ensuring ideal strength, explosive strength, and joint stability.
• Prevents impingement of the subacromial anatomical structures upon the coracoacromial arch.
• Provides a stable base of support, enabling axiohumeral and scapulohumeral muscles to move the arm against an external resistance.

The Effect of Exercise-Induced Fatigue on Shoulder Kinematics

Excessive exercise-induced fatigue can negatively affect shoulder joint kinematics. To comprehend this concept, there must be an appreciation of the rotator cuff-deltoid muscle force couple that occurs at the shoulder. The main function of the rotator cuff muscle group is to counterbalance the forces of the deltoid muscle group and maintain the position of the humeral head centrally in the glenoid fossa (joint) (figure 10b).

Arm elevation in the presence of an excessively fatigued non-pathologic rotator cuff disrupts this force couple, resulting in the same humeral head superior migration that occurs in a shoulder with a rotator cuff tear and/or pathology¹⁹(figure 10a). This superior migration of the humeral head may increase the potential for rotator cuff pathology, as the available subacromial arch spacing is now decreased. Additional consequences include increased inferior (downward) migration of the humeral head with the arm resting at the side of the body (figure 10a). Athletes should be cautious when executing overhead (i.e., press) and carrying type (i.e., farmers walk) activities in the presence of an excessively fatigued shoulder muscle complex.

Excessive exercise-induced muscle fatigue may also affect the supporting musculature of the scapula, resulting in decreased scapula posterior tilt, as well as increased scapula protraction, internal rotation, and increased upward rotation. This combined and altered positioning of the scapula, along with the associated superior humeral head migration, serves as an environment for potential rotator cuff pathology.

The establishment of an athlete’s adequate work capacity, as well as the implementation of an appropriate rehabilitation/training program design, is essential to avoid the negative effects of the onset of excessive fatigue of the musculature of the shoulder complex. Excessive muscle fatigue will result in an adverse influence upon the aforementioned shoulder kinematics and can lead to a potentially consequential soft tissue injury.

The Standing Overhead Press

The standing overhead press is a strength exercise that offers many advantages over other upper body strength activities. These advantages include, but are not limited to:

• Potential utilization in both the performance enhancement and physical rehabilitation environments.
• Enhanced strength and hypertrophy of the shoulders and upper extremities.
• Enhanced stability of the lower extremities, hips, and core.
• Execution of exercise in the standing position; thus, forces are transferred from the ground up, as transpires in sport activities.
• The glenohumeral and scapula-thoracic relationship is free-moving without external restrictions.
• The risk of pectorals muscle tears is likely zero.

Activities such as the bench press, incline bench press, and seated overhead press with a bench require the athlete to lie/sit upon this apparatus that includes a backing (figure 11). The bench backing creates a platform whereby the scapulae are “pinned,” so to speak, between the barbell weight, body weight, and bench backing, resulting in compressive forces of the scapulae against the thorax. One of the advantages of closed kinetic chain exercise performance is the stability provided by compressive forces that occur during exercise performance (i.e., the knee joint during the back squat).

Observe caution with regard to the prescribed exercise volume of the bench press, incline bench press, etc. when utilizing a bench backing. Share on X

If the scapulae are compressed and stabilized against the thorax during overhead exercise performance, would there not be a possible adverse disruption to the previously mentioned scapulohumeral rhythm? If the scapulae are “artificially stabilized,” so to speak, due to the described compressive forces during overhead exercise performance, are the scapulae musculature getting a “free ride,” resulting in a decrease in potential strength enhancement when compared to the scapula muscle activity required during standing overhead exercise performance? This is not to state that you should eliminate exercises such as the bench press, incline bench press, etc. from an athlete’s training program design, but observe caution with regard to the prescribed exercise volume in exercises utilizing a bench backing.

The Push Press

As athletes achieve appropriate strength levels with the standing overhead press, a progression for the physical qualities of both lower and upper extremity explosive strength is realized via the incorporation of the push press exercise into the training program design. Although a coordinated contribution of the shoulders, core, and upper extremities is executed during exercise performance, the push press places focus on the lower body. The push press is a knee-dominant activity due to the requirement of maintaining the racked barbell on the anterior deltoids of the shoulders to effectively and efficiently transmit impulse. The exercise has also been shown to produce peak power levels that are similar to the jump squat and mid-thigh power clean exercises²⁰, and it is an exceptional exercise that incorporates the upper extremities to enhance overall explosive strength qualities.

The Split Jerk

It is well-documented that the stride leg plays a critical role in the attainment and maintenance of ball velocity in baseball pitchers^21,22. Some of these stride leg advantages include, but are not limited to:

• The landing (stride) leg serves as an anchor, transforming forward and vertical momentum into rotational components.
• Posterior directed landing forces of the landing foot reflect a balance of inertial forces of the body moving forward to create baseball velocity.
• Pitchers with the highest ball velocity also demonstrate higher braking ground reaction forces.
• The ability to “drive” the body over a stabilized stride leg is a characteristic of high-velocity pitchers.
• High-velocity pitchers exhibit greater stride knee extension.
• High-velocity pitchers increase the forward motion of the trunk via stride knee extension during the acceleration phase of pitching.

It is fairly obvious that appropriate stride leg knee extension, stability, and braking abilities have a strong positive correlation to enhancing ball velocity. When reviewing the posture of the stride leg of a baseball pitcher (figure 12a), we see that his stride leg displays a remarkable similarity to the stride leg displayed during the execution of the split jerk exercise (figure 12b).

The split jerk also requires optimal stride leg positioning, stability, and high braking forces while enhancing core and shoulder stability, strength, and explosive strength qualities. The split jerk produces high peak power (i.e., 6923 W) and mean power (i.e., 4321 W) generated forces to transfer through the kinetic chain to the upper extremity^22,23.

No Place for Exercise Generalizations

If there is such a pronounced adverse concern by some rehabilitation and S&C professionals to incorporate weighted overhead exercises in the athlete’s program design, why don’t they express this same adverse concern during the execution of overhead activities such as pull-ups, chin-ups, and lat pulldown exercises? Not only do athletes perform these exercises with the arms fully extended overhead, but they execute them with the hands fixed to an exercise bar positioned both overhead and anterior to the midline of the body. Thus, these overhead exercises also include a component of joint distraction forces that potentially position the humeral head more superiorly toward the inferior acromion as well as the coracoacromial arch.

Are we, as professionals, also to believe that the concern with weighted overhead exercise performance is seasonal? Why does there appear to be less concern with the performance of overhead exercises during the off-season training of football quarterbacks versus the off-season training of a baseball pitcher or position player? Many of the athletes trained at our performance center are high school and college athletes who are quarterbacks during the fall sport season and baseball pitchers during the spring sport season. Where is the scientific evidence that documents the vulnerability of the shoulder complex/anatomy due to overhead exercise performance changes depending upon the time of the year?

Why does there appear to be less concern with the performance of overhead exercises during the off-season training of football quarterbacks than of a baseball pitcher or position player? Share on X

This discussion certainly doesn’t imply that overhead exercise “fits all.” Nor does it ever recommend the “cut and paste” method of program design. We should regard and treat each athlete in either the rehabilitation or performance enhancement training setting as an individual based on their own specific medical and training history. That stated, exercise generalizations have no place in either of these professional environments. When appropriate, overhead exercise performance is deemed both suitable and beneficial to include in the program design of an athlete participating in the rehabilitation and performance enhancement training environments.

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. Panariello RA, Backus SI, Parker JW. “The Effect of the Squat Exercise on Anterior – Posterior Knee Translation in Professional Football Players.” Am J Sports Med. 1994; 22(6): 768–773.

2. Panariello RA, Stump TJ, Cordasco F. “The Lower Extremity Athlete: Post-Rehabilitation Performance and Injury Prevention Training.” Oper Tech Sports Med. 2017; 25(3): 231–240.

3. Panariello RA, Stump TJ, and Maddalone D. “Post-Operative ACL Rehabilitation and Return to Play after ACL Reconstruction.” Oper Tech in Sports Med. 2016; 24(1): 35–44.

4. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, et al. “Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements.” J Appl Physiol. 2000; 89: 1991–1999.

5. Hirashima M, Kadota H, Sakurai S, et al. “Sequential muscle activity and its functional role in upper extremity and trunk during overarm throwing.” J Sport Sci. 2002; 20(4): 301–310.

6. Chu SK, Jayabalan P, Kibler B, et al. “The Kinetic Chain Revisited: New Concepts on Throwing Mechanics and Injury.” PM&R. 2016; 8(35): S69–S77.

7. Novotny JE, Woolley CT, Nichols CE 3rd, et al. “In vivo technique to quantify the internal-external rotation kinematics of the human glenohumeral joint.” J Orthop Res. 2000; 18: 190–194.

8. Soslowsky LJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU, et al. “Articular geometry of the glenohumeral joint.” Clin Orthop, 1992; (285): 181–190.

9. Speer KP, Osbahr DC, Montella BJ, et al. “Acromial morphotype in the young asymptomatic athletic shoulder.” J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10(5): 434–437.

10. Wilk KE, Macrina LC, Fleisig GS, et al. “Deficits in glenohumeral passive range of motion increase risk of elbow injury in professional baseball pitchers: a prospective study.” Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(9): 2075–2081.

11. Inman V, Saunder J, Abbot L. “Observations of the function of the shoulder joint.” J Bone Joint Surg, 1944; 26:1.

12. McQuade KJ, Smidt GL. “Dynamic scapulohumeral rhythm: The effects of an external resistance during elevation of the arm in the scapula plane.” J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 1998; 27: 125–133.

13. Kessel L, Watson M. “The Painful Arc Syndrome: Clinical Classification as a Guide to Management.” J Bone Joint Surg. 1977; 59-B(2): 166–172.

14. Johnson T. “The movements of the shoulder joint. A Plea for the use of the ‘Plane of the Scapula’ as the plane of reference in movements occurring in the humero-scapular joint.” 1937; Br J Surg 25:252.

15. Townsend H, Jobe FW, Pink M, et al. “Electromyographic analysis of the glenohumeral muscles during a baseball rehabilitation program.” Am J Sport Med, 1991; 19(3): 264–272.

16. Moseley JB Jr, Jobe FW, Pink M, et al. “EMG analysis of the scapular muscles during a shoulder rehabilitation program.” Am J Sports Med, 1992; 20(2): 128–134.

17. Kelly M, Clark W. Orthopedic Therapy of the Shoulder. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott, 1995.

18. Abboud JA, Soslowsky LJ. “Interplay of the static and dynamic restraints in glenohumeral instability.” Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; (400): 48–57.

19. Chen SK, Simonian PT, Wickiewicz, TL, et al. “Radiographic evaluation of glenohumeral kinematics: A muscle fatigue model.” J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999; 8(1): 49–52.

20. Comfort P, Mundy PD, Graham-Smith P, et al. “Comparison of peak power output during exercises with similar lower limb kinematics.” J of Trainology. 2016; 5: 1–5.

21. Kageyama M, Sugiyama T, Takai Y, et al. “Kinematic and Kinetic Profiles of Trunk and Lower Limbs during Baseball Pitching in Collegiate Pitchers.” J Sports Sci Med. 2014; 13(4): 742–750.

22. Campbell BM, Stodden DF, Nixon, MK. “Lower Extremity Muscle Activation During Baseball Pitching.” J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24(4): 964–971.

23. Garhammer J. “Power production by Olympic Weightlifters.” Med Sci Sports Exer. 1980; (12)1: 54–60.

The field of athletic development and sport preparation often undergoes audits via the latest fads, trends, and paradigm shifts. Lately, many successful coaches have moved toward low dose, optimal dose, minimal effective dose, or insert your term here dose. This is especially true among the coaches I’ve been fortunate to interact with and listen to in the past three years. During that time, I attended the Track and Football Consortium (TFC), where Jeff Moyer outlined the idea of strength as a spectrum and how to execute that in a program such as the 1×20 system—a concept that stood out to me.

At TFC and conferences like it, the information often leaves one’s head spinning…in a good way! Each presentation has nuggets of gold and diamonds in the rough, and Jeff’s presentation contained both. In this application, strength training is one component of many that need to be trained in an athlete’s toolbox.¹

In a practical sense, a coach who has limited time to train his athletes (as many of us experience) needs to find a way to effectively and efficiently make improvements in the key indicators that matter. Spending time executing multiple sets and reps of multiple strength exercises not only takes time away from learning vital skills but also the athlete’s recovery and adaptation reserves. In other words, you can only run the well dry so long before you run out of water.

General Physical Preparation? Try Broad Spectrum Preparation

In Moyer’s words, “twenty rep sets are one of the least possible CNS costs to get a positive transfer.” The phase of 20s is also paramount to building a young athlete’s broad spectrum of needs, which include strengthening connective tissues, cardiovascular development, and capillarization of blood vessels, skill improvement, and maximal strength— all within a single set. Sounds like a way to get a bang for your buck.¹

All this got me thinking: How can I see or show this? In his TFC presentation “A Minimalist Approach to Building a Better Athlete,” Moyer mentioned that the 20s cover a spectrum of strength, including:

• Accelerative strength
• Strength endurance
• Maximal strength

It also includes immense carryover to power metrics, such as vertical jump, broad jump, and sprinting. The great thing about trends is that sometimes they produce nifty little tools. Enter velocity measuring devices!

I decided to measure the spectrum of reps in a twenty-rep set and see how these fell along the velocity zone-special strengths chart. In this case investigation, I used Open Barbell V2.0 and the accompanying IOS app in the ½ squat exercise with a pair of female soccer players.

A Mini-Case Study

As chance would have it, I had two perfect candidates to apply this idea with immediately after the conference—two female collegiate soccer players, Meg and Kate. Like many soccer players, they had a lot of experience and hours on the pitch, but only a brief training history consisting of pre-season work (meaning endless low speed running) with their high school team. Meg also had a short period of basic work with me before entering this system. At the time, both were entering their senior seasons and looking forward to Division 1 collegiate careers.

This brings us to a discussion about goals. The funny thing about high school kids is you’ll always get the vague “bigger, faster, stronger,” except in this case, many females choose “faster, stronger, and better abs” (cue the eye roll). The faster and stronger part we can measure, the better abs part may be translated as the following:

Coach: “Oh, you mean better shape? As in better condition.”

Player: “Yeah, that’s what I mean!”

That’s also not hard to measure. Or you can simply observe this as a “what the hell” effect, especially when employing 20s.

With all of my field athletes, I do an initial assessment involving a sprint, long jump, agility drill, and body dimensions. From a general standpoint, the numbers generated from this battery of tests seem to display the key interplay of strength, speed, and power for field athletes. In this case, it was particularly helpful with females who are typically self-conscience about getting “too muscular.” For both Meg and Kate, the absence of gaining body weight over this time period (127 lbs. and 142 lbs., respectively) had a two-fold positive effect. Functionally, as relative strength increased, these metrics improved. The density of their bodies allowed them to move more powerfully and efficiently. Perceptually, the young women were never hit by the scale demon and always fit into their clothes comfortably—if you’ve ever worked with high school females, you know how important this is.

The following images show the velocities of each rep during the twenty-rep set. I was able to track Meg’s progress over several weeks because she began training with me before Kate. So goes life in the private sector—once one athlete sees results, she tells her friends and, soon enough, you get more athletes working with you. But I digress.

As to why this transpired, my guess is that it was her first session attempting a twenty-rep back squat, and she was feeling her way through the movement before fatiguing a bit at rep 10. Being the competitor she is and knowing she can’t quit on a 20, Meg hits nearly a 0.7 on reps 13 and 16 (see image above) before dropping back down in the 0.5s.

On her last rep, she jumps near 0.6 again, probably because she was cued to finish fast—intent is everything when you get fatigued! Upon close examination, you see some fluctuations as the speeds certainly did not drop uniformly as they would in a perfect spectrum. Again, I attribute the jagged outputs to her first endeavor into the 20s.

In the second and third pictures above, we see that Meg slowed down a bit to 0.53 m/s but maintained a fluctuation in the low accelerative range for the remainder of the set. In other words, she was able to repeatedly display her accelerative ability for 14 reps after the initial fast reps.

What’s more interesting is that she displayed faster bar speeds with an additional 15 lb.-load. This gives us insight into the type of strength she’s able to develop in the 1×20 system.

As you can see in the sequence above, Kate begins really strong at 0.65 before dropping a bit into the low accelerative end in the mid-0.50s in rep 4. From rep 5, she maintains speeds in the low accelerative range until rep 16, when she begins to teeter in the absolute strength zone to 0.47 and near-uniform drop until the last rep at 0.42 m/s. We can attribute Kate’s finish in the low 0.40 range to a few factors. First, she is a taller athlete—about 5’10” vs. Meg’s 5’5″ so has further to work. Second, I believe this represented an optimal load where Kate finished in a range that was closer to the absolute strength zone after fatiguing in the accelerative zone for about 15 reps, revealing the spectrum effect of the 20s.

In retrospect, using velocity based training (VBT) to manage loads and cut-off points instead of “failure” may help coaches keep rep quality in perspective, avoiding potential injuries. Twenties can be a tricky demon where athletes will find a way to compete to get their reps. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing unless they’re tumbling under loads or slopping it up with spinal posture. Here, using a bar speed cut-off can sharpen the coach’s eye while providing visual feedback so the athletes can’t argue that they had more reps. Knowing each athlete’s cut-off speed will help coaches determine optimal loads.

Knowing each athlete's cut-off speed will help coaches determine optimal loads. #VBT #1x120System Share on X

About six weeks after her initial session with 85 lbs., Meg increased her squat to 132 lbs. (we jumped ten pounds every time she got to 20). As mentioned above, she did not put on one pound of bodyweight in the six weeks. **This will come into play in a follow-up article as I show how this transferred to her speed and agility markers.

In the sequence above, Meg maintains that force production capability until rep 15, where the “weight” of the load has become heavier in the 0.37 range. (In Dr. Mann’s recommendations, 0.30 m/s is the slowest cut-off for the squat lift [3; pg. 48]). Meg then maintains the high-end absolute strength zone for the 5 remaining reps.

Key Takeaways

Many contend that everything we do in the weight room or in our programming should complement and amplify an athlete’s skill—an outlook I share, particularly within the landscape I operate in of over-played, over-competed high school athletes. For Meg and Kate, this endeavor with the 1×20 system allowed us to stay safe while pushing up general strength and work capacity in an efficient manner. Given that training sessions will become few and far between with the pending season, this program helped lay the groundwork for the myriad of qualities needed during their season.

Using velocity based training with the 1x20 system allowed us to stay safe while pushing up general strength and work capacity efficiently. Share on X

The progress from this system also allowed us to leave a little on the table, given the low neural cost and the conglomerate of other qualities trained along the way. This will come into play as they progress to the collegiate level, where the work becomes more intensive as the stakes become higher. Also, the technical skills Meg and Kate learned in the weight room will prove invaluable as they’ll be expected to hold their own when they enter fall camp.

These days, collegiate strength coaches are on to the fact that most incoming freshmen they train will have relatively low, or no, training age. It’s always good to know my kids can get in there and know the “language,” the technique, the program, and the retention and response of the trainable qualities.

For me, as a coach, this experience spawned a couple of revelations:

1. I can certainly use a VBT device in the training of lower level sportsman. My old thinking was that athletes had to “qualify” to use it (meaning they had to be in a position where we would employ the dynamic effort method). If you work with developmental clientele, you’ll find this a rarity as a reserve of strength and consistent technique are a must.
2. The readings from the device serve as a calibrator of sorts, both for athlete and coach. If the urgency of doing a single set is not enough (no do-overs in my room!), the proof is in the numbers. For the more aggressive athletes who want to load at any cost, the numbers will tell us when to stop. For the complacent athletes who don’t (or simply will not) load the bar despite hitting the rep mark, we can keep it and show improvement or regression in the speeds. In either case, the intent is everything.

If you’re a coach battling with if and how the 1×20 can work, I hope this article answered some of those questions. In the follow-up to this post, I’ll present other metrics that grew congruently with this system. Even if you don’t have a VBT device, a keen coach’s eye, along with measuring things like jumps, sprints, and agility drills, may allow you a similar “scope on the rifle” that VBT offers with this system.

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. Moyer, Jeff. “A Minimalist Approach to Building a Better Athlete.” Track and Football Consortium VI, December 2017.

2. Mann, Bryan. “Bryan Mann Talks Velocity Based Training.” elitefts (website), April 2, 2015.

3. Mann, Bryan J. Developing Explosive Athletes: Use of Velocity Based Training in Athletes. Ultimate Athlete Concepts 2016.

Heart rate and lactate responses, along with subjective indicators, have been the go-to solution for internal load response for years. It’s time to move on. We need to fully integrate the internal load using sports thermography and other indicators of muscle response, as the neuromuscular system is just as important as the cardiovascular system.

Heart rate and lactate responses, along with subjective indicators, have been the go-to solution for internal load response for years. It’s time to move on. Share on X

Over the course of this article, I propose a major paradigm shift in sports monitoring: measure muscles directly with noninvasive means. Along with the new direction, I promise additional methodologies that fully support existing techniques in tracking the training response, including the latest concepts in sports monitoring.

External and Internal Load – Bridging the Connection

I was interviewed on thermography in sport some time ago on SimpliFaster and contributed an article explaining how ThermoHuman can help professionals monitor their athletes. In this article, I take a step back to explain the monitoring process in more detail, as it’s difficult to make progress if foundational information is not fully comprehended.

Sports thermography can summarize internal load, a product of the work performed and the current condition of the body. Using thermography to immediately evaluate residual training for readiness or post training for decision-making is both effective and efficient. The process is effective because it objectively identifies how muscle and other soft tissues are responding to training, and the speed and automation of software is fast and reliable. In my own monitoring program, it’s the focal point between both internal and external load monitoring.

The quadrant of subjective, objective, internal, and external load monitoring is often cited as a way to convey relations between types of data with monitoring in sport. Today, many of the metrics to monitor workload have had backlash in the scientific community, including the acute chronic work ratio. Furthermore, coaches have experienced a poor cultural response from monitoring, as too much measurement seemed to have caused either poor compliance or low morale.

Instead of using a conventional model for monitoring, we need a fully integrated method of bridging both the perceptual experiences and the load response to training and competing. Share on X

The solution is multifactorial and will require support staff to find alternative ways to protect athlete health while improving injury rates for at-risk populations like elite athletes. Instead of using a conventional model for monitoring, we need a fully integrated method of bridging both the perceptual experiences and the load response to training and competing.

The use of thermography weaves the athlete response, both internally and subjectively, into an objective summary that is quick and easy. Immediate decisions and adjustments can be anticipated and refined to monitor the superficial temperature, and all departments can use the information collected. Fitness coaches can adjust exercise regimens, physiotherapists can increase services and restorative modalities, and sport scientists can use their existing processes to oversee the workload of the players.

Without question, sport thermography is a perfect tool for teams that need specific information on actual muscles rapidly. Share on X

Without question, sport thermography is a perfect tool for teams that need specific information on actual muscles rapidly. If employed as a part of the internal load response with athletes, thermography connects all perspectives by tying all of the data to common areas of injury and fatigue. Impellizzeri, Coutts, and Macora proposed a model for implementation and education with internal and external loading.¹

Biochemistry and Biomechanics

A common discussion point for medical and performance staff is the desire to address the links of muscle injuries and genetics, along with mechanical and biochemical load. Risk factors such as muscle strength, poor sleep, and nutritional insufficiency can turn standard athlete monitoring into a demanding process that is both exhausting and difficult to implement rapidly. Therefore, using conventional approaches and complementing them with thermography makes sense, namely because most of the actions after assessment include passive recovery methods and local strength and conditioning. Recent peer-reviewed research on athlete asymmetries in professional football indicates potential performance loss and possible connection to past injuries. Continual struggles with risk past healing times is evident with those who tore their anterior cruciate ligament in the past and reinjured the same or contralateral leg.

Teams investing in wireless surface electromyography should consider thermography, as the entire body can be scanned quickly, improving the odds of successful screening. In conjunction with manual testing using dynamometers or other devices, medical staff is more than welcome to use sonography as a way to confirm low-grade tears and pulls. Supporting data on delayed onset muscle soreness and injury diagnosis reveal that thermography and biomarkers (creatine kinase) are potentially useful to see the severity of muscular overload. Established studies are cautiously optimistic that it’s enough evidence to include in a comprehensive monitoring program. If a club or team wishes to conduct both biochemical testing and thermography, we recommend following the same procedures as the research performed in the past.

Approaches that use pathomechanics have had mixed results in applied settings, mainly due to the complex interaction of variables outside kinematics. Athletes with mechanics outside of the typical norms found in research are not destined for injury, and those who are in normal ranges are not free from risk either. In my experience, a combination of workload, athlete age, fatigue, and mechanical patterns should be used collectively to keep athletes on the pitch and to extend careers.

Sports Recovery and Muscle Inflammation

The inflammatory response is very difficult to manage, since each day results in a possible direction down the wrong path of repair. Soft tissue, especially tendons, can remodel in a structurally weakened alignment, increasing the risk of rupture. Muscles that are chronically overused will find movement strategies and recruitment patterns that will continue to serve the demands of sport, but it frequently comes with a cost. Extended inflammation beyond normal time periods is a potentially damaging condition, especially to athletes who are genetically predisposed to pathologies. From the available evidence, it appears that delayed healing times occur when internal biochemistry and workload are not in balance, and a mere increase in temperature of 0.4 degrees Celsius can determine risk to specific muscle groups.

The inflammatory response to light exercise and heavy training is a normal condition. Only when the inflammation is accompanied by severe discomfort and followed by an impairment in sports performance or pain does the symptom pose risk. In clinical settings, physiotherapists should use thermography and reported symptoms and cross-validate those scores with primitive ortho examinations and imaging if necessary. Inflammatory responses that are beyond repair and enter the stage of degeneration can be seen by thermal scans.

Athletes who are managed properly will continue to have a typical inflammation pattern, but the severity and duration beyond normal will be reduced. Share on X

Thermography has potential for diagnosis, but for sports medicine, we (ThermoHuman) recommend using the approach for complementary purposes, including examination by a professional. Acute and chronic patterns of inflammation can guide support staff on how an injury or condition is trending. Over the years we have seen a distinct pattern for various injuries, ranging from acute tears to extended complex return to play challenges with the knee and hip. If tracked properly, inflammation patterns can be controlled and guided toward proper homeostasis. Athletes who are managed properly will continue to have a typical inflammation pattern, but the severity and duration beyond normal will be reduced.

A Case Study – Brazilian Soccer and Muscle Injuries

A question clubs ask me daily is whether sports thermography works with teams. My recommendation is for them to read the study from 2019 that utilizes our methodology². The study, conducted in Brazil, monitored elite soccer players for two years. All athletes were tracked, and thermography was used to monitor the skin temperature of the athletes. The process was repeated for two years, and the results were supportive of thermography as a complementary solution for muscle injuries.

The authors conclude:

Findings from this study show that athletes who had muscle injury in the first year (2015) did not present lesions at the same site the following year. Thus, the early identification of the risk of injury, through thermography and the preventive protocol applied, was important because there was no reinjury. Thus, the severity of lesions and time away in 2016 was lower.

It may never be possible to prevent injuries. Sport is still entertainment, and the show must go on with or without its star. What we strongly believe is that sports thermography will reduce the rate and severity of injuries, and reinjury changes will be reduced with sports thermography. Success can be measured with more players available on the pitch or court, but also in the communication and documentation of services and complaints of the athlete. Adding in training regimens and GPS data may expose practice techniques that increase risk, but only if thermography bridges the connection between internal and external loading. IT will be up to the practitioner, not just the technology, for the use of thermography to assist in injury reduction.

Emerging Research and New Frontiers

The expectation is that camera sensitivity and capturing techniques will improve in the future. Currently, the quality of camera and protocols are more than adequate to conquer the challenge of reducing muscle traits with athletes. Adding multiple cameras, creating dedicated workstations, and automating reporting are all exciting directions for us. As more teams adopt ThermoHuman, the approach to monitoring will evolve with its popularity. In the meantime, using thermography frequently is an effective monitoring process for muscle recovery.

Research has already increased, as roughly half of all sports thermography studies were published over the last 10 years. The next 10 years will certainly be exciting and promising. Better controlled studies and experiments are expected to originate from the collaborations of sport science and sport medicine. Outside of football (soccer) and swimming, I expect additional research in basketball and American football, along with rugby, cricket, and baseball.

The most radical potential area for ThermoHuman and sports thermography is software. We have already released our second version, which dramatically improves both the analysis and the reporting. What ensures that thermography is valid and reliable is the protocol of capturing the athlete and the way the information is processed.

If you aren’t comfortable with the concept of thermography monitoring, a good start is maximizing the use of body soreness scoring often seen with monitoring software. Share on X

In addition, all users need to have an action plan after imaging. We recommend sports medicine departments and fitness coaches have an idea in mind before starting the implementation of sports thermography into their monitoring program. If you are not comfortable with the concept of thermography monitoring, a good start is maximizing the use of body soreness scoring often seen with monitoring software. The future of monitoring is going to be faster, smarter, highly more accurate, and more demanding.

Injury Reduction Is Not a Holy Grail

We concur that athletes will continue to suffer injuries in the future, and no program will be perfect. The most precious athletes are often those prone to injury, and we can make a significant impact on player availability using thermography alone. By adding the use of biochemical and other forms of tracking into the monitoring equation, you can ward off obvious risks with a cooperative environment. It will require more education to get the best practices refined with thermography in sport, but I am confident that more education can turn a good monitoring program into a superior solution.

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

References

1. Impellizzeri, Franco M., Marcora, Samuel M., and Coutts, Aaron James. “Internal and External Training Load: 15 Years On.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2019;14(2):1-4.

2. Côrte, Ana C., Pedrinelli, André, Marttos, Antonio, et al. “Infrared Thermography Study as a Complementary Method of Screening and Prevention of Muscle Injuries: Pilot Study.” BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2019;5(1):e000431.