By Mike Tuchscherer

FREELAP USA: Olympic-style lifts are very specific to body types and technique, making them more than just a simple summary of peak or average output. Besides using feedback for motivation and accountability, what else can be done to use the data beyond estimating work?

MIKE TUCHSCHERER: The two big things to me would be bar path tracking and then managing parameters for assistance work. And to be honest, although a device like the GymAware can track bar path and should be put in the “useful” category, I’m not sure it’s the best tool available for tracking such things. A more useful aspect would be to manage the load for something like pulls. It’s easy to go too light or too heavy when doing, say, snatch pulls at various heights. If you have a way to measure bar speed in real time, then you can auto-regulate the intensity—which is very useful.

FREELAP USA: Jump testing sensitivity is not perfect from the sensitivity being limited, but more reactive options that utilize the stretch shortening cycle add more validity. Is jump training worth doing regularly, a waste of time, or perhaps valuable enough to explore?

MIKE TUCHSCHERER: Worth doing for whom? As my area of expertise is squarely in the realm of powerlifting and to a much lesser extent other iron sports, I have to answer from that perspective. For powerlifters, I don’t think jump training is worth doing regularly. It’s just too far removed from the specific skills and abilities required for being a good powerlifter.

FREELAP USA: Submaximal loads are great for estimating repetition maximal abilities, and research is showing evidence that general exercises and lift velocity can predict what one can do if the load is heavier. One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing. What is the best way to implement one-repetition estimation with submaximal loads?

MIKE TUCHSCHERER: The closer you get to handling a 1RM, the more accurate the estimation will be. Doing a 3RM will yield a more accurate prediction than a 5RM, and so on. The same holds true for the “sub-maximal-ness” of the effort too. A very tough set (high RPE) will be more accurate than a very easy set (low RPE). So it’s really a trade-off with how accurate you need to be. In my experience, the best implementation has been to simply conduct normal training and use that to form the estimations. We go into this knowing that a) heavier work will be more accurate than lighter work, and b) the athlete must be accelerating the weight maximally to get an accurate reading. So the further off these variables are in real life, the less emphasis we can put on the reading.

FREELAP USA: Most holistic programs in the weight room and on the field use different strength training modalities, not just one type of lift. Besides alternating intensities and volumes, does bar velocity-type tracking help with better adaptations biologically to the body? Many coaches are looking into hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. Is this a wrong path or a good idea?

MIKE TUCHSCHERER: I think it’s probably a rock worth turning over. We need a certain level of variety in an athlete’s training in order to continue improving results. But we pretty quickly hit a point of diminishing returns. So it would be interesting to know more about it. Keep in mind, though, that variation in intensity will also result in some variation in velocity in most practical cases. The first few reps of your 10RM set will be faster than any of the reps of your 3RM set. So there is some “built-in” variation when it comes to bar speed in normal programming unless you’re always tightly controlling the tempo.

FREELAP USA: Following up on genes and hormones, muscle-fiber profiles of athletes are gaining interest. Could coaches do a better job of individualizing training based on one genetic trait—specifically the amount of fast and slow fiber distribution?

MIKE TUCHSCHERER: In the context of powerlifting, I’m not sure how much that would matter. It may get us to an individualized answer a bit faster, but how much real impact does that have on the athlete? How important is that level of individualization? I’m not sure. Based on what I’ve seen so far, training differences as a result of personality vary much more than training differences as a result of fiber-type distribution. In the practical setting, however, I’m only assessing the latter by proxy so there are certainly limitations with my observation.

Related Topics

Bryan Mann Responds to Velocity Based Training Round Table

Mladen Jovonavić Responds to Velocity Based Training Round Table

By Dr. Daniel Baker (www.danbakerstrength.com)

FREELAP USA: Olympic-style lifts are very specific to body types and technique, making them more than just a simple summary of peak or average output. Besides using feedback for motivation and accountability, what can be done to use the data beyond estimating work?

DAN BAKER: First, a little preamble to set up this answer. Exercises can be deemed by their biomechanical attributes as either “strength” or “power” oriented. In power exercises, the velocities are high and acceleration continues to the end of the range—the forces do not have to be decelerated. Basically the energy is released into the air through jumps, hops, and throws. Olympic lifts also fall into this category (they are jumping exercises, essentially). If the force is safely dampened at the end of the movement, like hitting a heavy bag, then throwing punches and kicking are also power exercises.

Figures 1a, 1b, and 2 show sets of snatch push presses (power exercise, Olympic lift) and heavy squats (a strength exercise). Despite the same sort of % 1RM (sets working from about 70 to 80% 1RM), the mean velocities are much different. For the snatch push press, the velocities are around .8 to over 1 m/s. For the heavy squats, .3 to .5 m/s. For the snatch push presses, the velocities remain fairly stable, despite the increase in resistance for each set. For the squat there is a decrease in velocity with increased resistance.

Figure 1a. Snatch Push Press workout, three weeks apart (compared to Figure 1b), measured by the PUSH armband. Warm-up 70 x 2-reps, then 4×6, using ascending resistances of 75, 80, 85 and 90 kg. Mean velocities for each rep are also displayed in the accompanying tables.

Figure 1b: Snatch Push Press workout three weeks later.

Figure 2. The mean velocity for heavy full squats (120 x 2, 130 x 5, 140 x 5, 150 x 5 x 3-sets).

Strength exercises have a deceleration phase at the end of range when resistances are low (< 50% 1RM)= to avoid stressing the tendons and joints. On major strength exercises like squats, bench presses, and deadlifts, with resistances below 50% 1RM, more than half the ROM is spent in deceleration, making them less than ideal for power training even though at this low level of resistance the velocity may be high. The length of the deceleration phase decreases as resistances go above 65% 1RM. By 85-90%, there is no real deceleration phase, but the velocities are so low at this level of resistance that they cannot be classified as power exercises. So using light resistances below 50% 1RM in traditional strength exercises to develop power is often counterproductive as it is training the body to decelerate for much of the ROM, rather than continuing to accelerate.

So we do strength exercises with heavy resistances to develop force/strength, and power exercises with the appropriate resistance to train the body to use force with high velocity until the end of range. If you want to use “strength exercises” to develop power, you need to use resistances of 50-70% 1RM. Something to dampen the ferocity of a rapid lockout (such as bands and chains) also helps.

In addition, there are two measures of velocity and power—the mean or average of the entire range of (concentric) movement, and the peak, which represents the highest velocity in the shortest measuring time (say 5 millisecs). So there will be a difference between the two measures. When someone is doing a lot of end-range deceleration (because they may be trying to lift 30-40% 1RM in a bench press explosively), there will be a marked difference between the two figures as the body has to severely decelerate the lock-out to protect the joints. In Olympic lifts, which are virtually full ROM power exercises, there should not be a huge difference. If there is a more marked difference for one athlete compared to others, it suggests that they are decelerating near the end of ROM.

Why would they? Because they have mobility or technique problems and the body inherently knows not to continue accelerating (or at least, lifting with high velocity) until catch or lock-out. It may be dangerous to the involved joints, tendons, etc. So there may be a high peak velocity, but the body will slow down the speed to avoid dealing with high force and high velocity at a vulnerable end of ROM in athletes with mobility/injury concerns.

This may suggest that you don’t perform the full versions of the Olympic lifts (or power versions) with athletes who have mobility problems. You may be better off performing a variation (for example, clean power shrug jump instead of power/hang clean).

Also, Prue Cormie’s research shows that the benefit with, for example, power cleans is that as resistance goes up, power also goes up because the velocity is fairly stable—you need a certain velocity to make a successful lift. In other exercises, as resistance goes up, at some point the % dropoff in velocity is greater than the % increase in resistance. Therefore, power goes down.

More than 20 years ago, Greg Wilson called this point—where mean power is highest—the “optimal power load.” It is different for every exercise and there is also individual variation. Some of my published research looks at bench press throws in a Smith machine by professional rugby league players. That “optimal power” (mean power of the entire concentric range) was 55% 1RM for weaker blokes (about 125 kg 1RM), 50% 1RM for the across- the-board normal blokes (about 140 kg 1RM), and 45% 1RM for the strongest blokes (about 150 kg+ 1RM).

To summarize:

1. 1. Olympic lifts are great because we know that if resistance goes up, so does power, until about 90+% 1RM. You don’t need a measurement device unless you are doing pulls or push presses.
2. 2. With the Olympic lifts, the “optimal power” goes up in resistance as you get stronger but stays fairly stable in % 1RM.
3. 3. For strength exercises, the optimal power may go down in % 1RM, even if the actual resistance has gone up a little, if the athlete has gained a lot of strength.
4. 4. For strength exercises, that optimal power point may need to be determined if it is relevant for the individual and the sport. To determine this “optimal power” point or resistance, you need measurement modalities—either a linear position transducer or the new accelerometer type like the PUSH armband.
5. 5. A marked disparity between peak and mean power in an Olympic lift suggests a mobility/technique problem.
6. 6. A marked disparity between peak and mean power in a strength exercise with light resistances (< 50% 1RM) is due to the body self-protecting the joints and tendons from a forceful lockout. Why bother to do this?
7. 7. For a strength exercise to develop power, use 50-70% 1RM for explosive power, perhaps with bands and chains added, or keep these exercises solely for strength development with appropriately heavier resistances.
8. 8. Use jump squats, bench press throws, and similar exercises to train power with resistances 50%1RM of the strength exercise.

FREELAP USA: Jump testing sensitivity is not perfect from the sensitivity being limited, but more reactive options that utilize the stretch shortening cycle add more validity. Is jump training worth doing regularly, a waste of time, or perhaps valuable enough to explore?

DAN BAKER: It depends on the athlete and sport. For jump athletes, yes—jump testing and training are important! But the type of jump testing and training needs to be determined. For example, when I worked with Olympic divers, we did squat jumps (no countermovement or arm swing), countermovement jumps (no arm swing), and a vertical jump with arm swing that mimicked a dive take-off (BVJ). The SJ and CMJ are just diagnostic tools to improve the most important, sport-relevant jump test, the BVJ. The SJ is thought to represent the contractile capabilities of the muscles. The difference between the SJ and the CMJ is the extent to which the stretch-shortening cycle contributes.

So, if there is very little difference between the two (say <10%), then the athlete needs more SSC-type training such as jumps, plyos, etc. If the difference is large (>20%), then they may need more basic strength work (squats, etc). This ratio will also reflect the recent training content. So if we concentrate on heavy squats and heavy jump squats for a month or two, the SJ may go from, say, 40 cm to 42 and the CMJ from 46 cm to 47 cm—the SSC augmentation decreases from 15% to 12%. But in following up that block with lighter, faster jumps, depth jumps and other plyos, the SJ may remain unchanged. But the CMJ may improve up to 50 cm and now the augmentation is 19%.

We also did loaded jump squats, up to 80 kg. This is pure leg-jumping power and another tool to improve BVJ. If you look at my paper on the training of an Olympic diver from 1993 to 1996, published in the NSCA Journal in 2001, you will see that a 50% increase in squat strength (coming off a low strength level) begets a 25% increase in power in loaded jump squats, which in turn begets a 15% increase in BVJ height.

So jumps can be used diagnostically to develop training strategies or as tools to achieve outcomes, especially for “jump sport” athletes (volleyball, basketball, diving, gymnastics, etc).

For other sports, jumping is associated with things important in the sport and again can be used diagnostically or as a training tool to achieve an outcome. For example, my research on professional rugby league players, with whom I worked for 19 years, shows that the power achieved jumping with 80-100 kg really differentiates those at the pro team level (NRL) from second- and third-division players. Basically the average weight of players is 98 kg, so if you can’t move that weight quickly in a triple-extension movement in the gym (jump squat or hang clean), you aren’t going to move it quickly on the field! To move those sorts of weights with velocity, they needed to be about 60% 1RM squat. Therefore you needed a 1RM squat of >170 kg (much more for the bigger boys, whose opponents weigh about 110+kg!). So testing and training influence each other.

Jump squats with 20 kg did not differ much between teams in professional rugby leagues. But at the end of every power training session warm-up, before the real barbell work started, we would do five jump squats with 20 kg to monitor the state of the neuromuscular system/recovery. An easy test, not fatiguing, and it allowed us to monitor how the squad was coping. A 3-4% deviation (from the best preseason score) meant nothing. That is just the normal weekly variation, but changes of 7-10+% meant something! If the whole squad is down on average 7%, look out!

See Figure 3 below for changes across an 8-month rugby league season. There is a slump during the middle portion, which corresponds to two key factors: mid-winter and an increase in playing volume and intensity for key players. So we are dealing with the twin stressors of a suppressed immune system and harder games to recover from, and our N-M scores decrease for the whole squad accordingly.

So we can look at jump training/testing for diagnostics or for training to achieve outcomes associated with success in the sport.

FREELAP USA: Submaximal loads are great for estimating repetition maximal abilities, and research is showing evidence that general exercises and lift velocity can predict what one can do if the load is heavier. One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing. What is the best way to implement one-repetition estimation with submaximal loads?

DAN BAKER: For me, it is still a reps-to-fatigue (RTF) test, with either 5RM or 3RM to predict 1RM. My correlations to predict 1RM are very high with these (R= 0.93-.97). There is not enough data with velocity-based estimation yet for it to be considered better than RTF testing, but it looks promising. We just need more studies, across different populations of athletes and sports, on different exercises. Certainly, for the lower body this would be great—to hit a full squat of somewhere 60-80% 1RM for 1-3 reps and extrapolate to 1RM with a degree of certainty, especially in-season! But right now, most of the evidence on this is done with a Smith machine on Spanish phys ed students, soccer players, or water polo players! We need more data, male and female, on more athletes from more sports and free weights! We need more research that includes super-stars and explosive athletes.

“One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing” – WTF! Someone fatigued by doing 1 to 3 reps at 70% 1RM with maximal velocity is no athlete!

FREELAP USA: Most holistic programs in the weight room and on the field use different strength training modalities, not just one type of lift. Besides alternating intensities and volumes, does bar velocity-type tracking help with better adaptations biologically to the body? Many coaches are looking into hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. Is this a wrong path or a good idea?

DAN BAKER: My research from the past 20+ years shows that I have always measured power output during jump squats and bench press throws (in a Smith machine). These are my basic power exercises and tests. I prefer to track performance measures (strength, velocity, power, MAS, etc.), not physiological measures (hormone levels, gene activation, etc.). No gold medals for best mTOR signal or fiber type or testosterone-to-cortisol ratio in the Olympics. Don’t get lost by chasing sports science measures when there are easy performance measures to track (says the sports scientist!)

FREELAP USA: Following up on genes and hormones, muscle-fiber profiles of athletes are gaining interest. Could coaches do a better job or individualizing training based on one genetic trait—specifically the amount of fast and slow fiber distribution?

DAN BAKER: We are not allowed under the WADA code to manipulate hormones (their changing levels are a consequence of what we do, but we cannot expressly attempt to manipulate them) or genes. Do people understand the WADA code? Manipulating hormones or genes is a doping offense under WADA and you face a 4-year or lifetime ban. We are not allowed to change our genes, so why bother with this stuff? Apart from the peak Olympic sports of sprints, jumps, throws and lifting, most sports require a mix of attributes.

If we take rugby-type sports which need various physical attributes, a lot of blokes are fast-twitch fiber types. But they get beaten down by their opponents through the cumulative fatigue of the high workload imposed on them. Same with many MMA fighters, who get gassed late in the bout and lose. So catering to their strength (explosiveness) is not going to help their weakness (less aerobic capacity). Mixed sport athletes need to work on many things. But can we do a better job on the explosive outliers? Of course! We just need the extra manpower resources!

However, if we take jumpers, divers, sprinters, Olympic lifters, throwers, and others like them, all their training is catered to the fact that they are explosive power athletes. They are on small teams, so manpower aspects of coaching are not as critical as field sports with larger teams. What more could you do that you are not already doing with them? You know they are fast-twitch fiber type people! And you program more individually.

Look at Figure 3. This is the mean bench press velocity lifting for 95 kg (63% 1RM) for three professional rugby league players from the back-line positions—the fast runners, the Ferraris and Lamborghinis. They are lifting at high .8 to over .9m/s for six reps for 2 sets. Yet the González-Badillo et al IJSM 2010 paper suggests that at 63% 1RM, the mean velocity should be < .8 m/s. So why do we have > .9 m/s, when the research suggests maybe .77 m/s for this level of intensity? Because these are our outliers, our superstars. They can’t handle the same volume of work and they are not good at grinding reps because they burn brighter, not longer.

Figure 3. The mean velocity for three explosive professional rugby league players during 2 sets of narrow grip bench press with ~ 63% of 1RM.

One of those players from Figure 3, doing 3×8 on the bench with a RPE of 8, can only use 64% 1RM. Whereas another player (not depicted),a real slow-twitch type, a grinder, does 3×8 with 78% 1RM. They both bench press 155kg for their 1RM (but have different body weights). We take that into account when designing training.

FREELAP USA: The final need of coaches is to make training work better in reducing injuries, improving speed and size of players, and transferring to sporting actions like deceleration and jumping. How does Velocity Based Training do this with athletes?

DAN BAKER: I don’t propose all training be VBT. Why would I? Velocity is another metric to monitor, not the be-all and end-all. Training needs to be holistic, not just based upon velocity. Certainly the focus on velocity, rather than just 1RM levels, appears to found its way into the US training mainstream. It will help improve performance, reduce injury, and so forth, as we gain more data and make more informed training decisions. The low cost of velocity measuring devices will see their proliferation. The Plyometric Power System, developed in the early 1990s by Greg Wilson and Rob Newton to measure velocity and power, cost my team $18,000 in 1996! Now the PUSH armband is only a few hundred dollars.

There are certain key exercises and power output or velocity metrics that are useful for sports. You just need to determine what they are! As I mentioned, we have seen that power output or velocity during jump squats with 100 kg and bench press throws of >60 kg separates the pros from 2nd and 3rd division rugby league players, but velocity and power generated with 20 kg in the same exercises does not.

So I need to make sure the velocity I am measuring is one actually associated with performance. If two rugby league players generated .8 m/s with the same % 1RM, are they the same? Not if one is 40 kg stronger than the other, because his power output would be much higher. Look at Figure 4. The greater the amount of resistance, the greater the difference between U/20 years and professional rugby league players. If we just measure velocity with 20 kg during a bench press throw, there is only 2% difference, but it is 16 % with 60 kg, and with 3RM bench press more than 18%.

Figure 4. Differences between in mean power output in bench press throws and 3RM bench press between U/20 players and elite professional rugby league players. The heavier the resistance, the greater the difference (Baker, JSCR, 2001).

For divers, the velocity or power generated during jump squats with 20 kg, however, is associated with performance levels. So different sports have different relevant performance measures—jump squats with 20 kg is performance-relevant for divers but not for pro rugby league players who need 80-100 kg! S&C coaches will need to determine what measures relate to success in their sports.

So do some testing. What separates the best performers from lower level performers? Use a battery of loads, initially, until you find what loads and velocities are important (power is the product of load and velocity). And I use absolute loads for testing, not % 1RM. So jumps with 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 kg or whatever is most appropriate for the athletes.

For in-season recovery monitoring, we see (Figure 5) that jump squats with 20 kg can give a guide of recovery and adaptation, especially during the in-season for football and rugby players (Australian Football League, National Rugby League, Rugby Union). So we can use this as a measure of recovery monitoring, not performance.

Figure 5. Monitoring neuro-muscular recovery through the weekly assessment of jump squat power with 20 kg in professional rugby league players. The mid-season slump corresponds with two key factors—mid-winter and an increase in playing load and intensity for the key players.

With respect to injury and rehab, we can look at the velocity of, for example, squats and RDLs with sub-maximal loads in injured players to gain insight of where they are at in their recovery (compared to their normative data in the same exercises).

There are two major things that inhibit us—forces and speeds, especially at end-ROM. After an injury, we have to gradually and progressively break down the neural inhibitions to these things. Maybe someone has good strength (force) in an isometric test at mid-ROM, but can they safely express that high force at high velocities through full ROM? Also is there a large disparity between peak and average velocity?

This is where the proliferation of velocity measuring devices will come in handy. The future is exciting in this area with low-cost, accurate measurement devices gaining widespread acceptance. Many more smart coaches will now be able to make better training decisions because they will have velocity and power data to help inform them about the adaptation processes the athlete is experiencing. I have been using various measurement velocity devices for over 20 years now and I am super-excited about the future.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

Related Articles

The responses from the other participants including Bryan Mann, Mladen Jovanovic, and Mike Tuchsherer are listed in the VBT Round Table.

By Carl Valle

The interviews with Dan, Mike, Bryan, and Mladen originated with the apparent confusion many coaches have with training and how Velocity Based Training interacts with preparing athletes. Looking at their questions, ranging from the most frequent to the highly sophisticated, I asked what I felt they especially wanted to know. I also answered the questions myself after looking at the great responses to the thoughts of these four men and found room to keep improving.

FREELAP: Olympic-style lifts are very specific to body types and technique, making them more than just a simple summary of peak or average output. Besides using feedback for motivation and accountability, what else can be done to use the data beyond estimating work?

CARL VALLE: The amount of data from something as common as a block snatch is enormous, but the useful information is limited. Keep in mind that two options exist: the pull and the more complete lift. What samples of force and time does a coach need to make better decisions in training?

Mladen and Coach Baker made some very important points, and I’m adding a few more. Bar tracking technologies are focused on velocity changes with some orientation information. My concern is that raw data without kinematic information and even body dimensions reduces the possible choices coaches can make. Everyone is interested in bar outputs of power and speed, but the path and interaction of a human body are more compelling.

Coaches in team sports say they want more power using the lifts, and some have used Tendo for a decade. But what is the relationship between body speed and bar speed? When we start with that focus point, bar information is interesting and of some use. Rugby, American football, and other team sports care about momentum of athletes. How fast are they on the field or the court relative to body weight? Countless systems in the weight room resemble blueprints to stealth bombers, but when asked how they transfer specifically to speed we get crickets.

Figure 1: Mladen encouraged me to use squatting at velocities that are enough to move the needle on maximal strength but keep the recovery rates high. The Gymaware App was the first to integrate video and bar data and the future will be more integration. When force time curves are used, even more information is provided, and totals or averages are only for coaching, not analysis.

Getting off the soapbox for a moment, I will share what I have learned using a dozen sensors for bar tracking and how they relate to getting athletes better, since some indices are very slow-moving and may never get better. Most equipment measures the change in concentric acceleration of the bar in the X and Y planes. To me this is low-resolution data. Olympic lifts are binary when performed with a catch, since you can’t do a 2-second clean. If the lifts are the same velocity (average and peak) with more load, output is increased provided the technique is solid and similar. We see issues when coaches want to get better numbers and perform the lifts with excessive swing away from the center of mass. I usually see big numbers in the lifts and lousy jump numbers. Technique is hard to see with one-number summaries. So without video it’s a tossup if the performance was valuable or not.

Coaches need to move into what some call “Livestock Metrics,” though I prefer “Human Performance Descriptors.” Average and peak power relative to body weight and bar displacement is important. Coaches need to focus on impulse and how that score helps the athlete generate more performance in speed and jumping. Bar path is about how the barbell travels from start to finish relative to earth and a body, and the length of force application will change as technique evolves. Athletes may learn to catch earlier and wattage or power may not increase, so be sure that the goal is more output in power and carryover to some sort of field test. Most of the time I don’t see changes compared to those who don’t Olympic lift, except for RSA (repeat sprint ability). I have seen massive improvements to RSA and looked at the Bishop studies and think something is going on to the neuroendocrine system. But this is all conjecture.

Key takeaways are fairly simple with evaluating Olympic lifting training for other sports:

• Choose modalities first and throw away ideas of simple summaries but do use composite metrics. AMS products like CoachMePlus can fuse multiple descriptors for more intelligent training and working with VBT equipment. I believe that coaches should focus on training peak or average velocity to keep things honest on effort, and be vocal on the technique. When analysis is needed, move from bar velocity to bar output relative to size of the athlete (size and limb data).
• It’s possible to improve load and decrease bar output, especially when athletes are gaining mass and learning to time the catch earlier. The eccentric action of the lift exists with intermediate athletes, but decreases when the lifter advances in the competitive style of technique. Power options provide some eccentric action and elastic contributions, but they are not as good as jump squats and plyometrics.
• RFD may be lower from the floor than speed lifts with some athletes and studies, but using blocks and lifts above the knee can generate high outputs. Take caution, however, and remember the first suggestion above: Make sure you choose the right modality and each has normal and standard loading protocols. I find that RFD in jump squatting is valuable within my program, and I also encourage self-experimentation. My motto is “squat heavy, snatch properly loaded, and go light on the jump squats” so the RFD can be extrapolated. Olympic lifts should stay heavy and be fast, and add more load only when the athlete hits an upper threshold. Dumbbell lifts for Olympic lifting have yet to show value since most loads are less than 50% of body weight, making me wonder why coaches expect transfer when even body weight may not move the needle!
• Technique will change outputs by 20% or more. Even skilled athletes who change grips, postures, and rhythms will find themselves getting increases in expressed power because of the technical elements. As the athlete hits a ceiling with technique, the outputs will mean more in the jump data and hopefully general power on the field. I only use the velocities and outputs for beginners to make them aware of things. If an athlete is snatching 70% of body weight the numbers are unlikely to make an impact on the field unless the athlete is untrained.

FREELAP: Jump testing sensitivity is not perfect from the sensitivity being limited, but more reactive options that utilize the stretch shortening cycle add more validity. Is jump training worth doing regularly, a waste of time, or perhaps valuable enough to explore?

CARL VALLE: I am a moderate with data, since too many teams use force plates like a Holy Grail and some are not doing anything. While boring, a middle-ground option is best. In my experience using the Raptor Test, defined by 3 sets of 5 explosive jumps sequenced to show interrelationships, is practical, especially during the competitive season. Variability of jumping is rather high with jumping athletes, never mind team sports like soccer. Still, testing 2-4 times a month is a great way to see willpower, or the gap between physiological, physical, and mental differences. Even motivated guys will find themselves bored from jump testing, so I like to do it only as much as needed.

The Raptor Test is integrated as part of the warm-up and is far superior to using a force plate with “proprietary software” to track fatigue or athlete power. Force plates break the P.E. rule of no lines, and setting up 10-12 power racks with force plates could fund another coach, a more valuable option than limited technology. Within a few minutes an athlete warms up with a squat jump, a countermovement jump, and then a series of reactive jumps. Coaches should compare absolute scores during conditioning periods that are low and see how they are tolerating volumes.

We see this with athletes who are monsters in the combine but become Popeye without spinach when fitness demands rise, so I like to see what an athlete can do in both environments. Coaches can see the elastic utilization ratio, a comparison between the squat jump and countermovement jump, and the elastic abilities compared to the previously aforementioned tests. The last test is very indicative of neuromuscular fatigue only when enough data is present and when other data sets are combined. Doing this twice a month during the season is a great way to track a trend, but will not be a crystal ball and predict a performance or game as well as other assessments. Jump testing is volitional, so lazy athletes can appear fatigued while some athletes will find the dark side of the force and perform well.

Video 1: Velocity Based Training is not about barbell speed only, in fact, it’s about human speed and body velocity and ball velocity matters just as much. This video we see an athlete expressing a lot of wattage using a Ballistic Ball from Assess2Perform.

The data Dan shared is something I have witnessed, and a drop from 8-10% of baseline may indicate a flag. But things like practice need to be incorporated or it’s a wild-goose chase. Jump testing isn’t perfect, so looking at what is popping out and what isn’t doesn’t need a sport scientist to figure out that things look bad. Also look at wins and losses or other mental states, because I have overreached athletes and they improved from going down to Florida when the Northeast looked like Siberia this winter. Again the benefit of the Raptor Test is that it’s a warmup and elicits a small skill and training benefit if done honestly. I have modified the Raptor Test with the Ballistic Ball as seen by the video above. I thought the LSU tables on projecting ability based on the back tosses were limited, but now I understand that absolute tests matter just as much as relative one when focusing on maximizing athletes.

FREELAP: Submaximal loads are great for estimating repetition maximal abilities, and research is showing evidence that general exercises and lift velocity can predict what one can do if the load is heavier. One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing. What is the best way to implement one-repetition estimation with submaximal loads?

CARL VALLE: I don’t have a lot of experience with lifts that are moderate load and high effort. Usually I try to do heavy lifts like bench press and squats with polished technique and build up to 90% and stay in rep ranges that at first glance are supportive. Fatigue is fatigue and output based on best performances will show that. An athlete maxing out once may elicit a lot of neural fatigue, but an athlete doing heavy volume with maximal effort will have residual fatigue as well.

My main concern is removing grinding loads during the competitive season as I see overreaching that leads to non-functional states. When Mladen and his colleague focused on extrapolating bar speed of submaximal loads to predict 1 repetition maximum, it was a milestone in sports performance but does require high effort. It’s less taxing to see a lighter strength load done faster than a heavier near-maximal load done slower. The best way to show value is training in the ranges that drive strength improvements without frequent testing, but at times a true rep maximum may be necessary to break through barriers.

I have not seen loads past twice body weight in the squat show anything special, but that is a reflection of the program I run. Squatting deep and heavy just enough to support eccentric deceleration that primes the body for ballistic lifting is working, and making it secondary ironically enough has yielded better maximal and absolute numbers than ten years ago. After watching countless sprinters who barely lift run incredible times in all phases of the dash, I feel that strength trumps powerlifting pursuits.

FREELAP: Most holistic programs in the weight room and on the field use different strength training modalities, not just one type of lift. Besides alternating intensities and volumes, does bar velocity-type tracking help with better adaptations biologically to the body? Many coaches are looking into hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. Is this a wrong path or a good idea?

CARL VALLE: Blogs and tweets of gene activation studies with non-athletes doing very soft training programs annoy me. So does the lack of understanding of androgens and growth factors in training. Dan has some good points about people with the best lactate reading, mTor signaling system, or even total testosterone. Unfortunately relying only on-field testing is like trying to understand why a person is obese rather than overweight. The trinity of testing outside the sport should be physiological monitoring, performance testing, and the training program.

I am not a sport scientist (a common claim by Americans who strangely have no PhDs) but I listen to the smart ones. When combining bar tracking data and other measures, it’s important to see what is going on between rest and nutrition with heavy training. Countless times I see athletes not eating enough or eating too much, yet asking questions about amino acid profiles among whey protein companies. Like my explanation of how anemia can sabotage any runner with the best training program and coach from ferritin absorption issues, androgens and IGF-1 markers are valuable for coaches in the weight game with lifting. Testosterone alone is not a measure of anabolic status, since the research shows it’s great for fatigue. Acute responses are interesting if they show up with resting status, but coaches need to see how bar information relates to internal chemistry.

Figure 2: Showing activity with a band or other device is not enough. Each athlete responds uniquely to sleep and we need to see the impact of different athletes and for me, total testosterone is a great way to see when guys are tired, and this will indeed show up on barbell tracking devices.

With three hormone panels timed properly, coaches can move out of how bar tracking is working to get better results, not perform miracles. As for genes, it’s interesting but not there yet. There’s too much talk about genes activating, and not enough on how the adaptations are showing up physically or chemically. For example, the idea that low-carbohydrate diets stimulate mitochondrial biogenesis is real, but you don’t need to ride on an empty stomach to get those changes. We need to see how workouts improve outcomes and the mechanisms, not look at mechanisms and hope they result in improvements in performance. A few researchers got lost in looking through a microscope and started pontificating on what lifting programs coaches should use. Things like 2×6 reps with machines are examples of the disconnect between applied sport science and generic biological investigations.

FREELAP: Following up on genes and hormones, muscle-fiber profiles of athletes are gaining interest. Could coaches do a better job of individualizing training based on one genetic trait—specifically the amount of fast and slow fiber distribution?

CARL VALLE: Fiber estimation can show up with bar tracking when athletes are well-trained. My colleague and friend Jose Fernandez has collaborated on fiber estimation with androgen profiling and power testing since 2012, and the information is very useful with sports that tend to have athletes who don’t have the training biography. I have found that athletes with poor work tolerances are lumped into the faster type group because they are out of shape, not blessed with Type IIX fiber. Those who are not trained properly are sometimes lazy, and a fresh test may look like talent. But it’s usually guys who are brilliant in pacing their training to feel good. Learn from them but be warned that in the long run the talented but lazy always get hurt.

Like I stated earlier, interpreting bar tracking data can reveal the blessed, but remember that exotic cars need extreme personalization on conditioning or they will get hurt. When one knows type I fiber (via TMG), the faster myosin types are tricky without biopsy. The spectrum of aerobic qualities outside of Type IIX becomes a game of enzymes and mitochondria estimation and that can only be done with both high-velocity explosive testing and myoglobin/ hemoglobin tracking. This is very time-consuming now but will be consumer-friendly in a few years.

Coaches need to treat lifting and conditioning as ways to maximize fiber gifts and do damage control to the faster athletes by looking at what is left in the aerobic type I fiber and focus on improving the oxygen transport system properly. We tend to see a vicious circle of fast athletes being chronically injured, so the very Achilles heel that they need to work on to keep them from fatiguing (conditioning) is usually not available when they are nursing strains and doing workouts that are great for senior citizens but not elite athletes. Bar tracking can keep guys from grinding and depleting, and coaches need to have a wide set of data or they can undertrain and break a talented athlete down.

FREELAP: The final need of coaches is to make training work better in reducing injuries, improving speed and size of players, and transferring to sporting actions like deceleration and jumping. How does Velocity Based Training do this with athletes?

CARL VALLE: Sport is entertainment so training is always second fiddle. Look at elite soccer and ask what can be done with 4-6 weeks of training before the competitive season begins. Knowing the constraints and time limitations, training can get better when transparency increases. That starts with recordkeeping.

Transfer or carryover needs to be talked about more. For example, eccentric abilities in exercises are rarely tested and this is why I like metrics outside of peak and average output, measures that are concentrically biased. I do think limits exist with barbells so sometimes looking for answers with the wrong tools is a fool’s errand. At that point other instruments are appropriate.

In summarizing the benefits of VBT tools with sports performance, three major points are useful.

1. VBT moves away from eyeball estimation to precise measurement. Some coaches may be able to see changes in barbell velocity with power exercises, RFD and speed actions is superhuman and should be measured with the right tools. I reviewed the big players in an article on Greg’s site here and gave the pros and cons of all three products.
2. VBT gives raw and simple kinetic feedback. Coaches need to shape numbers and not chase them. Seeing sloppy lifting with the Tendo systems in the early 2000s made me realize that while powerlifters may get attacked for trying to get better weight numbers on the bar, many coaches with Olympic lifting make the same mistake in trying to get better numbers on the iPad. Learn when to pull back and keep athletes training hard by immediate feedback.
3. I keep learning about power development or management versus fatigue monitoring. This is more of a culture than something scientific because power is a combination of training and rest, so it’s a half empty and half full debate at times. What I do think VBT can do with testing is audit the entire program by seeing gross changes or lack of changes in power and explosive abilities.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

Related Articles

The responses from all five coaches can be found at the VBT Round Table.

By Carl Valle

The debate and controversy on the best way to use weighted sleds for getting faster is timeless. When your sole job is getting someone to run faster, no excuses exist when they don’t. After years of seeing some of the best programs firsthand and talking to great coaches, I’ve concluded that weighted sleds should be a speed tool, not a labor of strength. In this article, I will demonstrate why lighter sleds are better options than heavy ones, and why timing sprints with sleds is wiser than chasing plate loading.

Nailing the Coffin Shut with Heavy Sled Research

Some research shows the value of various weighted sleds when sled training is the primary option, but what about stepping back and seeing the big picture? Early acceleration is about overcoming inertia, and that means maximal strength and power transfers to getting a body in motion quickly. When the body speed increases past the 10m or so, then we see the ability to accelerate to maximal speed (terminal acceleration) showcased with lighter sleds improving late acceleration. Early acceleration in research has some relationship to exercises that involve maximum strength and power qualities, so when choosing a sled load most will pick something close to 10% of one’s bodyweight. I have mentioned the problem with percentages in the past, and here are four reasons why this is a poor approach to using sleds.

Bodyweight is Vague. One athlete who is out of shape and explosive and another who is lean and very powerful may share the same mass, but it’s not a good number for base-loading a sled. Even two athletes of similar build (height and lean mass) may have different speed abilities.

Speed is Variable. Sprint velocities in training will change over time and vary from fatigue, so loading must be adjusted constantly. Some smart coaches have used a percentage of dropoff in velocity by timing sprints with and without loading.

Acceleration Curves are Individual. Some athletes are more talented or gifted in different areas and can benefit from having loads catered to improving areas in acceleration they may not be doing well in. While everyone has to worry about the first step regardless of the sport, it’s a good idea to be good in all areas of speed to reduce injuries and improve the efficiency of running.

Athlete Program Variance. Each system of training will use modalities and sequences differently. My own program on the track—integrated with a successful weight training program—may fail. Some coaches are known to collect a “greatest hits” of training systems and combine them into one program. Sometimes this works, sometimes not. Sled training must reflect the entire training program and not be seen as an isolated variable. On the other hand, just because a program is well- rounded doesn’t mean the specific task of sprinting with sleds should be tossed in without careful attention.

The best approach is clear, but requires some experimentation. I never timed sprints much before 2000, since I was always a proponent in the 10% of bodyweight rule until I realized it was a very rough guideline. After looking at athlete training in the weight room and jump testing, along with speed timing without the sled, prescriptions must be carefully tailored or you are missing the opportunity for better results. If you are looking for results, see how loading the sled improves the rate or acquisition of better performances in speed within your program, not in isolation. After seeing the cause and effect carefully, use that approach and reap the benefits. I have no emotional attachment because results are about faster times, not smarter coaches. We often overthink things and let’s be direct, our top priority is getting athletes to go faster.

About the Top Workouts

I can’t claim to have invented or designed any of these workouts. Much of the input comes from the classic USATF education process and talking to college and club coaches. For me the opportunity to train is about specificity and balancing general qualities with a recipe that is consistently working year to year. Each workout has a unique theme or small benefit, but the overtone is getting loaded speed training, not slow motion running. Obviously many specific details exist in making the workouts fit each program, but with so many universal qualities of training consistent with programs, weighted sled workouts will be easy to integrate without much adjustment.

Triple Crown

The combination of hills or ramps with sleds is interesting. The reason is very simple. Hills or ramps can train more people, so if you have a great hill all the better, but take note. Natural inclines with hills (opposed to man-made ramps) are a crapshoot at best in getting one that is constant and safe. Using the sequence of hills to sleds to free sprints gets three unique qualities trained. In addition, hills are great for teaching. It’s nearly impossible to overstride with hills and sled sprinting, so one of the most underrated parts of sleds is the teaching component.

Figure 1. A good hill provides a method for athletes to control body mechanics and can contribute to better sled workouts. Hills are a great way to work on ankle stiffness and reduce excessive striding. While an athlete will have great effort and limb speed for contractile benefits, large inclines like the one posted are not rehearsing fast sprinting velocities.

Hill Sprints 4-6 x 15m

Sprinting uphill should be about conditioning knee lift and full arm stroke. Limb frequency will be artificially higher because aggressive inclines don’t allow for much horizontal or total velocity (total displacement) so athletes feel fast but are not displacing themselves as fast as they feel. Since athletes are not risking falling over as the hill provides the lean, acceleration is rather constant and flattens out early. You can walk into the hill or start immediately running, all based on what your location gives you. In some flat areas, finding a hill is like searching for the fountain of youth, so not everyone will have one.

Sled Sprints 4-6 x 15m

As soon as the athlete starts sprinting after the hill, we like what we see on the clock and on film with total body technique. I have found that when athletes have resistance they have time to change arm action and become comfortable with more patience. I like to use a load that keeps speed near the 10% dropoff suggested by experts, but when one is using sleds in the fall the times captured are already slower than best times, so I add weight slowly based on timing.

Free Sprints 4-6 x 15m

The body is tired after sprinting 8-12 times, and the hope is that the teaching qualities and the state of slight fatigue will create a way to calm the athletes and have them go to technique even more. Much of speed training is not about biomechanics or physiology, but rather mental focus. Athletes too pumped up are choppy and stiff, and slight fatigue will sometimes yield good sprinting times because the athletes are forced to do it right rather than do it hard.

Doing nearly 300 meters of speed work may seem like a lot but the reality is that fatigue is not as great because it’s acceleration work, an area many athletes can build capacity for. It’s a great medley to perform when athletes have limited equipment. You can reverse or stagger the sequence for dealing with limited equipment or coaches as getting the work in matters more in the long run. But if you keep this sequence you will see some nice improvements in technique.

Thunder and Lightning

A lot of coaches ask about contrast work with sleds and the benefits that can be actually measured. Measuring benefits is a great start, since the simple question that must be asked is what’s it worth? It’s hard to see how loading sleds shows up acutely with potentiation or neuromuscular overflow without measuring speed, so I timed sprints to see. The theoretical concept is that using a sled to overload sprinting will result in faster unweighted runs down the road. The problem that is no coaches will ever hedge their bets in one modality, so the idea that weighted sleds will in turn improve unloaded sprints acutely is farfetched. I have done various contrast work and seen mixed results, with mixed reasons to complicate things more. Everyone wants things to be simple, but just doing simple things is not an easy exercise.

Video 1. The best body motion system available is the Myomotion system from Noraxon. No better solution exists for teams or colleges looking to solve real-world challenges. The software is elegant and clean, and the information is game- changing. Here is a video clip of weighted sled sprints and how hamstring recruitment can change based on small factors.

After 2-4 timed sprints, add a weighted sled for 1-3 repetitions and see if the next few unweighted sprints are fast. Trust me—you may see some great things with young athletes by just learning to sprint better and finally having training time between competing, or you may find the athletes are tired. I have seen it all and feel contrast work is good in theory but not that valuable with most situations. Besides managing fatigue by unloading, what is the true physiological benefit? Potentiation works, so why don’t weighted sleds just work like a charm?

Potentiation tends to show up in studies with very small volumes that don’t represent most training programs, so take any study with a grain of salt and do your own measuring. Too many coaches wait for research when good measurement tools and recordkeeping can share the results. Sprints are very sensitive and it will take a few reps to warm up. If the sled repetition works with just one run, what is the expected improvement? Even a 1% change, taking a 4.05 30m sprint to 4 seconds flat is amazing for weeks of training. Potentiation works well with lifts and jumps, but nothing I see in the research shows anything with sprint running. So why do it?

The truth of the matter is that contrast works well by adding variety and possibly getting an athlete into a comfort zone with certain time signatures when running. I like the concept from a mental management perspective because athletes love the feeling of being unleashed and the final performance, not just sport science. While athletes are similar to race cars, they are also the drivers, not just the vehicles. Getting athletes motivated and thirsty for sprinting is an art.

My workouts using sleds typically involve finishing with unweighted sprinting. We perform 8 sprints of 15-20m with sleds followed by 4-6 sprints of 20-35m. I like either doing 3-4 longer sprints of 30-40m or 6 short sprints and see how the splits show if there are any changes. Remember that just a one-kilogram change on the sled will show up on the clock so load incrementally if you need to. I like combining deep squat jumps with longer accelerations and more Olympic lifting options with shorter sprints. Some may argue that the compatibility of training units is not granular, but if you are really trying to get faster in the sprint world, each hundredth is a battle.

Inferno

Intermediate athletes can take the next step beyond steady loads and focus on mixed loading. One area I find difficult is what to do with adjusting loads during training, as weights and weighted sleds are not the same. Weight training fatigues faster per rep, but sprinting doesn’t have the same process. In sled loading, you should only add weight when improvements in speed are showing, or remove weight when athletes are tired. Any exposure time to sprinting, even with track athletes, is only a few times a week and you need to ingrain rapid contractions. Velocities that drop by 20% or resemble marching and tug-of-war routines are not speed options. When sleds become strength tools they are not speed training, but strength or weight training options.

Figure 2. When manipulating loading with sled workouts I like to refer to the “Mixer and Multiplier” concept of being very specific on execution of the training. Coaches should manipulate variables such as the athlete’s acceleration posture (lean), the resistance (load), and the appropriate length of the sprint.

Mixed loading is about the resistance of the sled as well as the rest interval and length. Sleds are not just creating neuromuscular changes. Some interesting things also happen when rest intervals are reduced slightly with sled sprints. Sled work fatigues athletes at local areas, specifically at the knee extensors, and can create lactate responses of over 20 mmol. Even fit athletes with amazing aerobic capacity—and lower Type IIX fiber profiles, I might add—will create deep responses. I have been looking into myoglobin and mitochondria changes for a few months and don’t have a confirmation of what is going on. But sled sprinting does have an effect on repeat sprinting, even when adjusted for general power qualities from the weight room.

Suggestions for workouts are simple: the shorter the sprint, the heavier the load—but limit it so that athletes don’t lengthen ground contact time to the point they are risking near-double-leg support mechanics. Pusher sleds, such as the Prowler, have value with exposing athletes in team sports to some unholy levels of lactate and building toughness. But when athletes have a double support, they leave the sprinting world and enter the walking zone. Some coaches claim they can eyeball speed and know when the load is too heavy, but I prefer timing and looking for times in the running stage.

Complementing the acceleration loading is ensuring that distance and postures are in harmony, meaning it may work better to have athletes use the proper starting technique with each sprint. Sleds and harness runs tend to keep the athlete in the same leaning angle while speed increases, so it may make sense to rotate postures to remove a fixed motor pattern. I have no data to support this, but I have seen some of my athletes do well with a finite number of workouts. When we changed, they regressed with timing.

Options in pattern loading are arbitrary and have no researched benefit beyond managing fatigue and motivation, so I like alternating between ascending, descending, and equalized patterns. In layman’s terms, one can add load by group of sprints, decrease per group, or increase and decrease to keep output more constant. Good training is about having a great session, not popping out a good run and thinking that will be the session that transforms training. Conversely, sometimes a workout changes an athlete from a learning perspective. So when a session clicks, repeat the joke until the laughs stop.

Magic Kingdom

One surprise to me was hyper-light sleds and the impact with late acceleration among sprinters in the 10.2-10.4 range. When I was in Orlando two years ago at a training camp, I met up with Hakan Andersson. I was discussing the insane claims of some “strength coaches” about heavy sled training and results in speed. I was shocked when he told me how light was the resistance he used. Even I, a lighter-the-better believer, was still using sleds perhaps too heavy for high-velocity resistance. From the current study on sled sprints and very light loads (5% of bodyweight), researchers found that long acceleration—greater than 30 meters—was effectively improved by very light-resisted sprints with sleds.

Figure 3. When traveling domestically or internationally, coaches need to focus on recovery environments and minimal equipment. A gallon water jug, a nylon cord, and a simple cloth belt can be a perfect solution for training camps needing a light sled for deep acceleration work.

New equipment, such as the 1080 Sprint, is starting to become more visible. One question is the value of having a mechanized resistance versus traditional friction in results with sprint training. While I like the idea of having data on the training, the key question is what is the differentiation between a 10-dollar device and something closer to buying a compact car? In my earlier article on overspeed training, I reviewed a customized system used by Swedish and Finnish coaches, but the value of high-priced expensive systems is hard to calculate. In my opinion, an easy concept to look at is the improvement of speed coming from any modality. A water jug, a cord, and a soft belt are likely to provide most of the resistance needs for long acceleration sprints.

I made a few “Jug Tugs” over the last year and find it to be a great tool for training camps, but the durability is not there and should be considered a disposable (recycle) option. What I love about the light resistance is that athletes need variation without changing what works. Sprinting with very light resistance should follow normal guidelines of unloaded sprints, and I prefer using sprints of 50m with a standing start. Five or six hyper-light sled sprints are great ways to help improving the surge from 40-60m and this means more technical and radical changes in power.

The Nitro Special

Sometimes athletes need a special workout as they are stale and hungry for improvement. I have looked at all of the potentiation workouts and found them very difficult to do without getting out of the sled harness. When an athlete is literally tied down, it makes it hard to do much besides walk back, and the loose line makes me uncomfortable with plyometric pairing. When working with very small groups or even individuals, the Nitro Special comes out, and we make sure every sprint counts. I only do the option a few times a year even though it’s not taxing to the body. It’s an administrative burden instead.

Figure 4. Coaches should experiment with the Gill PowerMax Sprint Start Sled, as it’s more than just a way to allow sprinters to use blocks. Because of the railing design, the frame allows coaches to film foot strike and see ground strike. Coaches should think about mounting GoPros rather than using an iPhone mount like I did, as a remote makes filming a breeze. Beyond video capture and block clearance, the sled is a great design and is incredibly light and kind to grass, thus keeping the groundskeepers happy.

The Nitro Special is 3-4 weighted sprints, followed by one unloaded sprint. If athletes are familiar with jumping options, we do a few very light jump squats in the past. One detail I find important is to unload one 2.5 pound (1 kilogram) plate with each rep, for two important reasons.

The first is the commonly known issue with sleds that even if an athlete rolls forward to remove the slack of the line or cord, some jerky responses may happen in the first few steps. Those who rush the force application will see many more jerky sensations while those who go too slow will feel smooth, but the temporal pattern is not valuable.

To combat specific timing issues, I like to load up small plates and remove one each sprint. I like the athlete feeling pressure to increase speed, which is the second rationale for incremental unloading. After the last rep, we take three minutes off, and it’s about internal focus rather than expecting a free lunch from neurological phenomena with regards to potentiation. A few squat jumps or even a mean overhead back throw feeds the monster within the athlete.

Overall the purpose of the Nitro Special is not cool sport science or secret Russian training methods. It’s a way to help provide success to acceleration training by moving from special overload to the actual sprint. To me it’s not going to make an athlete faster by the training, its purpose is to keep athletes focused on the task at hand and execute. Coaches and athletes can repeat the sequence 3-4 times or just do it once in a workout, as no rule exists to implementing it into a program. I like using it during an SPP (special preparation phase) just before competition begins, but I am sure it can work earlier in a training season.

Closing Thoughts on Sled Sprints

Acceleration development with weighted sleds isn’t rocket science, so focus on timing workouts just as much as you would time regular sprints. When adding sleds to a program, let’s not overthink things. Instead, think resisted sprinting, not overloaded running. Choose workouts and training programs that show improvements, and keep things very straightforward. Paying attention to detail transforms a good plan on paper to a brilliant workout. The next time you see ego or foolish loads that resemble “Call of the Wild” sled dogs, make sure the sprints need electronic timing—not sundials.

By Craig Pickering

I’m a reasonably intelligent person. I did well at school. I’ve got a degree. I take an interest in science. I’m rational. I tell you this not to boast (okay, maybe a little), but to put in context some of my behaviors. Behaviors that are, to be frank, a bit extreme.

I want to talk about body fat. Specifically, how body fat can affect performance. I’ve come across a spate of articles recently on how body fat can negatively affect performance, particularly in the sprints. The article “How Body Fat Affects Athletic Performance” dates from 2012 but just resurfaced onto my social media feeds. The gist is that small amounts (2 pounds) of additional weight can slow down an athlete. The evidence cited for this conclusion isn’t great. For example, the study “The effects of training history, player position, and body composition on exercise performance in collegiate football players” showing that increases in body fat didn’t significantly affect performances in American football wide receivers or running backs but did in linemen. Another study “Seasonal changes in VO2max among Division 1A collegiate women soccer players” shows that body fat doesn’t change over the course of a season in a university soccer club (I have no idea why this study was even included), and this one, “Influence of upper-body external loading on anaerobic exercise performance” which shows that adding external loads to athletes makes them immediately slower. This shouldn’t be all that surprising. When we put 200kg on our back during a back squat, we generally can’t run all that fast. The difference is that body fat gains happen over time, so the body can better adjust to that increase in weight. As a result, that weight is reasonably well distributed across the whole body, or at least over a fairly large area.

Whenever I see articles like this, I get uncomfortable. I don’t have a particularly positive relationship with body composition, and I question the validity—or at least the real-world application—of some points in the articles.

Let’s take my own experiences. In 2005, I won the European Junior Championships and ran 10.22 for 100m. My body fat was 15%. That’s quite fat, at least for a sprinter. Yet no other sprinter my age in Europe was better than me. Two years later, I had my best competitive season ever, running 6.55 for 60m and 10.14 for 100m. I was 8% body fat. Even though that isn’t that lean, it was still a drastic improvement over my 2005 levels. It correlated quite nicely with improved performance.

However, let me give you two other examples. In 2006, the year after winning the European u-20s and the year before running 10.14, I was 9% body fat. But I ran 10.34 that year. A negative correlation between body fat and performance occurred from 2005 to 2006. In 2010, I was 8% body fat and ran 10.38, my slowest since 2004 when I was 17. So is losing body fat all that it is cracked up to be?

Consider my journey. After winning the European Juniors, I went to University and joined a professional training group. I had my skinfolds done. You are too fat, I was told. Lose weight. I did. This is what I ate:

• Breakfast – small bowl of porridge
• Post-training – protein shake
• Lunch – salad or soup
• Evening meal – 500g turkey stir-fried with an onion, topped with salsa.

This was a horrific diet. And yet it worked. I got leaner, ran well, won medals, everyone was happy. Then the next year, I did the same again….And ran a bit slower. The year after, I added more vegetables to my diet, and also a bit more total food…. And ran slower. Then I worked with a nutritionist to get my diet sorted and get lean….. and I ran slower.

Turns out, losing weight may not be all that beneficial for performance. Food, and in particular carbohydrates, is ergogenic for high-intensity performance. Large amounts of nutrients are also required for recovery. Losing weight is associated with a low-calorie diet, which can lead to under-recovery.

Now, clearly bodyweight—and especially body fat—has the potential to impact performance. In any event where bodyweight is carried, too much has an impact. You should make an attempt to reduce any unnecessary weight. That’s just mechanics.

The thing is, though, athletes aren’t machines. They have feelings, biases, and beliefs. Like it or not, food has a massive social and cultural importance, so the act of reducing body fat can impact athletes. At family meals I’ve been the athlete who is starving but can only eat a salad. It isn’t much fun. This can impact the athlete’s mental well-being. As can always being hungry. And it’s only one step away from an eating disorder.

Finally, consider this: It’s two weeks before a competition, and you have tested your athlete’s body fat. He is 1.5kg above where you want him to be. Is it better for him to undereat by about 10,000kcal in the next two weeks? Or is it better for him to be a bit overweight, but compete with full muscle glycogen stores, a positive mood, and an unimpaired recovery afterward? A good fluid and food intake strategy in the 48 hours leading up to competition can comfortably lose 2kg in weight (although not fat), so why potentially sabotage a good performance?

In conclusion, then, there is a sound rationale for ensuring that body fat in athletes is low. However, it is essential to remember that athletes aren’t robots. They probably like eating food. Everything is a tradeoff; the more weight you lose, the more you may impair recovery or training-based adaptations. Timing is essential, and you should take care to ensure that athletes don’t develop disordered eating habits. Placing a disproportionate emphasis on leanness can lead to a variety of problems. At the end of the day, the bigger picture is important. Athletes should be lean enough to compete well, without chasing excessive leanness at the cost of performance and recovery.

And remember, your emphasis on leanness can affect athletes. I still remember being laughed at by a Great Britain team doctor 11 years ago because he thought I was too fat to be a sprinter. At that point, I was the fastest 17-year-old in the world outside of North America and the Caribbean, and yet it still affected me—and perhaps influenced my eating habits in later life.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Joel Smith

I’m not big on pushing single training exercises, as too many athletes tend to search for the “magic pill” that will transform their athleticism. If one exercise might be close to an enchanted pharmaceutical for the vertical jump and explosive power, however, it would be the depth jump.

As a young athlete, I tried any training method I could get my hands on to improve my speed and jumping ability, as well as inventing many others. I tried high-repetition plyometric programs, ran stairs, did wall sits, basic strength training, and more. I acquired a few small gains here and there, but nothing dramatic. The search continued.

When I was 16, I found a plyometric program claiming to be more “science–oriented” in the back of a basketball magazine. Ordering that program altered the course of my athletic career—maybe even my life. The program was based, not on high-frequency plyometric exercises that were the flavor of the day, but rather on a low-frequency, high-intensity performance of a key exercise: the depth jump. I was sold hook, line, and sinker after reading the short manual and began my depth-jumping journey to a higher vertical jump and better athleticism.

Within two months of weekly high-intensity depth jump workouts, I found that not only had my jumping improved by around 5” (12cm) off both one- and two-leg styles of jumping (enough to score me a windmill dunk), but I was also faster and had increased speed and agility on the court. My track seasons also benefited, as I held the state lead in the high jump for several months during my senior year of high school.

All that being said, the depth jump is probably the most powerful exercise an athlete can utilize in terms of specific force overload. From Russian high jumping to cult sprint training methodology and commercial basketball performance programming, the depth jump is widely used.
The problem is that it is also the most misrepresented and misperformed exercise among many athletic populations. Much of this problem is due to a lack of understanding of the theory behind the depth jump, and what athletes are trying to accomplish in its performance!

Anatomy of the perfect depth jump

When it comes to training for any sport skill, specificity and overload are two principles you must have strongly in your corner. If you want to jump higher, something like jumps with a barbell on your back does a great job of overloading the jump pattern, but an external weight high on the spine will always cause more accessory recruitment than typical jumping. While having a barbell on one’s back is a nice way to overload, the brain reacts to this movement with a perception of a vertically raised center of mass, subtly altering jump biomechanics.

Weighted jumping (such as a weight vest) has its own shortcomings. Slapping weight on athletes and having them jump is great, but it tends to overload the “up” or concentric portion of the jump more than it does the “down” or eccentric portion—the portion of the jump where the greatest amount of energy is stored. This energy storage in the eccentric phase will largely determine the outcome of the jump.

With a need for eccentric strength in mind, enter the depth jump—an exercise that involves the following sequence:

• A drop from a box, bench, or elevated surface individualized for the strength or reactive component that is being trained, the current training intensity, and the individual plyometric ability of the athlete. The height of the box can be anywhere from 6” to 50,” and there is no magic number for any particular athlete. Rather, the height is determined by the ability of the athlete and the goal of the exercise.
• The initial drop off the box should typically be performed down at a 30-45 degree angle (not straight down in a 90-degree fall) to increase the contribution of the posterior chain of the jump, and promote some forward-moving reactivity. Variations of depth jumping may include lateral drops off the box with a straight fall and reaction, or jumps for distance off a box, which are taken into reactive jumps for distance.
• At the end of the drop, the athlete will hit the ground as softly as possible, and then reverse the movement into a jump upwards. The ground contact time present in the jump should be a reflection of the desired outcome of the movement, whether it is speed- or strength-oriented.
• The athlete will often, but not always, perform the jump upwards at a mirror angle of how they hit the ground. A common mistake is to jump straight up, perpendicular to the ground, as this again reduces the balance of forces present in the jump and puts too much strain on the quads and patellar tendon. From a biomechanical perspective, jumping straight up, rather than out, actually represents jumping backward more than jumping up.
• The upward jump after the initial landing should be maximal. This is the biggest transgression coaches commit against the plyometric gods. There are situations, such as early season training periods or working with developmental athletes, where maximal depth jumping may not be called for. In this case, I wouldn’t label the exercise “depth jumping.” To have a better maximal depth jump, outcome goals such as an overhead target or high collapsible hurdle should be used. We’ll get more into this in a bit. For now, here are videos of two types of outcome goal depth jumps that are performed correctly: the hurdle depth jump and target depth jump.

Video 1. Depth Jump with Target Object.

Video 2. Depth Jump Over Hurdle.

General guidelines for implementing depth jumps in a program

Now that we know what a good depth jump looks like, how and when do you implement them in a training program, and at what intensity?

First, when are athletes ready for depth jumps? Well, watching school children jump off various playground apparatuses would suggest that they might be good candidates, even if they aren’t squatting twice their bodyweight yet. In reality, there is a two-fold rationale for determining readiness for depth jumping in the program: training preparation and chronological age.

When people think of training preparation, they usually consider things like squat to bodyweight ratio, as well as aptitude in less intense plyometric activity. My answer to the preparation question is: If the athlete can absorb and react to the jump with good technique, there is no reason why a “strength deficit” should hold them back. Some athletes are just not designed to be strong in a deep squat. Personally, I’ve seen high jumpers in the 2.20m range who could barely squat their bodyweight, but could do any plyometric you asked. If you asked these athletes to achieve a 1.75x or 2.0x bodyweight squat before depth jumping, you would probably be waiting forever.
The second portion of readiness for depth jumps is the chronological argument. Just because an athlete can do depth jumps, does that mean they should? We’ll touch on this at the end of this article. Generally speaking, an athlete is best suited for depth jumps, at least the intense versions, after they have reached their peak height and are close to physical maturity. This isn’t so much for safety as it is for issues of long-term athletic development and the prevention of early intensification and peaking.

Now, the matter of intensity (drop height). It is the most immediate factor present in the movement, and the one most likely to influence the buy-in effect of the exercise due to the positive momentum of results from correct performance.

Using a too-high box will result in fear, high-stress landings, and potential injury. A “safe” box height for any athlete, regardless of the training goal, is one in which they land and then:

• Stick the landing for several seconds, in the case of a depth landing, if needed.
• Avoid their heels slamming down and creating a loud slapping noise.
• Being able to maintain the landing with good posture and without excess strain in the neck and face.
• Retaining control of their knee valgus (inward turn). A small amount of valgus is acceptable for some athletes, but typically indicates either poor hip control or lack of leg strength in the developmental stage of that athlete’s career.
• Staying in control of their maximal knee bend. This is individual to each athlete, but a coach should be able to notice if the force of the drop is driving an athlete into excess knee flexion.

If you are using outcome goals, increasing the box height until an athlete’s rebound jump performance starts to decrease significantly is also a nice way to determine an athlete’s reactive ability and which box they are ready to use. If the best clearance an athlete can manage is a 48” hurdle off a 24” box, and they can still clear the hurdle jumping off 30” and 36” boxes, but a 48” hurdle clearance off a 42” box is no longer possible, you know that 36” is a good high-intensity choice, while 24”-30” will work well for reduced ground-contact time work.
When in doubt of box height, be conservative. It is better to make an error in lowering a box 4” from the optimal level than to go 4” the other way! Nobody’s season gets ruined because they used boxes on the lower end of a possible range.

If you have a contact mat, it is useful practice to record athletes’ ground-contact times from various box heights as well. An athlete may be able to jump 30” from a 24-, 30- and 36-inch box, but you may find that their ground contact times increase significantly in the process. This will be important information when we get into the differences between the speed and strength orientations of depth jump performance.

The important difference of Depth Jump vs. Drop Jump

Natalia Verkhoshansky, daughter of the legendary depth jump inventor Yuri Verkhoshansky, has shed light on different ways of implementing depth jumps in training. She places the exercise into two distinct categories: the drop jump and the depth jump. Both involve dropping from a box and rebounding for maximal height upon landing, but have important differences that can help us gain greater insight into the actual purpose of the exercise itself.

The drop jump is a type of depth jump characterized by minimal knee flexion and minimal ground contact time upon landing. The recommended box height of the drop jump is very low, around 8-24 inches (20-60cm). This is a common prescription of many track and field coaches, who don’t want to lose ground contact time or landing quality.

A drop jump can also include a more flat-footed landing, which caters towards the instant reversal of direction of the movement. I had discussions in my grad school years with experienced track coaches who were adamant about the need for a flat-footed landing, where previously I had seen plenty of sources that cited landing on the balls of the feet. The difference here in landing isn’t black and white, but rather dependent on the type of depth jump being performed. For the most part, track and field athletes, particularly jump athletes, are well served by working on flat-foot landings that minimize ground contact time and replicate foot strike in their event area.

Video 3. This is a good representation of a drop jump.

They can also benefit immensely from the other type of depth jump, the classical version, which I’ll describe. It is characterized by a knee bend that is either at, or slightly less than, an athlete’s typical amount of knee bend in a standing vertical jump. The box heights are also significantly higher in many cases, around 30”-45” (70-110cm). A 45” depth jump takes a very elastic athlete with a lot of plyometric experience, so never forget that box height is based on an athlete’s individual ability.

Finally, whereas the drop jump focuses on minimal ground contact time and quality of muscle stiffness and landing mechanics, the depth jump is more oriented towards maximal rebound height. Therefore it must be paired with an outcome goal, such as a high rebound back up toward a target such as a Vertec or basketball hoop. For track and field athletes, the depth jump can be performed over a high hurdle for much specific effectiveness.

Check out this video depicting a depth jump performed by an Auburn football player for maximal height (hence the use of the contact mat). This is clearly not a drop jump, and is done for maximal explosive power rather than reactive plyometric ability, as seen by the huge knee bend. I recommend that athletes try to use slightly less knee bend than they naturally would in a vertical jump for depth jump performance, to maximize the power impulse. The the less the knee bend in the depth jump, the more it will likely transfer to running jumps and other high-velocity activities.

Video 4. This depth jump performed by a football player represents an extreme example of a strength oriented jump. This player will need to utilize jumps with less knee bend to increase his reactive ability, although this is extremely impressive from a raw power standpoint.

Specific depth jump outcomes and variations

To acquire a more powerful result from a depth jump, outcome goals should be a part of the process. My graduate school research centered on this particular phenomenon in my study, “Kinematic and Kinetic variations among three depth jump conditions in male NCAA Division III college athletes.” I recruited 14 athletes from various sports requiring some level of jumping ability, such as basketball or track and field. I compared the results of three types of 18” (45cm) depth jumps with various outcome goals.

1. A control jump. Drop from the box, land, and rebound as high as possible.
2. A depth jump done over a collapsible hurdle set to the athlete’s individual jumping ability.
3. A depth jump, with a rebound to touching as high as one could on a Vertec measuring device.

I found a few very important points in the implementation of the depth jump exercise:

• The control depth jump was the weakest of the three variants in terms of peak vertical velocity at takeoff. It also tied for the worst (longest) ground contact time with the overhead target.
• • The Vertec depth jump was a great way to get an increased peak vertical velocity in the jump. To reach the overhead target, athletes utilized a strategy of increased knee flexion to reach a higher jump height.
• • The hurdle depth jump was the most powerful variant, in terms of the reduction of ground contact time (around .1 second, or 25% less contact time than the other two). Surprisingly, it also created the highest peak vertical velocity at takeoff, which I thought the overhead jump would have accomplished. To jump higher with less contact time, subjects created more power in their hips and ankles, which shows that this should be a staple variation for track and field athletes.

The bottom line with designing outcomes for depth jumping is that goals should be fairly specific to the type of sport. Basketball players can perform depth jumps with a basketball in their hands, trying to dunk the ball on a rebound. Volleyball players could perform a depth jump with a lateral drop off the side of the box into a blocking jump. The possibilities are endless and limited only by the creativity of coaches, who simply remember the frame of ground contact and the general muscle recruitment their individual sport tends to demand.

Single-leg depth jumps are another great method of performing the depth or drop jump. Although one would immediately think that single-leg depth jumps would be specific training for single-leg jumps in sport, counter-intuitively they are not. A single-leg depth jump registers a fairly long ground contact time, around a half-second, more similar in nature to a standing vertical jump than a jump off one leg. Strangely enough, when I was performing a large volume of single-leg jumps back in high school, I felt much more power in my two-leg takeoffs than anything.

Common errors in depth jump implementation

According to sport science experts, as well as personal experience, the depth jump may be the most improperly performed exercise in the sporting world today. The rise of barbell sports such as CrossFit has brought a higher standing of barbell competency to the training world, but we are still quite behind in teaching movement skills more specific and transferable to the athletic result! That said, here are common errors in the depth jump exercise.

• Box height is too high for the elastic ability of the athlete.
• Box height is too low to create an optimal, or adequate, overload, this being the case primarily when the athlete is attempting to do a depth jump rather than a drop jump.
• Depth jumps are performed in a state of inadequate physical readiness. This is far and away the biggest crime of inexperienced and unaware coaches. Depth jumps are a powerful overload exercise that requires a high level of CNS readiness. Performing them with poor quality will only lead to further overtraining and bad technical habits.
• Performing depth jumps in excessive volumes. The exact volume will depend on many factors, but athletes should never perform more than 40 in a session. My track and field athletes would never do more than 20, as we would often treat each depth jump as its own individual rep, done with full rest and recovery, and an outcome goal that often increased in difficulty.
• Lack of effort in the depth jump. The exercise is really only useful if it is approached from a maximal mentality. Drop jumps from low heights can still be effective when performed qualitatively and somewhat sub-maximally. They can still improve the efficiency of the muscle-tendon complex, even without a maximal CNS output. This is submaximal approach can be a useful tactic in developmental athletes.
• Depth jumps are often performed with no coaching regarding the quality of the landing. It should be as soft and silent as possible for depth jumps, and on a rigid foot for drop jumps.
• Most coaches never think about the horizontal distance an athlete falls during depth jumps. Often they drop straight down, and then straight back up. But this doesn’t do a great job of replicating jumping in sport, which almost always involves converting some amount of horizontal force to vertical, unless we are just talking proficiency in a standing vertical jump.

Thoughts on depth jumping for various athletic populations

I’ll end with some thoughts on utilizing depth jumps for athletes of specific athletic populations. Clearly the needs of no two are the same, so it makes sense to note some training anecdotes catering to individual populations.

High Jumpers

Since depth jumps were more or less invented to improve the performance of high jumpers, it would make sense that they might play an important role in their development. The best version of the depth jump for high jumpers depends slightly on their takeoff style preference. Other events, such as the long jump, generally require a very short ground contact time at takeoff, around .12 seconds, whereas the high jump can see takeoff times of anywhere from .14 to over .2 seconds in high-level jumpers.

High jumpers are always looking to produce more force in less time, but they shouldn’t only look at the drop jump version of the exercise. Depth jumps are the best possible way to increase total magnitude of force output in the lower body, even if it isn’t truly specific to the exact ground contact time.

Depth jumps are more of a nitrous fuel to the high jumper, and their takeoff shouldn’t be built on a foundation of depth jumps, but rather specific unilateral work. This being said, a nice balance for most high jumpers is 60-70% speed-based drop jumps, and 30-40% depth jumps, performed to an outcome goal of a hurdle or overhead target. For some inspiration, check out this great video of an intense jump from Russian high jumper Rudolf Povaritsyn (PR 2.40m).

Video 5. Perform this depth jump, and perhaps you too can high jump 2.40m.

Long/Triple Jumpers

The same vertical force production that depth jumps offer sprinters is quite useful for horizontal jumpers. Generally speaking, these athletes may do better with a greater respective volume of drop-jump type activities. Ground contact time must be very closely monitored, particularly in seasonal periods when a high level of reactive strength is required. A good volume of low-box-height drop jumps is not as intense as their depth jump brethren, and can be a nice way to help build specific horizontal jump fitness in the SPP training periods.

Sprinters

Are depth jumps necessary to build a world champion sprinter? Of course not. Are they a useful tool in the development of the majority of sprint athletes? Sure. Sprinters do well with depth jumping, as the single-response depth jump can help improve the quality of more common, repetitive vertical plyometric efforts such as hurdle hops. The depth jump is one of the best special strength exercises available for sprinters in terms of improving the magnitude of their ground reaction force, as well as providing a strong neural signal to the lower body. Athletes who need improved acceleration qualities will do better with a higher volume of the depth jump variety, while those seeking improved top-end speed will cater towards variations over hurdles, as well as drop jumps.

Basketball/Volleyball

Sports placing a higher priority on two-leg takeoffs will breed athletes who utilize longer ground contacts to produce power. With that in mind, the quickness of jumping is a critical area of importance for success in these two sports. A basketball player jumping for height may have twice the ground contact time of a track and field long jumper performing the same skill. Properly administered depth jumps can help reverse this trend by allowing these athletes to reduce their ground contact time, thereby getting off the ground quicker.

Care must be taken when administering depth jumps and their derivatives to these athletes. Many of them are already undertaking dozens—if not hundreds—of jumps during each practice session or competition. Remember that a close balance exists between the volume of competitive and special exercises. If the volume is too high, general strength work needs to fill the gap. In many cases, performing drop or depth jumps from lower boxes as more of a skill development/refinement drill can have a better effect on the readiness state of these athletes than pounding on them with intense, outcome-related depth jumps.

Throwers, Football Linemen, and Other Large Athletes

I don’t have much experience using depth jumps with larger athletes who rely on absolute strength more than relative strength. But my recommendation for this population would be simply to avoid higher box heights, and cater towards outcome goal-based efforts. Also, don’t be too harsh on their tendency towards longer ground contact times. Just because a thrower or football player might sport an excellent strength-to-bodyweight ratio, it doesn’t mean that their tendons and ligaments can handle the exponential loading that occurs in a drop from a high box. Short ground-contact times are as much a product of physics and anatomy as they are strong muscles.

Developmental Athletes

Depth jumps should be used with care in the process of developing young athletes. Some youth training experts, such as Mark McLaughlin, the co-founder of Performance Training Center, are known not to use maximal depth jumping as a preparatory exercise for high school athletes, to reduce the effects of early training intensification, and to set them up better for their college sporting years and beyond, something so many coaches are afraid to do or lack the egotistical restraint to consider. Here’s a sample of Mark’s working methods for training youth athletes.

When deciding on depth jumps for young athletes, a general rule is to keep the box height very low (under 18” or 45cm), and to keep them qualitative rather than quantitative. Low box drops and jumps can be a great way to teach loading and reactive mechanics, but the focus should be on the mechanism of the landing and jumping rather than the height of the jump itself. Depth jumps are often the cherry on top of a properly implemented plyometric program, and should never be the first serving for any athlete seeking long-term development.

Conclusion

Like any powerful training stimulus, there is always a duality present. Depth jumps may be the most potent exercise available for those seeking vertical jump and general power improvements, but they must be performed correctly, at the right intensity, at the right time. When done correctly, they can turn average jumpers into great jumpers and great jumpers into champions. When done incorrectly, they’ll provoke injury, over-intensify training, and cause general havoc in the long-term development of an athlete. Knowing how to harness this powerful training tool is the feather in the cap of any coach.

Speed Activation Consortium

Joel Smith will be teaching these and other speed training techniques at the Speed Activation Consotium in Lombard, Illinois on June 19 and 20. Other presenters at the consortium include Chris Korfist, Tony Holler, Cal Dietz, Dr. Kerry Egan, Dr. Tom Nelson, Dr. Kerry Heitkotter, Dr. Eric Janota, and Dan Fichter. Make your reservations today here.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Drew Cooper

What Is the kBox 3?

I will begin by urging you to read the article, “What Every Coach Ought to Know About Flywheel Training” by Exxentric co-founder Fredrik Correa, M.D. Here are some highlights, and Fredrik’s article has more depth and citations to other articles and studies.

1. The kBox is a form of flywheel training (ISO-inertial). Its origins date back to the Gymnasticon, invented in 1796 by American researcher Francis Lowndes.
2. The technology recently reappeared to help stave off atrophy and bone loss in conditions of microgravity during space travel.
3. In essence, the kBox works by placing 1–4 flywheels onto a shaft connected to a strap. That strap connects to you and a harness or handle. When the flywheel turns it gathers the strap around the shaft. When you apply force to the strap, it spins the shaft, consequently spinning the flywheel. It catches the strap and pulls back down with equal energy.
4. Every rep is a max load rep if you give maximum effort every time, unlike a barbell where only the final rep is at maximum effort.
5. You get higher velocity eccentric overload, unlike slow heavy eccentric work or forced reps/negatives with free weights.
6. Studies show a higher degree of hypertrophy, muscle activation, and strength in all joint angles by use of ISO-inertial training.
7. Eccentric work shows increases in muscle length, fiber transformation into type IIA, and improved balance and stiffness in tendons.

What Is an ISO-inertial?

If you want an in-depth, well-written look at what an ISO-inertial machine is and how it works, I strongly suggest reading Marco Pozzo’s article, “Monitoring Performance in Strength Training: The SmartCoach System”. He did such a good job that I’d just be rephrasing his work.

The meathead in me would explain how the kBox 3 works by saying that it uses different diameter wheels with different mass (as the wheels get bigger, the mass increases). To rotate or move more mass, you need to apply more force. The same holds true for stopping that rotating mass. So the only thing that affects the forces and energy is the amount and size of the mass you need to rotate and the amount of force you apply. Gravity has no effect.

With the above example, hopefully, the difference between inertial training and barbell training is clearer. The fact of the matter is that not much will change the force required to spin a given flywheel, nor will much stop it from taking the concentric force you used to start the wheel spinning from coming right back at you with equal force. This causes high inertial force, which drives you back into an eccentric contraction. This is why it works in space and why—if you wanted to get strange—you could lie horizontally and strap yourself into the squat harness and effectively do leg presses, or hang the kBox from the ceiling and do pulldowns. I’m not suggesting you try, just making a point that gravity doesn’t affect the work.

Construction of the kBox 3

When I saw a video of the kBox 3 I loved the small footprint. Given that I work out of my 3-car garage, space is at a premium so larger items clearly don’t work well. I was immediately curious as to its composition and weight, so I reached out to Exxentric senior vice president Andreas Correa and set up a demo here in San Diego.

Andreas had me take the kBox out of his car. I was shocked by its light weight, just 27 pounds without a wheel attached to it. Andreas explained that the body is aluminum, the shaft is hardened steel, and the top surface is covered by boat material that essentially gets “stickier” as it gets wet. This may seem trivial. But if you plan on coming off grass onto the kBox or if you or your athletes tend to sweat a lot, the steel construction of the previous model could get slick. I’m happy with the change as safety always matters.

Figure 1. The kBox 3 is portable, shown here in the trunk of a car.

While there are numerous positives regarding the kBox (many of which I haven’t spoken of yet), a few minor issues—which haven’t yet posed a problem but do have the potential to complicate things—may be worth considering.

First, the shaft the strap connects to isn’t much wider than the strap itself (which may be for good reason as I could see the strap folding strangely with too much room). But if you are a bit off-center the strap can rub on the edges, causing fraying and premature changes. At some point, the strap will wear out and need to be changed. There is of course always a cost of doing business, and maintenance is required for almost everything. So you need to be aware that this small piece will need to be replaced at some point.

The second potential issue regards solo training. The configuration of the kBox may involve a bit of a struggle setting up exercises and getting into position while getting the wheel spinning. I have not yet had an issue with this matter, but could foresee it happening.

Quick recap: The model is small in a gym equipment sense but plenty big to squat on, sturdy as all heck, light, portable, has unlimited resistance and a great top surface that doesn’t slip. On the difficult side, you need to set up well so the strap tracks cleanly down onto the shaft, the strap will wear out so you will have to buy extras, and setup on some exercises can be a tad tricky while training alone.

Before I even finished this article, I discovered that the guys at Exxentric have already changed the strap material and are working on a new reel to minimize wear and friction on the strap, giving a better user experience and longer-lasting straps. This is something that as a customer you have to love. Like any new technology, things are moving quickly and when given feedback these guys act… and act fast. They want their product to be the best and they seem to work hard to continuously improve to help us out on the user end. I’m already looking forward to the new straps.

Kmeter

To quantify the load, the guys at Exxentric have a device they call the kMeter. It consists of a wireless Bluetooth transmitter costing 390 euros and a corresponding free app for data display. The kMeter will record measures including displacement, concentric and eccentric peak power, and eccentric overload as the user inputs the wheel size/amount and divides eccentric peak power with concentric peak power.

Like any monitoring tool, it will be great to have feedback to track progress and see exactly what is happening to power production and other metrics with wheel changes, but how you choose to use the information will generally be context- and person-specific.

By the time this is out the Kmeter should be announced as well. Again moving quick and adding value to their product as it will be included in the price of new purchases essentially adding a $500 value for no cost. Again, very cool and old users will be able to order at a “campaign price” and I can promise I will be on that list.

How Does It Feel?

Operation of the kBox is difficult to fully explain, though it’s somewhat like bands pulling you down. Instead of easing up at the bottom they just pull harder, though that’s not quite right. It also feels like a normal squat (or whatever exercise you perform) but over in the corner there is a little kid playing with a dimmer switch that controls gravity. The kid just turns that sucker up to Jupiter levels, which causes a feeling of being sucked to the floor by some unearthly force. If you really give some concentric juice and take the exercise through a full range of motion there is a feeling that you may just get sucked straight through the tiny little hole in the surface—luckily for us the guys at Exxentric put a stopper to keep this from happening.

Video 1. Up to four flywheels can be attached to the kBox shaft as shown in this video.

It has a unique feel, and certainly a small learning curve. I will use the squat as an example. You initially have to “milk” the start by manually spinning the wheel with your foot. The wheel will pick up a small amount of strap and cause a lowering into a partial/mini squat (try to keep the strap taut to limit slack and potential rubbing). You then give a little more aggressive concentric action, and the wheel will pick up more speed and consequently more strap.

Video 2. A squat using three large wheels and one medium wheel. Note the cycle time for each rep is longer than the video below that uses less flywheel mass.

Video 3. A squat using one medium wheel. Note the higher rotational speed of the flywheel compared to the previous video.

Once the wheel pulls you to full range and you give your first true effort concentrically, the subsequent eccentric pull can be shocking. I stand behind users because they may have a tendency to fall back a little. Though in my experience this only happens during the first attempt, with the initial set tending to oscillate between balance issues and not keeping the strap taut. Most people who have tried it will push up and just squat down, leaving a bucket of slack that causes the wheel to come around and jerk them when it finally catches up. I’ve had success coaching “smooth up, wait for the strap to pull you down.” Once they get the feel, it’s typically not a problem from then on.

Specific Reasons I Chose the kBox 3 For My Gym

I would be doing a disservice if I didn’t first mention a couple of articles to check out, “6 Sure-Fire Eccentric Exercises to Build (and Rebuild) Athletic Monsters” by Carl Valle and and “My Love Affair with the Bulgarian Split Squat” by Chris Korfist. These talk in some way about eccentric work and seeing how it may improve performance. Here are my additions to what has previously been talked about, and I’m sure even more will follow.

1. With our novice and general fitness folks, the kBox 3 is both orthopedically very safe (if cued correctly—I like “smooth up, smooth stop”) and really a novel, fun, and effective way to train. I have two clients, a husband (former Division 1 football player) and wife (former Division 1 tennis player). Both are highly successful, highly competitive, and highly messed up. Between the two of them they have had 7 surgeries. He has 2 bulging discs and no meniscus in either knee and has been told by multiple doctors not to load his spine. She has a torn medial meniscus that was never repaired and experiences shoulder pain when squatting (not to mention that she doesn’t enjoy barbells.).

But during their first day using the kBox 3 they both were able to squat with more effort/exertion than with a normal barbell or kettlebell and enjoyed it so much that they requested it in their next session. This has become commonplace: people who hesitate when presented with a barbell have no problems with the kBox harness. And while I have found it effective with my general fitness clients, I also see the potential for it to help break cultural biases in elite sports such as soccer, where some clubs are notorious for “fearing” the barbell. If safety is paramount, time to help an athlete learn a fairly complex movement is limited, or physical limitations are an issue, I think the kBox 3 is a great solution.

2. If we look at a full force-velocity curve with the eccentric-concentric portions of a lift, we see that unlike concentric muscle actions, eccentric force increases as muscle lengthening velocities increase (up to a point). So with this in mind, when we think of eccentric-type training we think slow tempo with heavy or light weight (depending on the goal and/or exercise), drops/landings with high velocity, or sprinting and multiple response jumps where again there is a very high velocity with very high forces potentially.

The difference with the kBox 3 is that it is a general exercise, where you can get higher velocities than typical eccentric barbell work with equally high or higher forces as well as greater times under tension when related to landings/jumps/sprints. The way I am looking at this information (thanks to a talk with Landon Evans, University of Iowa Olympic strength & conditioning coach) is a general way to prepare tissues and joints for high eccentric loads.

When in a GPP or SPP block, I think we can get unique benefits from the kBox 3 by imposing an eccentric contraction with higher velocities and force than standard barbell work with greater time under those loads, thus leading to better adaptations. It has the potential to be beneficial in-season with some athletes within the small distribution of SPE loads. I don’t think this replaces the specific work entirely, but it is a unique way to safely prepare for the more intensive specific work in blocks to come or maintain qualities throughout a season.

3. With what we know about muscle eccentric training being effective for hypertrophy, I plan on using this more regularly with general fitness clients who want added muscle mass. The increased muscle damage, soreness, and recovery time, though, are all things to keep in mind no matter who you’re dealing with, and especially when working with athletes during short off- seasons (As long as the hypertrophy is needed and recovery is in place).

Foolish or Selfish Addition. One selfish little thing I’d like to try (if I had 2 kBoxes) would be to attach them to a barbell similar to chains and see if the transfer to barbell lifting would increase. For example, in a squat hook a strap to each collar, weigh the boxes down so they don’t move, and perform standard squats. I’m a powerlifting junky myself so this truly is just a curiosity for me and nothing more. But I would think the carryover to a squat would be better as you could slowly cut flywheel resistance in place of weights loaded on the bar. This would not be for a novice lifter, and the setup would be the key to ensuring safety so no one is getting buried in the hole.

There are obviously a lot more training objectives to consider. A few that have been tossed around are length/tension relationships post-eccentric work and injury risk, hormonal changes (IGF-1), anterior chain stiffness (think a pullover for throwers), and even tempo-type training (maybe you’ve heard it called oxidative work) since you can set the strap to not allow lockout at any point. These will all depend on your program and athlete/client base.

Conclusion

When all is said and done, I think there are more than enough benefits to at least consider the kBox 3 as a viable option for anyone’s gym or training system. I know the price isn’t cheap but the value is huge. It offers a unique way of training certain qualities such as high force with high-velocity eccentrics, larger times under tension with these specific muscle contraction regimes, improved speed of hypertrophy gains, and orthopedic safety (especially for the squat)—all with one piece of equipment with a small footprint. Overall, I’m about a month in and extremely happy with the purchase. I strongly recommend it—or at least get in touch with someone to give it a try.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

Tony Holler, a recent inductee into the Illinois Track and Cross Country Coaches Hall of Fame, is one cool cat with an engaging personality. But when it comes to discussing his speed philosophy and its impact on the Tigers of Plainfield North, he’s like a cat on a hot tin roof.

For example, Tony often begins his seminars by mentioning how many times he’s heard clinic speakers say that their session is worthwhile if attendees came away with just one thing.

Tony disagrees. In fact, he thinks this notion sucks. He believes he hasn’t done his job effectively if he doesn’t present coaches with a multitude of things worth considering.

Quite often, the takeaways from Tony’s presentations are the ones that are controversial and contentious. That’s not unexpected from someone who believes in the philosophy of Frank Zappa: “Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”

Deviate he does, but he is not alone in taking an aggressive stance on issues affecting his sport. Though other coaches have expressed similar views over the years, most (if not all) lack Tony’s flair for what some believe borders on political incorrectness.

Sprinters are cats…cats don’t run cross country. Cross country athletes don’t make good 4×1 team members…they’ve been trained to run slow.

Although this statement may strike some as contentious and controversial, he does have a point. Big cats are fast, but they don’t run for long periods of time. Cheetahs may be the fastest animals in the world. Their sprint lasts about fifteen seconds, and in that time they will cover about 500 meters. As Tony would say for the cheetah who needs to eat: running at top speed is a good thing. But running at such high speeds comes at a cost. Cheetahs’ body temperature quickly elevates, and they need to rest, sometimes for a half hour or more, to avoid overheating.

What about his comments on cross country runners? Some might find them inflammatory, but others have suggested a similar point—although not with Tony’s dash of literary hot sauce.

For example, Dutch biomechanics professor and sprint/jumps coach Frans Bosch noted the following in his speed seminar at Loyola University in 2007: “A long distance runner is just a sprinter with bad coordination.” Bosch believes that good coordination for sprinting involves muscle pre-tension and the avoidance of muscle slack, what in Dutch is called “stijgtijd.” He believes long distance running is a way to have more slack. “Distance running,” he adds, “causes the Series Elastic Component to deteriorate.” As a result, he concludes “training energy systems to maintain speed is nonsense.”

Tony’s analysis: “This is what you need to know about energy systems: Aerobic conditioning has no place in sprint training. Slow running ruins mechanics (vertical force) and confuses the nervous system. In addition, cats hate it.”

Valeri Borzov (USSR, 100/200 Gold Medal 1972 Munich Olympics)…Borzov smokes cigarettes. Repeating…world’s fastest man in 1972 was a smoker! Sprinters are not endurance athletes.

The reference to Borzov makes sense relative to another of Tony’s overarching philosophies: what you measure you can improve. Valentin Petrovski, Borzov’s coach, was one of the first to take a scientific view of the 100-meter dash. He broke down the race into small increments, analyzing each section and determining at what point Borzov should reach it. (See Petrovski’s tables) His movements were calculated to thousandths of a second. As running book author and journalist Neil Duncanson notes, “The calculations were made with slide rule accuracy and resembled the designing of an aircraft rather than the training of a sprinter.”

But even Borzov’s youth coaches believed, as Tony does, that fast sprinting should be enjoyed. Their training approaches were intended to make sure that Borzov did not tire of sprinting before he reached his full potential.

A final note on smoking: It is not just an Eastern European thing. We could add the great Jesse Owens to that list. A lifetime smoker, Owens died of lung cancer at age 66.

Light a fire, don’t fill a pail…practice is over-rated.

Tony also notes that you “can’t afford to build endurance foundations and develop speed later…sprint in the off season, sprint in the pre-season, and sprint during the season. Build a sprint foundation…sprint, jump, sprint, jump, sprint, jump…”

So much for periodization. On this most sacred issue in track and field, Tony wields Occam ’s razor like a chainsaw: “I don’t believe in periodization. I lose respect for coaches who start talking about macrocyles and mesocycles. The only periodization for high school sprinters should be football season and track season.”

I like it! It reminds me of something I said at a clinic back in 1986: “Say all that you want about periodization, about macrocycles, microcycles—or bicycles, which is about the only cycle I can relate to at this point in my coaching career. The fact remains that I run two meets a week for over eight weeks with runners who hate to train, complain about racing, yet somehow expect to run their best times and their brightest efforts at the biggest meets of the year.

“If I get this done, I call it a motorcycle.”

Tony has some noteworthy supporters. Most of us can recall one of the great quotes from Canadian sprinter and coach Charlie Francis: “If American track coaches had designed the Great Pyramid, it would have covered 700 acres and topped off at 30 feet.”

Texas A&M sprint coach Vince Anderson also comments on this notion of pyramid peaking for sprinters as a “faulty tower.” He adds, “In the case of distance runners, maybe they need to take a cue from sprinters. Speed is something you can’t just hold off to ‘top off the peaking pyramid’ at the end of the season. Sprinting, like any complex skill, must be actively rehearsed for an athlete to achieve their best possible result. It is delusional thinking that skill development will occur without specifically training that skill properly. It takes several weeks (a few months) of SPRINT work to sharpen a sprinter to top form. Start sprint activity from the first day of practice. Do not wait to begin sprint training. We never try to wait to run fast.”

Bob Sevene, who trained Mary Decker, said Mary was so talented that he could have coached her all wrong, and she still could have gone out and run a 4:20 1500! My attitude is that this certainly applies to the kinds of high school athletes many of us work with, regardless of their basic talent. Systems don’t produce—kids do. It just so happens that we believe kids perform better because of our systems. Whether this is a truth—or a myth—is not the point.

Remember, the measure of our accomplishment will be how successful we are at keeping new runners out, average runners productive, good runners happy, and the great ones healthy. Successful coaches at our level—given our limitations and challenges—will find that we can have a positive impact on the kids we coach when we construct programs that do three things that Tony believes are essential: educate, promote, and motivate. This is how he Feeds the Cats.

As Tony explains in his mission statement: “Plainfield North will have a successful team because the fastest guys walking our hallways will WANT to run track and will remain happy, enthusiastic, and energetic. Our best athletes will speak well of our program and will recruit fast guys to join them.”

In this regard, perhaps his least controversial statement is the one we should remember the most.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Carl Valle

When they hear the word “conditioning,” some coaches and athletes believe that power development and speed training are the priority, with conditioning tossed in as an afterthought. To me, though, conditioning offers a continuum of benefits—ranging from active recovery to the most brutal lactate speed endurance work in history—rather than an opposing quality.

For ten years I have worked privately with athletes in different sports, ranging from bobsleigh to soccer. Having no emotional attachment to training methods, I look at what it takes to win, not what is fun to coach. Let’s be honest—it’s usually far more exciting to be in the weight room working on explosive lifting or on the track teaching speed. But if conditioning is left to chance, all the hard power work crumbles like a house of cards. In this article I will share six staples I have used and fine-tuned over the years.

Aquatic Regeneration

Pool workouts are still the most underrated option and therapeutic modality, bar none. It’s widely known that they are great for unloading joints because of the eccentric deloading, but the hydrostatic pressure is like adding half a day a week of recovery. That adds up, and by the end of the season those who are dedicated and committed achieve noticeable improvements in the autonomic and hormonal systems. Coaches have to find a way to organize and administer the burdens of finding a pool and getting the job done.

Figure 1: Pool workouts can be monitored with aquatic specific heart rate monitoring tools such as the Cardio Swim system from Freelap. I will write more about how swimming, team sport recovery, and triathletes can integrate the split and velocity tools of the system later.

The realities of contact sports like the modern NFL or elite rugby are obvious. The body takes a beating over time. I like doing pool workouts the day after a game, though for some reason some teams lift heavy and hard then. Coaches want to get a good workout when the athletes are willing, with the pain drugs and adrenaline still creating a window to train. I can’t speak to the medical side too much, but athletes need ways to recover and train properly. Back-to-back hard days are often thought as foolish, but what does one think happens when they “get the lift done” with back-to-back intense sessions?

I have identified four stages of hydrotherapy, based on how broken-down an athlete is.

Dead: Those in so much pain that they can only hit a whirlpool and play with thermotherapy spa interventions. This creates a rebound effect, according to research by Dr. Buchheit and colleagues. I have had an intern or two swing by and force exhausted athletes into a few hours of therapy-like options. By the next day the measured changes are real with HRV and other indices of recovery.

Crippled: Athletes who complain of pain and soreness of both joints and muscles do simple restoration workouts that mimic tai chi and aquatic yoga routines. The goal of the sessions is to get moving and focus on creating an active range of motion.

Banged Up: Athletes who are simply sore in both joints and muscles and a bit broken down from heavy training but still have some energy need to do more than recovery workouts. They need to be pushed with a session ranging from 40-60 minutes. Goals include a heavy focus on challenging the heart and lungs with deep water interval-style routines and leaving tired but feeling better than when they started.

Sore: When athletes are only sore with muscular discomfort, I don’t want treat them like little kittens. Sometimes deepening recovery with a demanding pool session can get some of the benefits of fitness without risking injury. Soreness is normal and part of the process, and pool workouts that are shallower and more explosive in nature are effective. Adding squat jumps and other patterns improves performance with added benefits from the water resistance. To functionally overreach athletes, have them invest a full hour weekly during the year.

Bike Work—From Flush Ride to Chain Massacre

Bike routines are overused, bastardized, and often unfairly eliminated from training. My belief is that they should be placed into two categories: alternative secondary training for speed athletes, and complementary training for team sports. Bike routines can add a little extra to a comprehensive program and teams have won world cups using them, so people need to calm down with fearmongering. True, any activity has pros and cons and even bike workouts have risk. Ironically, many pundits who suggest that bike workouts are evil are the same ones complaining about unfit young athletes because Mom and Dad drive them around instead of the child biking.

Figure 2: Something as simple as three bike workouts a week can make structural and chemical changes in the body, and the “cost of doing business” with not as bad as people think if the workouts are not too aggressive. Many fear hip flexor tightness but a complete program should offset possible restrictions.

The truth is that nothing is perfect, and bike routines are appropriate when an acute problem exists. As a track coach I prefer running whenever possible, but what happens when that option is not there? The spine is important and I realize some experts and gurus warn that flexed positions will create problems biomechanically, but how great is that risk? Some claim huge problems with muscle imbalances, and yes, a problem with any sport or activity is an adaptation not favorable to other activities. So what is the verdict? Be aware of potential issues but don’t eliminate options.

With proper bike fitting and a sensible expectation of bike routines, risk is very minimal. But an issue now is that many see bike routines as the Holy Grail or overdose on them. A flush ride a few times a week isn’t going to ruin a career, and if an athlete can’t do an easy spin workout they are basically frail. Bike work works, period. Most research we see on adaptations physiologically involves bike sessions because they are easy to measure and control, so those benefits are valuable to teams dealing with foot fractures and other problems. Muscular and spinal issues are researched in depth, and injury patterns can be mitigated by making sure that mechanics, load, and preparation are done with the athletes using bike sessions just like any other part of training and not worry. Overzealous use of bike work besides easy fitness routines can be a problem, so moderation needs to be promoted.

Here are two workouts.

Easy Spin: 30-40 minutes a few times a week is not a big risk as part of a comprehensive program. A common fear is tight hip flexors, but not using them isn’t going to keep them long and strong. I like a steady heart rate and teaching the body to get into a continuous rhythm. I find that low-intensity workouts focused on a percentage near the lowest threshold show up in general aerobic fitness tests if done twice a week for two months, but they need to be maintained year-round. Transfer onto the field is unknown as I can’t create a control group that doesn’t use something I believe in.

Hard Intervals: Athletes who can’t run for extended periods because of medical restrictions eventually need enzyme induction work or they find the transition to the playing field or track sluggish. Adding modifiers to routines such as RPMs and resistance is subject to debate. But after 10 years, I think the truth is that most adaptations get cancelled out when the entire program is factored in. The best solution is to keep it very binary: high RPMs in 30-second bursts, and easy 90-120 second recoveries. Other work-to-rest ratios are very effective but keep in mind that the goal is to get positive adaptations without too many variables hitching a ride and creating baggage. Twenty minutes of intervals, not including warming up and warming down, is enough to make a positive change with national-level athletes.

Reboot Circuits

In 1998, I was getting my USATF Level II Sprints and Hurdles certification with the buzz about LSU jumps and multi-event coach Boo Schexnayder permeating in the hallways. During that time, a discussion occurred about the use of General Strength Circuits, and I was a little skeptical about how submaximal training worked. Leaving Florida, specifically the grass and sun, years later made me value how a light circuit can act as a placeholder and stoke the fires of fitness. Elite athletes need variations that don’t hinder specific intensive work.

The primary problem with circuit training is that athletes never adapt to the circuit or general preparation earlier and struggle to use them during other periods of the year. A low-level circuit must match the abilities of the athletes. One elite athlete switched coaches from high school to college during her freshman year and simply dug herself into a hole. With no formal weight training, just doing lunges and bodyweight exercises was strength training for her. Because she was never recovering, she ran miserably until an assistant coach pruned the workload. Even explosive and well-developed athletes must be careful with circuits. After a hard session the athlete is torn-up and tired. Circuits are truly stimulatory and must be more light-fitness options.

Figure 3: Monitoring options like using InsideTracker, ithlete, and even consumer level products that track fatigue are valuable when looking at the weekly setups. No research study will research your program, so you be the sport scientist and figure out what is working objectively.

Circuit training can range from tightly planned and highly organized sessions involving national team sessions during peak periods, to an embarrassing blender of random exercises. Since many people believe that circuits improve work capacity, they seem to have poor expectations and principles because they are not expected to do much besides getting people tired. Circuit training should represent a tiny fraction of training, yet we are seeing the contribution of circuits now more than ever.

The result is athletes who are not being exposed to intensive options and get hurt more and more. Those doing intensive training are finding some poorly designed circuits overtraining them, as circuits are the ”Wild West” of training. With very little enforcement, circuits seem to attract a lot of “outlaws” or gurus who throw in a hodgepodge of battling ropes, random construction and labor equipment, and physical education exercises. I don’t have a hateful bone in my body, but removing circuits from training altogether wouldn’t make me lose any sleep.

To be fair, I have benefited from a circuit as an athlete, and still use small and long circuit options. Instead of randomly tossed exercises or traditional intervals and repetitions, I use circuits to organize time, bodies, space, equipment, and the biology of athletes. I find the common three trips around 8-12 stations with general core and basic exercises as a good starting point. I like focusing on core training since intense days seem to be very little juice for the weight room, and I don’t want people to feel like the walls are prison-like. I use ancillary upper body and core exercise selections as time-efficient ways to get in secondary work, and the investment isn’t overly demanding.

The benefits are real, and many athletes find the wellness routines to show up with elevated moods and willingness to train subjective scores. This can be for several reasons. Research on circuit training combined with speed and power programs is not available, but I have seen several valuable changes with brain chemistry showing up in EEG and opiate responses. I was very skeptical of what a pump can do as it has no ergogenic values, but feeling good and having a visually complete body must have some mental benefits.

Circuits sometimes become sloppy if they are high-rep and based on getting a lot done quickly. So a good idea is to think about contraction times of 40-45 seconds and using the transition walk to the next station as the rest period. I use circuits for core and support exercises and sometimes we do bodyweight upper body exercises or light strength work, but I have not done lower body training for years unless it’s in the early GPP. Doing reps near the 6-8 range with control is key, and if you are doing a left and right combination such as Pallof Presses you can switch quickly halfway through the station or switch directions and sides on the next trip. To me, circuits are just a way of organizing better training and cutting time without cutting results.

Classic Tempo Running

Tempo running, while simple and timeless, often is not valued and implemented properly. Let’s be honest—conditioning runs are less-than-exciting and repetitive, to say the least. Nobody is more guilty of this attitude than I am, but I have invested into interns who were hungry and given them plenty of opportunities to implement a classic tempo program with team sport and sprint athletes. I shared some general advice in my article about mistakes with tempo running, and reading it is a great start. So here are some very basic routines. I have divided the running options into three general groups:

• Lengths – Straight running for a certain time or distance with a given velocity
• Laps – Curved runs that start and finish at the same location with a consistent velocity
• Légers – Straight runs that require a complete change in direction and reacceleration

Running conditioning is still demanding on the legs regardless of the speed. Footstrikes generate impact forces, regardless of surfaces. Different locomotor strategies will create different strains on the body, down to the specific metatarsal. Running impact is cumulative so a copy-and-paste job of running for an entire month is lazy and will likely result in lower limb overuse syndromes.

Figure 4: Heart rate data is a very simple way to see how an athlete is improving or possibly getting overtrained. Look for rapid “free falls” between runs, and lowered heart rate scores during speeds that are normal. It doesn’t take a team of PHD experts to see if an athlete is changing with a simple line plot.

The solution is being there and listening to athletes without making them think they are medical students or wounded Civil War soldiers. Good tempo workouts are just enough to improve things, but not to the point where they ruin the goals of the speed and power sessions. I look at pure speed athletes doing 2 Kilometers of running 1-2 times a week, team sport athletes who need light conditioning running 4-6 Kilometers 2-3 times a week, to heavy endurance needs of 6 kilometers + done 3 times with supplements of practice or prescriptive cross-training. Remember the higher the volume and the greater the speed, the more likely that overtraining will occur. I would rather go slower and do more continuous running in the lowest aerobic zone rather than reducing rest and shuttle work, as the cutting is too much. Here are my three favorite options.

Monday Morning Quarterback: Nearly every NFL athlete has run lengths of the field and walked the widths as recovery. Sometimes the volume is so low that no possible aerobic benefit is there, but if done right it can screen for fitness changes over the course of a season. Usually, the work-to-rest ratio is something like 1:2 and the intensity or speed is about 50-70% of ability.

Giant Curve Runs: My bread and butter is teaching nonsprinters to stride 200m by running a large U on a practice field so they can learn to run properly. While cues and great coaching are the cornerstones, athletes need to run in practice if they are to run in games. Everyone now seems to be afraid of running, but I have yet to see a running-free program dominate any sport. I focus on instilling the idea that good running feels better and is easier, and I am careful not to focus on speed. “Maximum Beauty” ,as fast as you can maintain good technique, a very safe parameter, and when running mechanics drop, I stop and move on. Going three sets of 5x200m with 30-40 seconds rest between reps and 3 minutes between sets is my most common prescription. I like alternating directions by set, so athletes get exposed to clockwise and counterclockwise patterns. Mixing footwear, curve radius, speeds, and even acceleration rates all help keep athletes sharp and not completely bored. Surprisingly, some athletes like the break from coaches barking at them and enjoy the solitude or peace of just plain running.

Beep Test Rehearsal Work: Running back and forth with either set intervals or stage testing like the Yo-Yo IR1 and IR2 tests are workouts. Other fitness tests like the 30-15 and even customized tests are fine workouts while exposing the athletes to tests to remove familiarization and pacing with testing. Athletes will get better at tests without getting better physiologically, so I like getting the false improvement issues out of the way by using some tests or rehearsal type activities early. Doing so well gets better validity earlier in the first few conditioning tests, and removes administrative and testing issues down the road.

The Springbok Project

Dan Baker did an amazing job with his work on improving Maximum Aerobic Speed (MAS). As a result, pace work in soccer and other team sports is starting to get more detailed. I want it all: freaks or aliens, not athletes who are simply passing tests or doing the minimums to play. Those who are afraid of overtraining or getting athletes injured are usually making excuses why their athletes aren’t faster, fitter, or freakier in size and strength. In their defense, many strength coaches make me rethink safety and overtraining by looking at the research and asking around to see if what I am doing is outdated.

Coaches need to embrace evolution and respect history at the same time. Each year gets better, but major changes are unlikely when it comes to training. Conditioning is not much different than it was years ago, so if someone claims to have unlocked some magical workout you should be aware that it’s usually too good to be true.

Baker’s article talked about body speed in the fitness tests. So I asked, what’s the limit? How fast and fit can a soccer player be now? Asking around, I found that maximum aerobic speed is 5.2 meters per second. Wanting more information, I asked a few coaches I trusted for the best performances they witnessed and 5.2 was indeed the best time for a soccer player. Having a thirst for what most coaches want, I needed to break 2,000 meters in a 6-minute running test while still having a skilled and fast athlete.

Figure 5: Advanced metrics like Pace, Speed, as well as simple HR indices can help get more out of the workout. Since teams are pressed for time, every session must be as close to prefect to get the desired effect.

The last thing anyone wants to do is produce a slow cross-country athlete with no touch on the ball, so I looked at the research some more and found the reason it’s so hard to improve MAS: lack of training time. While practices do give some training effect, ball work in soccer or skill/play work in rugby and American football make it hard to improve physiology when team coaches are in charge. I have said many times that when a performance coach who is a brilliant strategist and tactician becomes a head coach, it will be a turning point and evolve the game.

Performance coaches are better monitors and more vigilant about overtraining when doing 3-minute runs with active recovery periods. Getting 6 or more kilometers in workouts in addition to practices can trash athletes if they are poor runners and are weak and flat (poor elasticity). The approach to the runs is fairly simple: adjust the speed and distance but not the duration of the run or the rest period.

The jog velocity (with the ball or without) can be static, but the athlete is expected to cover more ground and do more in no particular order. Depending on the program, some coaches find that they want to do six rounds of paced aerobic work, while others like doing 4 with a focus on quality. Shorter runs and absolute rest work nearly as well, but if you want to squeeze more out of an athlete you will need to go longer and faster with less rest.

Testing for MAS using Baker’s suggested methods, I find that going shorter and faster (3 minutes compared to 5-7 minutes) with passive rest up to 2 minutes is great, but pacing at 100% with incomplete rest and half the distance overloads really well. I also find that conditioning adaptations decay slower, but that is just an observation of a small subject pool. Here is my progression of MAS training for light athletes (soccer, lacrosse, and some rugby players):

• Stage 1: Complete the workout (finish six rounds)
• Stage 2: Become consistent and stable (last one as fast as the first)
• Stage 3: Progress to hit benchmarks (improve weekly or every other week)
• Stage 4: Break barriers (ramp up by manipulating variables)

It’s not complicated, but I expect people to finish the distance first as it’s an open pace. If you can’t finish a run 6 x 3 minutes at a slow clip, you are out of shape. After you can complete the session, the next goal is even speed and even effort (via heart rate). After being consistent, get farther and faster and watch the impact on HRV and HR for fatigue and residual soreness. After you hit 800, playing with variables such as speed and volume (doing 4 fast instead of 6 even) may help break plateaus.

Nuclear Meltdown

The most controversial topic I have written about is sprints from 150 meters to 250 meters with track and field athletes. The reason is the difficulty of knowing how many sprint world records reported in the 1980s and 1990s are factual. Many coaches want to know human limits in performance and drug-free options for improvement.

The Infamous Workouts – Without naming names and coaches, I have heard some amazing stories of workouts by world-class athletes. Before a major championship, the last few preparation weeks have had a window of time that magic can be brewing and some sprinters (200-400m) apparently have done some “wicked” sessions. I have witnessed some amazing workouts. Some warm-ups have been legendary, such as Mo Greene’s warm-up in Atlanta during indoor nationals. Looking at the most demanding output I have collected, it seems that speed endurance sessions with short rest are producing some serious biochemistry.

Nobody has the perfect answer to the mystery of acidosis, and some people are sharing a lot of bad science. Some think lactate is a sign of fatigue, some of hard training, and a few think it’s the adaptation marker of choice. To me, it’s simple: faster results from faster workouts. Too fast and overtraining may occur, not fast enough and the athlete doesn’t adapt. Eventually, one has to get faster from something, and that is better races (competition and conditions) and better training.

Figure 6: Some debate exists if running tempo is going to create weaklings or dead legs and the truth is a run at 80% may elicit some positive hormonal changes. I have seen basal (resting not acute) increases of IGF-1 with athletes increase significantly when eccentric loads and speed endurance is added. Acidosis is interesting and people love lactate testing, but focus on getting faster and let the physiology explain the improvements on the clock. I don’t care about anabolism or catabolism debates, I just like faster times from better training recipes.

The primary takeaway from acidosis is that the body needs to be fast enough to fatigue at speeds that matter. Some aerobic training will help with capacity, but if you want an alien you need to release the devil and burn down the athlete. Athletes with amazing fitness levels will sometimes reach up to 20 mmols of lactate, and workouts that produce pH drops will eventually teach the body to enjoy the pain. The most common error is reducing rest to increase acidosis. This makes athletes great at repeating slower and lesser outputs over time, instead of getting absolute outputs first and learning how to repeat them. Any coach can get someone tired, but getting better usually means more speed and distance (length and/or volume) first.

Athletes constantly in glycolytic activities seldom get better at advanced levels, and polarized training is growing in popularity for good reason. While it’s great to cover the bases, sometimes changes occur without velocity, and sprinters in the 200-400 can do some quality work and expose themselves to serious pain. I used this workout outline only a few times, but it was a baptism of acidic fire that seemed to change athletes and their mindset to real training. All you are looking for is progress, not a magic number. I don’t know if this works better than other options, but I know it has helped a few athletes in the past.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Chris Korfist

Editor’s Note: Chris Korfist will be teaching these and other speed training techniques at the Speed Activation Consotium in Lombard, Illinois on June 19 and 20. Other presenters at the consortium include Tony Holler, Cal Dietz, Jeol Smith, Dr. Kerry Egan, Dr. Tom Nelson, Dr. Kerry Heitkotter, Dr. Eric Janota, and Dan Fichter. Make your reservations today here.

Like many of you, I surf the internet, looking for the magic bullet to solve all my problems. I like toys. If there is anything that may get me one step closer to my Holy Grail quest of making someone run really fast, I am all over it.

Unfortunately, I have wasted a ton of money on stuff that doesn’t work and now takes up storage space. Some of it I modify, so it is useful to me at least in a small way. One piece became an expensive podium/table. Another now serves simply as just flooring so we can get good traction when we start, and as a spacer to make the cable on the Run Rocket the right length.

But I never give up. When something piques my interest, I’ll call or email. In some cases I strike gold. I love my kBox and GymAware.

The 1080 Sprint looked cool when I came across it online about six weeks ago. A speed assessor and adjuster is the best way to describe it. A box contains a very thin but strong cord wrapped around a carbon-fiber drum. The computer connected to the box monitors and controls the resistance or towing strength of the cord through an electric motor. The computer also records the force and speed applied to the cord as the athlete runs and records it on the screen.

Figure 1: 1080 Sprint with top open to reveal cable mechanism.

At its lowest setting, the athlete tows 1kg of resistance, with 15kg the highest. It will also tow up to 15kg (for overspeed training we worked at 3kg). You can move in multiple directions as well. Future software updates will measure contact and flight time, resulting in a stiffness measurement.

When I called, the quoted price was too high (I am getting ready to pay for my daughter’s braces). But they said they were in the area and wanted my opinion on the machine, adding that the demo would only take 30 minutes. So Peter showed up at my door early on a Sunday several weeks later. I was in a bad mood because my 4×200 relay had been disqualified in the state meet the day before. We were sitting in a distant second place. My 4th runner got excited and left early. And it was 48 degrees and raining this morning.

Along with one of my veteran athletes who is currently with an NFL team, we went to a fieldhouse and easily unloaded a suitcase-shaped box. The top popped open, we plugged it in, and it was ready to go. My guy put on the belt Peter gave him and ran a 40. So far, nothing major.

Figure 2: NFL athlete prepares for the workout. Note the 1080 Sprint is approximately width of a track lane.

Then I looked at Peter’s laptop. I saw a power graph measured in watts for every step my guy took. Peter hit a tab, and it changed to m/s. Peter mentioned that the graph showed that one of my athlete’s legs had a lower peak than the other. I thought, well, that is easy to fix. I activated him. He ran again. Not only did the activation bring the leg back to even, it raised his power output by 10%! I had just quantified all the activation stuff I have been using for the last 4 years in three minutes. No more bad mood!

It got even more interesting. We looked at my athlete’s profile and started to manipulate where we would add more resistance to different parts of his 40. I thought, crank it at the beginning and decrease over time. My guy said it felt great and made him feel really explosive after the run.

Then we manipulated other parts of his 40. He commented on how smooth the whole thing felt. Except for the belt, he never felt pulled/jerked. And the whole time, we could change the resistance with a keystroke. I thought, how great is this for acceleration work. I could figure exactly where to apply resistance.

Figure 3: 1080 Sprint App displays performance for immediate feedback and analysis.

A sled, especially a light sled, bounces from side to side. And there’s always the cringe moment when you think the sled is going to hit the athlete in the back of the legs. Then there’s the friction between the sled and the ground. Every sled feels different on different surfaces or at various temperatures. Those days are gone. Now I know exactly how hard my athlete is pulling, and can change it at any time.

Peter said it had an over-speed function as well. I have never been a fan. It may due to the fact that it is incredibly difficult to quantify the 3%. Or perhaps from my high school experience of stretching my over-speed bungee too far from the goal post. The strap broke, with me facing the wrath of 30m of rubber cord hurtling at the poor sap it was strapped to.

Despite my reservations, I had to try it. My athlete pulled out the cord to the length of the fieldhouse. His top speed was 9.51 m/s. We adjusted the cylinder to pull him at 9.8 m/s and gave him a 20m fly-in before the 1080 started its towing function. Sure enough, that was the exact speed he ran without one heel strike/braking mechanism kicking in. Now I could train acceleration and top-end speed with pinpoint accuracy.

I started visiting force/velocity curves and power equations in my head (realizing I should have paid more attention in school). I must not have paid attention when Peter said, “Now we will work on agility.” Next thing I knew, my athlete was running out routes. Based on the graph, we could measure and assist or resist different parts of his route. We did a pro agility test that put added pressure on his cuts, so he had to absorb more force than he normally does (a plyometric in agility?!?!). And he could do it in both directions! Using the software, an athlete’s eccentric to concentric rate of force can be determined.

Video 1. The 1080 Sprint can be used for resistance sprinting, over-speed sprinting, and change of direction drills.

The 30 minutes turned into three hours. I was late for my first training session. Peter tagged along and gave workouts to my next two groups. It blew them away. A pro basketball player couldn’t stop thinking of all of its applications for training with agility and shooting. My brain was swimming with all the potential applications. That is how Peter left me.

And my daughter? She’ll just have to deal with crooked teeth.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Todd Lane, Assistant Track and Field Coach, LSU
@lsutoddlane

Carl Valle recently wrote about resistance training, and I wanted to follow up on his thoughts. Resistance running has long been a part of sprint training programs. Parachutes, hills, bungees, sleds, tires, weighted vests, and simply running into the wind are some frequently used methods. In a simplistic way of thinking in athletics, bigger is better, more is better, heavier is better.

But this way of thinking has to change. I’ve always believed that resistance sprinting should involve lighter weights than what has commonly been accepted. Yet for some reason, we have a hard time believing that lighter and faster is more beneficial than slow and heavy.

Mechanics of Sprinting

Here’s a brief review of general acceleration and sprint mechanics and what is desirable:

1. Pelvic neutrality or very close to it, depending on where the athlete is in the cycle, from acceleration to upright vertical maximum velocity sprinting. We should see straight powerful lines, from the head through the spine and pelvis all the way through the ankle when imparting force into the track. Pelvic positioning also plays a HUGE role in being able to apply and receive forces in sprinting.
2. Foot contact occurs underneath the center of mass, or slightly in front if you want to be technical.
3. Ground contact in acceleration is slightly longer than in vertical maximum velocity sprinting, but either way it should be brief.
4. In vertical maximum velocity vertical sprinting, a key checkpoint is that the knees cross directly under the body. This indicates good front side mechanics.
5. To run fast, the saying goes, you must train fast. As we sprint, there is a great synergy of motor neurons firing impulses to the fibers in a coordinated pattern. Muscle-tendon stiffness plays a role in stretch-shorten cycling. This happens with shorter ground contact times and better pelvic positions.

The further away from these principles we get, the less we are truly training sprinting and the more we are doing strength training. The stimulus in resisted sprinting should be just enough to effect change in the system, without altering mechanics. With lighter resistance, we see mechanics with a complete resemblance of accelerating and sprinting (see pictures below). The firing patterns that take place in a crucial and critical order are adhered to and trained. If athletes are not training those patterns, they aren’t enhancing their sprinting.

My observation of resistance sprinting over many years has been that the greater the resistance, the more the degradation of the mechanics of acceleration and vertical maximum velocity sprinting. This is reflected in:

1. Losing pelvic alignment after the first step. The pelvis wants to rise with each step, but athletes inherently keep their chests down because of the load as they try to push and drive longer. This becomes self-defeating because they still hold the same position at 20, 30, and 40 meters. This loss of pelvic alignment means poor force application and ground contact times that are too long. The result is that athletes don’t develop momentum and become exponentially worse mechanically.
2. Individual differences in the way each athlete moves the resistance. Typically the stronger, more powerful athletes are more efficient than those who are less strong and less powerful.

Individualization

It can be hard to individualize when one coach has to work with many athletes. The “one size fits all” principle fails them. In reality, with the right set-up it is not that hard to individualize resistance sprint training. It shouldn’t be based on weight of the athlete, but rather the athlete’s time between non-resisted and resisted running. This can be individualized very easily. Coaches do it all the time in the weight room. Resistance is individualized based on maximum efforts through testing. I will discuss later how to individualize resistance run training.

Types of Resistance Training

I divide resistance training into two areas. One is acceleration development. As we know, acceleration for most athletes lasts for 40 meters. In acceleration training, I try to get athletes to effectively cover as much ground as they can by imparting large forces into the ground to project the body forward and upward with each step.

Working at a speed 8-10% slower than non-resisted allows the athlete to emphasize pushing and still maintain the mechanical aspects to keep the run fast. With a load, the acceleration distance can be pushed out slightly further because the body does not reach a vertical position as early as it would without resistance. Among the elite athletes I work with when doing acceleration-specific work, the men generally work in the 27.7 lbs (12.6 kg) range . For women it is 16.8 lbs (7.6 kg). These numbers show you how light, “light” really can be.

The other area is speed development, the zone from 40 to 60 meters. This zone is most effectively trained at a speed 3-8% slower than non-resisted runs. The challenge with resistance running is that athletes typically have a longer acceleration phase because of the resistance. They often never get completely vertical. Lighter resistance allows them to actually complete acceleration and get to vertical.

I have even played around with something I saw a fantastic Norwegian coach and his athlete do at our track during a winter stay. The sled rests on a small wheeled dolly, something like a garbage can sits on. The dolly has 25 meters of rope attached to it. One end is tied to something on the side of the track, such as a post or heavy hurdle.

The athlete starts the run with the sled on the dolly. As the rope reaches its end, the dolly comes to an abrupt stop and the sled slides off. This allows the athlete to accelerate in good position and develop momentum without having to overcome the resistance, arriving at the maximum velocity phase in a better position. For the men I work with, the weight is 16.7 lbs (7.6 kg), and 8.2 lbs (3.7 kg) for women. Again, these numbers show how light, “light” truly should be. Your numbers may (and should) be different, based on ability and surface.

Determining the Weight

1. Have your athlete run 60 meters. Time the first 40 meters and the second 20. The first 40 meters is roughly your acceleration zone and the second 20 your vertical maximum velocity zone. Younger and/or less elite athletes may go 50 meters instead, timing 30 and 20.
2. Have them do resistance runs for acceleration and keep changing the weight based on the times they achieve. You are aiming for that 8-10% difference, much less than what people generally think is necessary. If the athlete runs 5.10 for un-resisted 40 meters, the resisted 40 should be no slower than 5.60.
3. Repeat on another day for your maximum velocity zone, aiming for the 3-8% difference.
4. Remember that the weight includes the sled.
5. If it doesn’t look right, then COACH, COACH, COACH mechanics.

Creating New Toys

Sleds in training catalogs are too heavy for my purposes. So I had our campus facility people make 10 sleds of 1/8-inch aluminum measuring 20 x 14 inches (50 cm x 35 cm). The front 3 inches were lipped up at 45 degrees, with two holes to attach the harness. A welded post 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter and 5 inches (13 cm) tall in the center holds additional weight. The sled itself weighs 3.5 lbs (1.6 kg). Adding the chain, rope, and belt to attach to the athlete brings the total weight to 5.7 lbs (2.6 kg).

Testing

Any training program needs testing to measure athlete progress, readiness, and overall effectiveness. Resisted run training can be part of any training and testing plan. Time the same distance with the same weight throughout testing periods to measure changes, just as you would with non-resisted runs. As with any test, consistency in climate, surface, and timing equipment is important.

Workouts

Resisted sprinting allows training to complement non-resisted sprinting. Here are several sample workouts. They all start from a crouch, hanging crouch, or 3 or 4 point start with the slack taken out of the rope to the sled.

Acceleration Development Specific @ 8-10% difference

1. 4 x 40m resisted, 2 x 20m, 2 x 30m, 2 x 40m non-resisted
2. 2 x 40m resisted, 2 x 40m non-resisted, 2 x 40m resisted, 2 x 40m non-resisted
3. 10 x 40m resisted

Speed Development Specific @ 3-8% difference

1. 1. 2 x 50m resisted, 2 x 20 meter “fly-in” run with 30-meter acceleration
2. 2. 2 x 50m resisted, 2 x 90m ins/outs
3. 3. 2 x 30m “fly-in” resisted run with first 25 meters on dolly, 3 x 30m “fly-in” non-resisted run

Two sets of pictures. Kinematically, there is very little (if any) difference between resisted and non-resisted.

Figure 1: Athlete resisted acceleration with 18.8 lbs/7.6 kg weight sled.

Figure 2: Athlete non-resistant acceleration.

Figure 3: Athlete vertical maximum velocity with 8.7 lbs / 3.7 kg weight sled. Touchdown is slightly in front of center of mass.

Figure 4: Non-resisted vertical maximum velocity.

Figure 5: Top view of custom made lightweight sled.

Figure 6: Side view of lightweight aluminum sled.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Roger White

“What does it take to be one of the top middle distance runners in the NCAA championships?” one of my runners asked. I was in the midst of helping her get recruited by colleges, and we were discussing her long-term goals. As a math teacher in addition to my coaching, I love numbers. Being the analytical type, I began a search to answer her question.

I’ve noticed that track and field history has a tendency to repeat itself. I do an analysis every year with my high school athletes to determine what performances will get them to the state finals podium. I looked into the NCAA championship results to see what is necessary to do the same thing at that next level.

As I scrolled through TFRRS, some trends appeared. Both the winning and 8th place times in the 800 and 1500 were consistent between 2011 and 2014. This took me to another question: Did any school dominate certain events, or did they simply have talented runners who repeatedly made it back to the championships?

One thing became clear: many Division 1 schools have recruiting time standards. Some want sub-2:15 800 runners, others sub-2:20, and so on. Could a high school girl who runs 2:20 in the 800 have a shot at contending for the national 800 championship in college? Could a 5:00 1600m/miler contend for the 1500 title? More interesting findings emerged as I entered the runners’ high school times. (Note: I compiled those high school times using Mile Split, Athletic.net, and their collegiate biographies. If an error appears, please send me the source of the information so I can correct it.)

What follows is a collection of data from the past four NCAA Championships official results page. Also included are assumed personal best times in the 1500 (or 1500 converted from the 1600 using the Mt. SAC table). I am making no claims, just presenting the data I could find on each athlete. Here is a link to the data set: College Middle Distance Time Progressions

Summarized Results

Avg HS time of the women in the data set:
800: 2:07 (2:01-2:17)
1500: 4:28 (4:14-4:59)

Schools represented most frequently
800m:
Oregon (2 athletes, 5 times)
LSU (2 athletes, 4 times)
Stanford (3 athletes, 4 times)

1500m:
Oregon (4 athletes, 7 times)
Florida State (4 athletes, 6 times)
Florida (2 athletes, 5 times)
Villanova (3 athletes, 4 times)
Arkansas (2 athletes, 3 times)
Georgetown (3 athletes, 3 times)

So what does it take to become an All-American?

Girls leaving high school to run in college face new challenges. The transition from home to a new environment, new people, new coaches, new roommates, studying, overall school stress, and new training philosophies can be tough.

For insights in dealing with these and other challenges, I contacted two professional runners who had been All-Americans during their collegiate careers: Geena Gall-Lara (4x All-American, 2×800 national champion at the University of Michigan, 2005–2009) and Amanda Mergaert (1500 All-American at the University of Utah, 2010–2013).

Mergaert was a low 18-minute cross country runner in high school and a 400/800 runner in track, clocking 2:15 and 59. She wasn’t highly recruited and wasn’t even sure she wanted to run collegiately until her senior year. Talking to college coaches who recruited her gave her the sense that she would likely move up to the 1500.

Transitioning to college was difficult both mentally and physically. She moved from Michigan to Utah, far from family and friends. She had to deal with a new training environment at altitude, something she had not experienced. Mergaert felt slow and tired during her first few months. “Everything seemed hard,” she said. She felt frustrated, and the hard runs beat her up day after day. Blood work later determined she had low iron levels, which helped explain part of the fatigue issues. Yet Mergaert feels that cross country was extremely beneficial. Once a week she would run at the track and the other sessions were at a local park. The break from being at the track and just going out and running helped her mentally.

Putting a bad freshman cross country season behind her and renewing her focus on the track season, she ran a huge personal best in her first indoor 800. At this point she felt the 800 would be her event. It wasn’t until later in the indoor season at the Mountain West Conference meet that she ran the mile. A coach had spotted her potential for success at the longer distance.

Cross country was relatively new for Gall-Lara. She had been a prep basketball player in addition to running track, only turning to cross country in her senior year. Her biggest challenge as a college freshman was the increase in mileage. Even the two-mile warm-up often felt like the actual workout. Her introduction to tempo runs and strength-based training provided additional challenges.

Making her transition even more difficult, Gall-Lara sprained her ankle running on trails just before cross country started in her freshman year. The injury also impacted her knee. Missing training with her new teammates was tough, as she felt she had been in great shape going into camp. With limited movement while dealing with the injury, she gained the “Freshman 15” which took some time to lose.

Mental and Physical Qualities

Physical strength and mental toughness play important roles in becoming a successful middle distance runner. Physically, Gall-Lara felt strength-based training helped her immensely. Mentally, confidence plays a huge role. Fear before races can often impact runners’ performances. Nervousness is normal for many runners, and it was no different for Gall-Lara. Preparing for a race, Gall-Lara fed off of pep talks from her family and support circle. Before a race, her dad said, “These girls are just as scared of you as you are scared of them.” This mindset helped ease her race day tension.

The warm-up area is where competitors often check each other out. For Gall-Lara, body language spoke volumes. The look in the eyes of the other runners can tell you so much. The mental battle begins.
As a junior Gall-Lara gained more confidence and her training went great. After winning the NCAA 800 title that year, her senior year presented itself with an additional challenge: the pressure of being a champion. Though she felt that she was still considered a dark horse, she stayed focused with her “eyes on the prize” and defended her title.

For Mergaert, having a short-term memory was crucial to being a successful middle-distance runner. As is the case with most runners, it was common for her to have good days and bad ones, good races and poor ones. She journaled after races, writing down three things she felt she did well along with three things she could improve on. Putting her thoughts on paper helped her quickly move on to the next focus point of the season.

Throughout her years at Utah, she learned the value of working smart versus working hard. She admits she didn’t value recovery days as much as she should have. The extra focus on recovery days allowed her to increase the intensity for the harder workout sessions in the week.
She was not a stranger to reaching out for help. She talked with a sports psychologist to help her mental preparation and race focus techniques. He not only had an understanding of track which helped her race and train, but also an outside perspective beyond teammates and coaches.

On race day, Mergaert admits she got slightly nervous, but in a good way. She felt confident that she had done all she could to do well that day.

Time Trial Races

As training progresses throughout the year, time trials or indicator workouts may be used to assess readiness. Gall-Lara’s go-to race preparation session was an all-out 2×300 time trial with 8 minutes rest, or an all-out 600 followed by a 200. She also gained confidence from seasonal race progressions and improvements in training sessions.

Mergraet felt prepared by doing a 400-400-400-300 session at race pace. Her coach often used non-race distance time trials, something for her to run hard and not get worked up over.

Specific Training Sessions

The 800 is an interesting event, as most competitors have both speed and endurance. Lara-Gall’s favorite workouts included repeat 200s with 30 seconds rest. An example would be 2-3 sets x (3×200) at race pace, or perhaps cut-down paces. Additional sessions might include 2x3x400 at race pace or faster, with short rest.

Mergaert felt that doing 600s helped her 1500. “They are the perfect distance combination of speed and duration,” she said. Her workout times helped her gauge fitness as the season progressed.

Tapering

NCAA season planning can be challenging as athletes have a conference championship, regional qualification rounds, and then the national championships. Tapering can be tricky in this situation. Mergaert’s coach would increase the intensity and drop the volume on those days, but increase the volume of the easy days to keep the same weekly levels.

Gall-Lara recalls doing one bigger workout 4-5 days out from the championships and then resting the rest of the week. An example might include a 150-200-300-250 ladder-type session.

Recovery

Another challenge at the NCAAs is running rounds over the course of several days. Recovery plays a key role, and the routines of both women in their NCAA days were similar. Post-race ice tub, flush-out massage, and post-race nutrition were key elements. They also used NormaTec Recovery Systems. Still another key for both was a balance of down time on off days, staying off their feet but not isolating themselves in their hotel rooms.

Racing Tactics

At high levels of competition, tactics play a huge role. Specific runners may also dictate tactics and positioning strategies, particularly if a runner is a fast starter. Gall-Lira liked to get out in front to be in qualifying position. In a race where positioning can change toward the end of the race, keeping composure and staying focused is often the difference. That was the case for Gall-Lara in the 2012 Olympic Trials. She moved up from 5th to 2nd to qualify for the London Olympics.

As a junior in the 1500 at NCAA Nationals, Mergaret ran a personal best time but was the first runner to finish out of qualifying, a sore subject to this day. She sat in the stands next to her sports psychologist watching the final. “Next year, this is you out there, running the last 100m at Hayward Field,” he told her. “Today, we start working towards finals next year. It all begins today.”

A runner who loves tactical races, Mergaert went through a short checklist going into each race as reminders. Key points for her involved covering moves at the predicted times in the race and having a specific goal for each lap. During her senior year, she had a series of good races and finished third in the NCAA 1500.

In the videos below, you’ll see Gall-Lara in her junior year positioning herself for a finishing move. Margreaet’s race took place when she was a senior. It started out at an incredibly slow pace (about 80 seconds, slower than the 5K pace) before things picked up. You’ll see her work her way through the other runners. With about 300m to go, she was tripped up but recovered enough to finish third with a final sprint.

Video 1. Geena’s junior year race at the 2008 NCAA Track & Field Women’s 800 Championship.

Video 2. Mergaert’s senior year race at the 2013 NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Women’s 1500 Meters Championship.

Advice to Young Runners

For young girls aspiring to be successful mid-distance runners, these runners offer great suggestions. Gall-Lara recommends writing down your dreams and goals, both short- and long-term and staying mentally strong, especially when dealing with poor races, injuries, and other situations that may occur. “It’s very up and down,” she said. “Don’t compare yourself to others. Instead, focus on you. Surround yourself with positive, supportive people. A good coach and training group are key.”

Like Gall-Lara, Mergraet believes in goal setting. Making yourself a student of the sport helps as well. Being a great teammate was a huge factor in her success, as well as helping others. One of the most important things is to fully believe in your coach. Be extremely committed to the sport, but don’t allow it to consume your life. Have friends outside of the sport to create a balance. “When you get to the start line, have the feeling you did everything you could to prepare for that day,” she said in summary.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Craig Pickering

Earlier this year, I wrote an article entitled “The Genetics of High-Performance Exercise.” It discussed the genetic components of being a sportsperson, as well as responses to exercise. The question “Can my genes determine my nutritional needs?” arose as a result. Here is a follow-up article illustrating how understanding your genes might be useful in two aspects of sports nutrition.

First off is caffeine, a well-established ergogenic aid, especially for endurance athletes. Its use is rife in all levels of sports (except for the NCAA). Caffeine can be so potent that it was banned in competition until WADA decided that policing the ban was nearly impossible.

I’ve experimented with various doses of caffeine to improve my own performance. I started by taking 80mg before a race, and then slowly increasing my dose until I got to the point that my performance was adversely affected. This point occurred at just over 200mg.

I’ve gone as high as 400mg, which was a miserable experience. I suffered from stomach cramps, my ears rang, and my peripheral vision disappeared. I simply couldn’t race. Some of my training partners, however, regularly use pre-race doses of up to 500mg without negative effects. Clearly, how people respond to caffeine reflects individual differences.

Traditional research typically compares the mean of a group exercising with no caffeine to the mean of a group using caffeine. That’s fine if you are the mean of the group. But what if you lie outside the mean? That’s why studies reporting subjects’ individual responses to caffeine are so interesting.

For example, take this study, “Ergogenic Effects of Low Doses of Caffeine on Cycling Performance.” The researchers put subjects through four 15-minute maximum cycle trials. In each trial, subjects either had a placebo or caffeine doses of 1mg/kg of bodyweight, 2mg/kg, and 3mg/kg.

The results show that caffeine supplementation pre-exercise is highly variable. For example, one subject performed worse in all the caffeine trials compared to the placebo. Another subject performed better than the placebo with 1mg caffeine/kg but worse at higher levels. A third found caffeine to be highly ergogenic, performing much better in all the trials.

What could cause these variations? My day job at DNAFit made me aware of a gene called CYP1A2. This gene creates an enzyme that handles over 95% of all caffeine metabolism in the body. A small change in this gene, called a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), between individuals results in two different types of people: fast caffeine metabolizers (AA homozygotes) and slow caffeine metabolizers (AC heterozygotes and CC homozygotes).

From a health standpoint, this knowledge can be important. For example, this study examined the interactions between the CYP1A2 genotype, caffeine intake, and the risk of heart attack. Over a ten-year period, researchers spent time in Costa Rica (it’s a hard life!), identifying more than 2,000 heart-attack survivors and 2,000 controls (who hadn’t had a heart attack). They questioned both groups about their coffee intake, using the responses to measure the quantity of caffeine the two groups consumed.

They found that heart attack risk slightly increases with each cup beyond the first. Then the researchers did something very interesting (to me, at least): they split the findings among fast and slow metabolizers. They found that increased risk of heart attack with higher coffee intakes essentially disappears among fast metabolizers. But among slow metabolizers, the risk becomes even greater with higher levels.

What does this research tell us about the effects on exercise performance? Unfortunately, there currently isn’t much research in this area. Because nutrigenetics is a fairly new science, the majority of funding goes to people most at risk—the highly obese, type II diabetics, etc. Understanding whether or not the CYP1A2 genotype affects exercise performance isn’t high on lists of priorities, no matter how much I selfishly wish it were.

In fact, I know of only one study looking at the effects of caffeine on exercise performance regarding the CYP1A2 genotype. “The influence of a CYP1A2 polymorphism on the genetic effects of caffeine,” Womack et al. (2012) took 35 male cyclists through two 40km time trials. In one trial, the cyclists took a placebo. In the second, they took 6mg of caffeine per kilogram of bodyweight. Both trials were double-blind—neither the people running the experiment nor the subjects knew whether they were taking the placebo or caffeine. The study found that fast metabolizers had greater performance improvements compared to the placebo than slow metabolizers. On average, the fast metabolizers improved by around 4 minutes with caffeine, compared to less than 1.5 minutes among slow metabolizers. Additionally, almost 95% of fast metabolizers improved by more than a minute compared to the placebo, while only 53% of slow metabolizers had similar improvements.

While this is just one study, it certainly is food for thought. With more research in this area, we might develop specific guidelines for caffeine use in both fast and slow metabolizers. I’m a slow metabolizer, and my experience told me I could tolerate less total caffeine than other people (who I assume were fast metabolizers).

I also found that having caffeine 75 minutes pre-race was better than having it an hour before. This is interesting because 60 minutes is often the time frame used in research and the general recommendation from sports nutritionists. Finally, taking more caffeine between a heat and a final decreased my performance—perhaps taking me over my performance threshold. In the future, athletes may not require this costly trial and error process. Instead, looking at their genes might provide a much better starting point when it comes to caffeine metabolism.

I’d also like to discuss Vitamin D. It was the supplement de jour in 2009 and 2010, so much so that my governing body, UKAthletics, made Vitamin D testing available to its athletes. UKAthletic decided that all athletes should have blood levels above 50nmol/l of Vitamin D, and, in fact, preferred them to be closer to 100nmol/l. So, I had a Vitamin D test in September 2009. It came back with a value of 55nmol/l, very close to the insufficiency cut-off point. I took 5000iu Vitamin D per day (a pretty high dose) and was considered “cured.”

A few years later, I had another Vitamin D test. My levels had increased to 84nmol/l—higher, but still below the 100nmol/l cut-off. However, my training partners had reached and even exceeded this cut-off, even though they were taking the same supplemental doses of Vitamin D as I was.

It turns out that a whole host of genes can affect responses to Vitamin D supplementation. Didriksen et al. (2013) found that supplementation with 40,000iu of vitamin D per week caused different changes in subjects, depending on their versions of these genes. So different people may need to have higher (or lower) amounts of vitamin D supplementation for the same effect.

Is this important? It turns out that polymorphisms in the Vitamin D receptor gene (VDR) may affect stress fracture risk. In this study, the researchers used subjects in the second phase of military training, and who as such were not novice exercisers. They then got 32 stress fracture patients and 32 controls and looked to see if there was any difference in VDR genotypes between them.

They found that carriers of the GG genotype were significantly more likely to be in the control group. Conversely, A-allele carriers were significantly more likely to be in the stress fracture group. This is potentially very useful. We might be able to identify people at risk of a stress fracture, and then provide nutritional (e.g. increased Vitamin D and calcium intakes) and lifestyle interventions to reduce this risk.

So, there you go. Not only do your genes determine how you respond to exercise, they can also have a big effect on your sports nutrition practices. While the research is in its infancy, we should gain further insights into how our genes affect our nutrition needs as time goes on, as well as a response to certain nutrients.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Chris Korfist

Editor’s Note: Chris Korfist will be teaching these and other speed training techniques at the Speed Activation Consotium in Lombard, Illinois on June 19 and 20. Other presenters at the consortium include Tony Holler, Cal Dietz, Jeol Smith, Dr. Kerry Egan, Dr. Tom Nelson, Dr. Kerry Heitkotter, Dr. Eric Janota, and Dan Fichter. Make your reservations today here.

“Sometimes, it is what you don’t play.”

Musicians throw this quote around quite a bit. I don’t know if it came from Miles Davis or Keith Richards or BB King, but it is a reference to what makes a musician great. Davis was talking about hitting just a few notes in his music, compared to many less-memorable jazz musicians who may play too many. Richards was talking about too many effects that would affect his tone.

Figure 1. Blues Musician BB King

And we all know BB King, one of the greatest guitarists of all time. Most of his solos are just five notes. Here they are. In most cases, people knew it was him in one note, hit just right.

AC/DC can groove on one note better than anyone. Or a true musical genius can put “simply too many notes” in music and still make them work, like Mozart (in a quote from the movie Amadeus). Eddie van Halen also found a way as well. But how often do you go back and listen to Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, or Dream Theater—all his equals? They are terrific musicians, but their music doesn’t seem to stay with you.

Figure 2. The five notes of BB King.

Why my musical rant? Recently, an athlete quit our track team. Of course, he didn’t come to me about it but talked to another coach instead. (See, I have the same problems as the rest of you .) He said he could do all of the stuff at home that we do at practice. I thought about what he said. While it may be true, the real magic is knowing when to do any given exercise and when not to. Like the above analogy, the good ones know what to play and when, while the others throw everything into the mix.

To start with, what is essential to your sport? What are you trying to do? Track? That is easy: run or jump. Football? Basketball? They are all sports of movement and explosion. So, more of the same, with agility added into the mix. Break that down further and start looking at movement patterns. Once an athlete has mastered the basic movement pattern, add some complexity.

Take, for example, the ankle rocker and foot complex. We start with basic exercises, like a simple single-leg shallow squat with the toes pulled back. Once the athlete reaches the appropriate depth, we may add uneven surfaces, closed eyes, or just one closed eye. At this point, we start moving with shuffle walks or stair climbs.

All of this will build into ankle rocker jumps and starts. While building on the advanced exercises, we add multidirectional movements, such as single-leg squats with the feet turned out but the knee not tracking the toes. The downfall of a fast straight-ahead sprinter may occur when they have a good range of motion with the knee over the toe, but they break down when they lack the range of motion in another direction.

My track team had a similar experience with workouts this year. Because my sprinters are football players, I had to keep some upper body lifting. But we mostly got rid of lower body lifting because our goal was to run fast.

There is a caveat to this statement. We are a small school with limited facilities. We used the kBox once a week. Because I only have two kBoxes and 30 guys, we kept it to just squats and RDLs to get people through. The rest of our workouts were flys or starts in short hallways. On the few relatively warm days early in the year (above 40 degrees), we went outside to run 150s or 23-second runs. Once the weather truly warmed up, we changed to perfect 40 workouts and 150s. The perfect 40 starts with small segments of a 40-yard dash and gradually expands. So we start with a block 10 and fly 10 and move out to 20s. Then a block 30 and fly 10, which of course eventually turns into a 40-yard dash.

Here are the results. These were all timed electronically with a touch pad and a beam. The average improvement is 0.20 over a 16-week period. I had similar results with a football team of 70 players which I will write about when we finish the cycle. These results aren’t from all of the fancy exercises that I know. I cut it down to the bare essentials of what I needed and stayed with it until I didn’t need it any more. Prime time runs are great, but why do them if the athlete is already displaying what the drill is intended to do? So, the results are from what you don’t do, which sometimes includes doing nothing.

I think this situation is layered into another group I am currently working with: 16-year-old traveling basketball players. This is a great group of guys who come once a week to work out with me. Of course, jumping, first-step quickness, and agility are their goals. As I do with everyone, we measure weekly.

But unlike most of my athletes, they aren’t going up at the same rate that I usually get. Their lack of improvement concerned me and I learned that they play at least once every day of the week. They practice with their high school team on Tuesday and Thursdays at 6 in the morning. Their evening schedule includes practice for their AAU team, individual coaching, and shoot-arounds.

Their weekend includes a travel schedule more grueling than NCAA or NBA teams. They play games at a number of locations, some of which require extensive driving. A few also play football, which adds still more time to their already busy sports schedules.

And let’s not forget about school. Throw in some AP tests. And at do we have in music? I think it would sound like some atonal, dissonant composer, like Edgard Varèse.

It is too much. Fatigued reps are worthless. Will they be better basketball players if they stay on this schedule, where they don’t improve athletically and play tired all of the time and in some cases get injured? Or, can they sacrifice some gassers, full-court runs, and a few games to concentrate on athletic development and ballhandling skills? Or an even different idea: work on visual training? If a player can’t see the floor, he can’t be nearly as effective. Regardless, these athletes need some rest. It is what they are not going to do that will make them better players/athletes.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Craig Pickering

I’ve contributed articles to this website for nearly a year, and it has been a very worthwhile experience. I have discovered a wealth of interesting information, tried to understand how best to implement it, and organized my thoughts on a wide range of subjects. I think more of you coaches should join me in this worthwhile pursuit.

Here are eight compelling reasons.

Writing keeps you honest

Do you have a good idea about training? A specific method you implement with your athletes? Why not subject it to a peer-review process by putting it out there for people to read and provide feedback? You’ll soon find out whether readers agree with you. Because the internet removes face-to-face interaction, people can be quite honest!

It’s also a great opportunity to see if others utilize your ideas, or if they might do things differently. Their feedback may prompt you to refine your methods or techniques, and perhaps even find completely new directions to consider.

Writing increases the exchange of ideas

Everyone has ideas: the best ways to train, the best diets, the best ways to prepare athletes for competition. If everyone kept such ideas to himself or herself, the coaching world would have far fewer choices. By writing articles, you’ll be contributing to the ongoing conversation regarding training approaches and physical preparation. After all, if you’re using other people’s ideas, it only seems fair to add some of your own. As a bonus, you will learn a lot in the process.

Writing helps you remember

How many times have you read a good book or research article, decided that the key points are useful to you and your coaching, but then forgot to implement those ideas? Writing down key points and engaging in conversations about them helps you recall and revisit the key areas. So when I read something that I find useful, putting what I’ve learned into an article helps me remember it.

Writing improves your communication skills

Communication is one of your most vital skills as a coach. You need to communicate your ideas to your athletes in ways they can understand and retain. Effective communication is not always easy to master. It is also individualized—people can respond to the same information in different ways.

Writing provides the opportunity to improve your communication skills by passing along ideas and information in a useable format. You can also utilize different writing styles to see if one method is more effective than another in dealing with especially complex topics.

Writing gives you reasons to research

Researching different aspects of training and performance can be interesting, and (for me at least) enjoyable. But let’s face it—we’re all busy. Finding the time (and a reason) to carry out this research can be tough. Writing articles gives you a reason (or an excuse) to carve out the necessary time to research areas of interest. And who knows? You might find new information that contradicts some of your long-held beliefs. In addition, constant research keeps you up-to-date with the latest cutting-edge thinking. Updating their understanding of lactic acid is one place where all track coaches should start!

Writing increases your visibility, and can improve your reputation

What if you have a bunch of really good ideas, but no one hears them? Nobody would know that you are a good coach! Recognition of your coaching ability can attract high-quality athletes. Getting your ideas out can also lead to speaking engagements or even job offers. Your growing reputation, in turn, fosters opportunities to improve your learning even more.

Writing can organize your thoughts

Can you accurately sum up your thoughts and beliefs on hamstring injuries in sprinters? What exercise(s) should sprinters do to reduce their risk of these injuries? Should endurance athletes do plyometrics? Why? What’s more important in athletics—genes or environment? How can sleep affect your performance?

I have researched and written about all these issues for this website. As a result, my thoughts and beliefs on these topics are clearly organized. In turn, this clear organization better informs my training and coaching practices. You’d be surprised at how often you don’t actually know your opinion on something (or, in fact, how little you might know about a subject) until you start putting your thoughts into writing.

Writing can monitor your growth as a coach

Four years ago, I had a brief stint writing articles for a different website. I thought I was smart, and I wrote like I knew everything. A few people tore me to shreds for this attitude, forcing me to step back and look at my thoughts and how I was presenting them. This self-examination wasn’t particularly enjoyable. The result: I took a break from writing for three years (so I wouldn’t recommend it!), but it was useful.

Looking back, I cringe at some of the things I wrote during this period. My interpretation of evidence was weak, I wasn’t doing the right kinds of research— nothing was quite what it should have been.

Despite my embarrassment, I’m proud of how far I’ve come. I could quite easily delete those early articles, though I choose not to. I made this decision for many reasons, one of which is that it’s proof of how much better I’ve become over the last few years. But please don’t try to find them!

There you have it— eight reasons why writing articles and blogs can be useful to you as a coach or trainer. So why not start today? Pick a subject, do some research, and put it out there. And enjoy the experience!

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Kyle Uptmore

I never imagined that I would be asked to help a private company at the NFL Scouting Combine earlier this year. I have watched the Combine ever since I started playing football at age 13. That gave me a great idea of the kind of measurables it takes to be in the NFL, and there’s even more behind the scenes that the media never talks about. I spent 6-8 weeks with a group of fifteen prospects prior to the Combine. That gave me the chance to know these guys pretty well, and I learned a lot of things about the evaluation process. The average person would be surprised at how extensively these players are evaluated during the scouting process leading up to the draft and at the event itself.

How Are Players Evaluated Aside from Athletic Ability?

Like most sporting events such as track and field, prospects have the opportunity to peak for the Combine. Of course there are still many outside stressors that could hinder them from performing at their maximum capability: travel, interrupted sleep schedules, missing meals, social issues, and so on. Most can be controlled with strong discipline and a coach’s help.

However, NFL teams and scouts create additional stressors before and during the Combine. It seems as if they want to see how prospects will respond mentally and physically to the rigorous evaluation process. They want to know everything about the players they are about to invest millions of dollars in.

The Combine starts at the hospital. Everyone undergoes an MRI or X-ray scan, whether or not they have had knee or shoulder injuries during their collegiate careers. This is to eliminate the chance that they unknowingly have had an injury or if they are trying to hide one. An outside linebacker I worked with prior to the Combine had experienced two ACL tears In college. During the examination, the doctors cranked on his knee to test his ACL strength to the point where he felt a lot of pain. Other prospects told me that the doctors tried to break them. The evaluation also consisted of the old-school Cybex knee extension/flexion test. Some prospects stayed up past midnight to complete this process.

No matter how late they were up the night before, prospects had to be up at 5am to start team meetings and interviews, as well as the 225-pound bench press. There didn’t seem to be an itinerary or schedule to follow when it came to meeting with teams. Many prospects randomly met with up to ten different teams. They were asked a lot of questions, with the most common being “Who do you compare yourself to in the NFL?” These interviews could last up to midnight.

Again the prospects were expected to wake up at 5am on the third day for the Combine workout. Many told me that they hadn’t had a chance to eat anything for 5-6 hours at some point. These circumstances certainly aren’t ideal for performing at optimal levels.

The Role of the Sports Performance Coach at the NFL Scouting Combine

Training for the Combine typically begins 6-8 weeks beforehand, depending on when the prospects’ seasons have ended. ESPN and the NFL Network often feature behind-the-scenes training of the prospects working with sports performance coaches during this preparation period. But what isn’t commonly featured is the role of these coaches at the Combine itself.

They can play a vital role in helping the prospects. When prospects arrive in Indianapolis, it would be ideal for them to receive physiotherapy treatment and do a shake-out session in the pool or on the bike to unload the joints and restore proper function after they have been sitting for so longIn many cases, such sessions didn’t occur due to the long hours they had to put in. The day before the Combine testing, it is best to do a potentiation-like session. The following morning—when the testing actually takes place—the prospects would receive some last-minute physiotherapy and take pre-workout stimulants.

Not every athlete invited to the Combine participates in every event. They may not be prepared, are injured, or have a lot to lose by performing. I heard a couple of retired NFL veterans say they aren’t in favor of the athletes having any choice in the matter, and that it’s not fair to those who aren’t invited and therefore have to prove themselves in other ways. They added that the league has became much “softer” in general since they played ~5-10 years ago. They didn’t quite understand the mentality of teaching current players to stay off the field when they aren’t 100%. Of course, they talked about how they played with broken ribs, separated shoulders, and other significant injuries. This is a separate topic, and probably due to a more active monitoring approach.

Coaches and agents told me that this was the first year when standard electronic timing systems were used in timing the 40yd dash. One agent told me that in previous years they took the average of several different hand times to standardize results. Many prospects were around a tenth of a second slower than their training hand times had been but were more similar to the electronic times we had from using the Speedlight timing system. I believe the agility tests were still handtimed.

Why Is the Combine Held in Indy Every Year?

Indianapolis is set up to provide very short commutes from Lucas Oil Stadium to the hospitals, hotels, and other training facilities, as well as being relatively close to the airport. All prospects stay at the Crowne Plaza. Right behind it is the Omni Hotel, where all of the media and marketers stay and which is also the site of an expo. This expo is much like what you would see at any big-time fitness event. It has booths for companies to market and sell products such as supplements, weight vests, knee sleeves, performance apparel, and so forth to the prospects. Nike and Adidas have suites for prospects and NFL employees to play Madden, enjoy snacks, and get free haircuts. Large performance training companies such as EXOS have suites to provide physiotherapy and potentiation/shake-out sessions. It is a big opportunity for these companies to market to agents how they can help the prospects perform at high levels.

The biggest takeaway from my experience at the NFL Combine was the importance of outside help for the prospects. These guys go through a lot more stress than I had anticipated. It takes a knowledgeable coach to be there for them and prepare them for anything that comes their way as they prepare for the Combine and go through all the testing.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Chris Korfist

“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” – Mark Twain

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

“Cognitive psychology tells us that the unaided human mind is vulnerable to many fallacies and illusions because of its reliance on its memory for vivid anecdotes rather than systematic statistics.” – Steven Pinker

It is getting close to camp time, which means coaches get out their stopwatches and time 40s. I am always amazed at what I hear. High school athletes strut around and claim 4.4s or 4.5s like they are an everyday occurrence. But these are 15- and 16-year-old adolescents. More often than not— in fact almost all of the time—the math doesn’t seem to add up.

The athlete with a 24-inch vertical jump doesn’t run a 4.4. A 55m sprinter who runs a 6.9 FAT doesn’t run a 4.4. An 11.5 100m dash does not equate to a 4.4. It is mathematically impossible for an athlete to run that time and still get a 4.4. Yet that is what I hear. I think that track is catching on with college recruiters because it is easy to see who truly is fast. Timers don’t lie. Electronic timers provide facts. A 4.4 is a statistic or other things according to Mark Twain, who ran 4.47 in Clinton, Iowa, in 1871. A 4.4 is an illusion for most. So let’s look at this magical number more closely.

How the 40 is being timed is the first question that needs to be asked. The only measure that makes sense to me is a true electronic-to-electronic timer. Athletes start the clock when their hand comes off a touchpad, and stopit when their bodies break an electronic barrier of some sort. That is the most exact method I can think of (such as Freelap timers).

Even the NFL combine is slightly off. Scouts sitting near the finish line manually start each player. To my knowledge, there is no research on the time difference between purely electronic and combine style. In track, the conversion between FAT and handheld in a 55mm dash is .24 seconds. From that point, it is the Wild West.

Two different papers in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning found that hand timing is significantly faster than electronic timing. In both papers, the researchers claim that the handheld timers were experienced. I am guessing that means they practice with electronic timers to see how close they get to its results. In the 2010 paper, the differences between the timers ranged from .14 to .19. The result was a difference between .22 and .31 between pure electronic and hand-held (personally, I range from .24 to .3 with the Freelap). That is a substantial difference in a world that lives in the hundredths. Now, throw in high school coaches using their thumbs to stop the watch or their cell phones, and numbers can be crazy and incredibly inaccurate. And how many of those coaches have not timed a 40 since the previous summer? I can see 4.4 in this scenario.

The next variables are shoes and surfaces. There are huge differences in time when these are added. When we run fly 10s, the range when athletes wear spikes or flats is from .03 to .06. My faster runners have bigger differences. Stretch that out 20 more yards and those hundredths start to add up. This does not take into account the start, when athletes need the most traction. I have no numbers for this because everyone always seems to remember to bring spikes on start days.

Surfaces make a huge difference too. A hot, hard track is always faster than poorly groomed turf, a basketball court, or the parking lot. Training shoes don’t do so well on a basketball floor.

What brings me to this rant is the fact that most high school athletes think they should be running incredible times. But their numbers don’t match reality. I have an NFL player who plays slot, gunner, and anti-gunner. He has run 4.47 and 4.48 for three NFL teams. His current team told him that he is their 3rd fastest. He ran 40s on an old track in 4.71 on the Freelap. (His Nike Frees are about the worst shoe you can run in. They tip your foot forward and cause your forefoot to jam into the ground, hence becoming a brake.) At the same time, same practice, my best sprinter (10.83 FAT) ran a 4.51 40 in spikes. Is one faster than the other? They are close, but on this day, with different shoes, they were different.

Now the dose of reality. These are positional averages for NFL combines from 2007 to 2012, thanks to Wikipedia. Remember, being the best in each position usually has some correlation with speed.

These are hand-started, beam-finished averages. That means for each WR who runs a 4.4, another runs a 4.7. And your fastest guys rarely weigh more than 190 pounds. So, if you’re a running back or wide receiver with a 4.4, welcome to the top of the class!

What are some good markers for HS athletes? My base workout distance is 10m. I like meters because athletes focus too much on trying to convert to a 40 time rather than on finding top speed. Anything under 1.0 in the fly 10 is really good for a high school athlete. My best HS athlete’s time was .95. If they are slightly over 1.0, they can still run a 4.4/4.5. The start is a huge component. In fact, most NFL 4.4s have great starts but never stand up for top-end speed. Your sub-4.4s are the ones who can transfer from acceleration to top-end speed.

Our starts are in yards. Guys who end up running decent times can go under 3 seconds electronically in the 20yd and 4 seconds in the 30yd. Those are realistic marks for good high school athletes. Any high school athlete under 5.0 in a 40 electronic is fast.

Now, this is all only relevant if you are truly interested in seeing your players get faster and checking if your program is making athletes faster. You don’t have to share these times with the college recruiters. Let them figure it out on their own, or subtract 0.3 from their best Freelap 40.

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Ken Jakalski

In 2007, I was one of seven finalists for the National High School Coaches Association Track Coach of the Year. At the awards ceremony in Milwaukee, each finalist gave a presentation. Only two of us delivered PowerPoints delving into the technical and assessment aspects of the sport. The five other discussed things like program building, recruitment strategies, and team development activities. One of them said afterward that I had lost him when I clicked a button and a video appeared on the screen.

At first, I thought I had gone far deeper into the science of speed training than anyone else in that room. I prided myself on having a friendly working relationship with several top researchers in human locomotion. I thought I had a clear edge on my colleagues, who seemed to rely more on the “fluffy stuff” to build their programs.

Eight years later, I’m not so sure that I should have dismissed “fluff” as a key contributor to their athletes’ success. After all, they clearly boasted far superior pedigrees than I did relative to career wins, conference and state championships, individual event champions, and state and national record holders. As the bios of the six other finalists were read during the banquet, my wife even turned to me and asked, “Why are you here?”

Thanks to my good friends at SomaSimple, I’ve come to understand the bio-psycho-social aspect of physical therapy. As one member pointed out, “If counseling therapy is about psycho-social matters, physical therapy adds the bio to “psycho-social.”

It’s probably been the psycho-social aspect of coaching high school track and field that I’ve distanced myself from over the years. That may have been a mistake.

I use LYNX ReacTime to assess my athletes’ reactions to the starting command and their times to 10 or 20 meters. It’s a nice piece of equipment that has provided me with some good information and detailed analyses of my sprinters’ reactivity and acceleration. However, they hate the sound of the automated starting commands coming from the unit. After one or two trials, they are more focused on mocking the guy’s voice than on the data from their starts.

I like to run ASR sessions in distance covered over a specific time. As we’re getting close to the state sectional meet, I might click off the scoreboard clock to buy a second or two in order for an athlete to achieve his or her training goal. It may result in an honest evaluation of that athlete’s workout. But if it gives them the confidence they need going into the sectional 1600, is it wrong to choose “psyche” over “science”?

The legendary Jim Santos spoke many years ago at a coaching clinic with not more than seven attendees. Jim gathered us together and spent a considerable amount of time discussing the human or “social” aspect of track and field. It was one of the best clinic sessions I ever attended.

He talked about his daughter, a C/D student whom he felt could improve her grades if she found something to motivate her. When she decided on her own to come out for track, he was thrilled. Her event of choice was the discus. As an internationally recognized authority in the sport, Jim purposefully tried to distance himself from his daughter’s involvement, thinking she didn’t need that kind of pressure. But she started to do well in the event, throwing over 110 feet despite very bad technique and instruction from a coach who, as Jim noted, “didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.” He decided to step in.

Jim was coaching the great Ben Plucknett at the time and thought his daughter would benefit from training sessions with a world record-holder. But after a few sessions with Ben, her marks began to decline. Jim realized that what motivated his daughter to perform well was her desire to please a young coach genuinely interested in her improvement, even though that he had no clue how to teach the discus.

Sometimes, for all our careful monitoring of performance fluctuation and ability to assess neural drive, strength gain, and CNS fatigue, the improvements we see in our athletes may be the result of something we are doing—or not doing—which has a very powerful placebo effect.

Christopher Glaeser and I have swapped stories about the lengths to which we have gone to help relieve our own kids from debilitating shin splits. In my son’s case, he had expensive sessions with DPM’s, orthos specializing in sports medicine, two different sets of orthotics, magnets, TheraBand, and other strengthening concepts such as the D.A.R.D.—Dynamic Axial Resistance Device.

The only thing that actually worked in getting him through one football game or one track meet to the next was a trip to an area massage therapist noted for treating Scottie Pippen’s back issues during the Chicago Bulls’ run of championships.

I don’t know what made the difference. The actual treatments, or the belief that what had worked for Scottie Pippen would work for him—that he was in the hands of someone who knew how to make him pain-free.

Tony Holler is a firm believer in the benefits of Muscle Activation Techniques and refers to me as skeptical. That is indeed accurate. But I can’t dismiss his confidence in the technique, and how that confidence may influence the athletes he is training.

At our Top Times Indoor Championship meet, I heard a coach talking to one of his athletes who had just run an excellent time.

“Did the Muscle Activation stuff help?” he asked.

“I think so,” said the athlete replied.

And maybe the best explanation for it is related to something Shakespeare noted in Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Please share this article so others may benefit.

By Roger White

The Idea

At the Canadian Speed and Power Conference in November 2014, I listened attentively to Coach Dan Pfaff and absorbed every word he said. One of Dan’s many stories involved resilience and contingency planning. In simple terms, it involves making “what if this happens?” plans. As an example, Dan asked, “What happens in the pole vault if you start the competition with a tail wind and the sun is out? But then the wind turns, and it starts raining. What do you do?” In other words, how can you develop contingency plans?

Dan shared the story of long jumper Greg Rutherford at the London Olympics. Dan knew the jumps would go in a certain direction for TV purposes. He knew the wind direction that would likely occur when jumping in that direction. In the competition, Dan stated that the field averaged four fouls while Greg had zero. Dan said Greg was likely only the 4th best jumper in the field. But he was the best jumper that day, in large part due to resilience and contingency planning.

I’ve always left conferences with the mindset that I will take the information presented and apply it to my situation the best I can. So here’s how I utilized Dan’s contingency plan concept this past season with two athletes I coached at our high school state finals.

Challenges of High School Meets

Coach-athlete accessibility

I would guess that many, if not most, high school track teams have dual meets, tri-meets, and weekend invitational or relay-style meets. Coaches usually have access to the entire facility during these meets, even if announcements are made to “stay out of the infield.” As a result, coaches at these meets, especially distance coaches, hug the track yelling splits (I’m often warned for running back and forth from the finish line to the 200m mark to keep up with my runners.)

But at championship meets, security personnel at the track entrances only let athletes through. The trackhugging split yellers now have to go into the stands or creatively find the closest, least crowded area to do their race rituals. The accessibility of the coaches to their athletes has changed.

Racing tactics

My top athletes may go all season without being challenged much, and if they are, only by one or two others. Enter championship meets. Every athlete is essentially of similar ability (there are usually a few exceptions who stand out). How does this impact race tactics? If a distance runner is accustomed to sitting on the leader and outkicking them, will this work at state? How will sprinters who often do much better in their second race of the day run knowing that their first race is really their “final” in order to advance? What planning must the coach and athlete do to handle these situations?

Weather & extreme temperatures

Another issue I face in Michigan is our crazy spring weather. Typically my track is covered with 12 inches of snow and ice every March when the season starts. I’ve shoveled hundreds of meters of track and had the team walk around to pack it down to speed up the melting process (and yes that did work for us this year). We even tried using snow blowers but got into some trouble with the school. Then as April comes, the weather “warms” to maybe 50F. Those of you in warm states are probably laughing, but the reality is that at 50F, our kids have their shirts off and are ready to hit the beaches!

Figure 1: First day of practice. Track is covered with snow. Had to get out the shovels and brooms.

May brings frequent wet weather and increasingly warm temperatures leading to our end of May/early June state finals, often with 80F+ temps. Physiology tells us it takes a few weeks to acclimate to the heat, and every year I see kids underperform in the heat at this meet. How do the coach and athletes handle the environmental aspect of the meet?

How we developed and practiced contingency plans

Dealing with the weather

As this past season progressed, one of my girls looked to be a near-guarantee for state finals in the 1600 and/or the 800, and another one in the 100mH and 300mH. In early May, the weather began to warm, and Dan’s words “what if?” rang in my head. The previous season, my girls 4×400 team qualified for state finals (the last event, usually around 4 pm in the afternoon). The weather prediction was “hot,” but it had been cool all season. I had them wear sweatshirts during the week leading up to state. It wasn’t ideal, but better than nothing. Even if this tactic had no physiological benefit, there was perhaps a mental one. The girls had done “heat training” to prepare.

This year, I decided to get a jump on things. We started wearing these clothes four weeks out. Sure enough, 80-degree weather came in early May, and my distance runner was wearing sweats. (Without going into much detail, athletes who exercise in high temperatures have slight changes in their body cooling process often resulting in slower performances, particularly in the aerobic events.) Her first workout was ugly. Though she met the desired times, it took considerable effort and she pretty much collapsed afterward. I reminded her that she would be happy she did all this when she had to run in hot weather at state.

Eliminating my “track-hugger split-yeller” side

During the year, I video recorded as many races as I could, particularly the sprints, relays, and field events. The distance events would get split results following the race, so everyone left with “something.” Knowing the scenario we would have at state finals with limited access and overcrowded areas, I decided to video the distance events from the stands and see how my distance runner raced without my doing diagonal sprints across the field or yelling times she likely wasn’t going to hear anyway. We did this for a few meets and had some great race debriefing dialogs (another one of Coach Pfaff’s topics).

Pre-race planning meetings

She eventually qualified in the 1600 and 800, with the 1600 her better event. She was ranked in the middle of the field, and needed a huge race to be in medal contention. As it approached, we talked several times about what type of race it was going to be. I knew that at meets like this, kids take the first lap way too fast. I didn’t want to talk too much and create increased anxiety for her, but eventually we watched the 1600 from a previous meet. As history often shows, there will likely be a few front runners, and then everyone else. In the everyone-else pack, some will maintain form and some will fall apart at the end.

In our pre-race chat at the hotel the night before, we discussed positioning off the cut line, where I would be standing, and what I would be yelling to her, hoping she could hear me. We even planned out—and had practiced in previous meets—her recovery leading up to her 800 about 60 minutes after her 1600. We had gone over what would happen if she finished in medal position, or if she didn’t. The last thing I wanted was her wandering around the infield when we could be doing post-race recovery on a limited time schedule.

The pre-race chat with the hurdler was a bit different. In the 300 she was ranked towards the bottom. So not much pressure there, just run fast and have fun. In the 100, she was middle of the field and would need an incredible race to advance to the finals. All season, she was always faster on her second run, so I had to account for that. Also, I knew that warm-ups at the start line are always congested, with 40 or so athletes trying to do their drills, warmups, and starts. Many of them get frustrated as coaches and other athletes cut across the track and often collide with each other. To avoid this, we talked about moving down the track to the finish line area where she could do her warmup free from any congestion.

Both runners and I also discussed transportation to the meet. The hurdler ran early, and the distance runner much later. They would get separate rides and had different wake-up times as well. We discussed their breakfast needs. My advice is always, “eat what you have always eaten on our Saturday meet days.” The last thing I want is a kid to eat a “Grand Slam Breakfast” combo because we are staying at a hotel when all season they only ate bananas for breakfast.

The last thing we discussed—and it was a bit of a curveball— was the weather. The prediction called for thunderstorms and rain all day, with temps in the 60s. So the warm weather stuff was for naught but certainly wasn’t a bad thing. The “curveball” was the potential for weather-related delays. The girls had never been in a meet when this happened. Many athletes and coaches try to time warmups based on race start times. A weather delay would throw a wrench into those plans.

I used to be one of those coaches. I tried to have athletes time their warmups, so their last fast run was “X” amount of time before their race, and so on. It rarely worked. Starters’ guns wouldn’t work (add another 5 minutes). Clerking issues would arise (add another few minutes). Sometimes, even the finish line timing system wouldn’t work (still another few minutes), and out goes my high-powered “potentiation warmup” plan.

My athletes’ warmups now are simple, require no timing, and in the odd case of delays, don’t mess them up physically or mentally. So I talked to the girls about how to mentally handle delays if they happened and told them to enjoy watching how others freak out at the thought of having to warm up again!

How things played out

As forecast, the weather that day was 60-degree temperatures and rain, a light drizzle increasing to a near downpour for segments and then drizzling again. There were no thunderstorms or delays.

The hurdler warmed up according to our plans, with no hitches. I extended her warmup time and intensity to have a “race #1” effect so her actual race would be like her second. We did have to head to the start line area to do block starts. And yes, four girls shared one lane and at my suggestion, rotated two starting blocks to speed things up, while the 100m runners did starts between lanes of hurdles with the 110mH guys zipping through as well. We did our starts, and she just chilled until her race was called, just like she usually did.

She ended up running a 0.3 second PR and finishing 10th, just missing the top-8 mark by 0.06 seconds. For her, contingency planning worked well, even though she came up a bit short of qualifying.

As the 1600 approached, my other runner went through her usual warmup, pre-race stretch out, and strides and then checked in. I was in the top corner of turn one where it wasn’t too crowded.

Figure 2: My position at the race looking up at the stands and all the umbrellas in the rain.

The gun went off. She ran her target time for the first lap and was right with the pack. Of course, a group of about 12 girls (all with 1600 times above 5:00) ran sub-70. I yelled her place. Lap two and she hit target pace again. I yelled her place once more and told her to chase a color jersey: “Go for Green!” Lap three and I did the same. She was gaining on girls and passed a few. Eighth was a possibility, but the gap was too large coming off the final turn. She finished 11th, with a 5-second PR. Though her place wasn’t as high as we had hoped, she did run incredibly well.

We had a post-race chat in the pouring rain on the way to our team tent. She said she could hear me on the first lap, and “kind of” on the second, but nothing afterward. When I said I was yelling for her to chase colors, she responded, “That would have been a great idea, but you kinda forgot to tell me you were going to say that. I had no idea what you meant.” I had made up some plans as we went along, but she had no idea what I was saying. Lesson learned.

Debrief

Although these stories pertain specifically to me, I am sure they resonate with coaches everywhere. We all have unique situations. As coaches, we want our athletes to perform well when it counts most. Have we done our job to prepare them for what they will face?

Please share this article so others may benefit.