Exercise Selection Criteria: Building Strength & Muscle

            Standards are important. While this is true in many ways, this is especially true within fitness because your choices are virtually limitless. In this now century-old industry, we need ways to navigate the good from the bad, or at least the better from the worse, as things are rarely ever that black and white. Therefore, strong criteria for great decision-making within all of the chaos is highly useful if not completely necessary. Luckily, a large proportion of the available scientific literature in exercise science pertains specifically to the comparison of nearly every programming variable. This allows us to confidently establish these high-quality criteria:

            Exercise Selection Criteria:

            1.   Targeted.

            2.   Scalable.

            3.   Large Range of Motion.

            4.   Strong Force-Profiles.

            5.   Low Complexity.

            Targeted—this first criterion is quite simple. An exercise should be accurately targeted towards a specific muscle or small muscle group. Furthermore, that muscle or muscle group should be the limiting factor when a given set approaches muscular failure. Without the precision of selecting a well-targeted exercise, we tend to lose both specificity and overload. Common errors specific to failing to meet this criterion are selecting exercises that are either combinational/multiphasic or poly-articular—involving too many joints and joint actions. Overcomplicated movements tend to lose their targeted adaptation.

            Scalable—our next criterion requires the exercise’s level of intensity to be virtually limitless. An exercise must be able to be both progressed as well as regressed when necessary. While it is possible to scale exercises well qualitatively, it should be considered an added benefit if an exercise lends itself well to quantitative loading (especially micro-loading). The value of this criterion stems from progressive mechanical tension (see: overload) being the primary mechanism for developing the muscular system. Being able to quantify tension (even if indirectly) and progression of tension over time is required to assure long-term goals are achieved.

            Large Range of Motion—this one has two important components. First, high-quality exercises should have movement consisting of both concentric and eccentric muscular contractions (think: lifting and lowering phases). Isolated isometrics (muscular contraction without any movement) are significantly inefficient. Any unique benefit they may possess can be gained from programming them into conventional repetitions (e.g., w/ tempo’s & pauses). Secondly, these movements should be relatively large. The size of a movement may be viewed as either total displacement of load (i.e., work = force x distance) or performed angular work (torque x angular displacement). The total displacement perspective typically works better for compound/multi-joint movements while the angular work perspective is more appropriate for isolation/single-joint movements. Regardless, exercises with relatively high ranges of motion are generally superior to low-range or no-range options.

            Strong Force-Profiles—another complex, multi-component criterion. First, selected exercises should fall on the appropriate side of the force-velocity curve (the high-force, low-velocity side). High-velocity exercises like running, jumping, throwing, striking, and anything with minimized force-contact times are poor choices for the purposes of muscular strength and development. Secondly, the resistance curve of an exercise (either ascending, descending, bell-shaped, or even flat) should either maximize force through as much range of motion (again) as possible or aim to maximize force at a targeted (again) muscle length and joint angle. This is considerably nuanced with much more to be expounded (e.g., stretch-biased force curves). Lastly, the force-profile and range of motion criteria conjoin to dictate that a high-quality muscular strength/growth exercise’s primary lever crosses a sticking point threshold (the point by which the resistance is maximized).

            Low Complexity—this dictates that a selected exercise be relatively lowly technical for the nervous system. Generally, the greater the amount of skill required from the nervous system, the lesser the ability of the exercise to generate muscular adaptation. As coordination demands increase, the ability for muscles to produce high levels of force decreases. While skill and complexity can come from already discussed areas from the targeted criterion (e.g., combinational, multiphasic, poly-articular/planar movements), other areas like learning curves, kinetic chain, and stability come into play here. Steep learning curves and long kinetic chains are unnecessarily complex and will slow or even halt the acquisition of muscular development goals (i.e., using the snatch exercise for quadriceps development is extremely inefficient). The biggest mistake is with regards to balance & stability. Simply stated, exercises should be performed on stable ground, with stable loads, and without any external perturbation. Any added instabilities will slow and quickly stop all strength and development progress due to the inverse relationship between coordination and muscular force production.

            To briefly conclude, an exercise selected for the purposes of strength and hypertrophy (muscle growth) should meet the criteria of being well-targeted, easily scalable, large in range of motion, strong in its respective force profiles, and lowly complex for the nervous system. Additionally, any exercise selections should also fit well into a greater structured exercise program. Exercises should limit biomechanical redundancy and aim to complement other selections by augmenting their adaptive effects. Furthermore, a comprehensively designed program should aim to minimize any glaring gaps or weaknesses. All in all, it is necessary to have stringent criteria for program related decision-making to assure training goals are achieved.

The Force-Velocity Curve

Key Takeaway Points (TLDR): 

1.   The force-velocity curve is the inverse/negative relationship between muscular contraction force and velocity. Contractions can either have high levels of relative force or high levels of relative velocity but neither of them simultaneously.

2.   The conventional goal with resistance training for athletic development and sport performance is to increase the entire area under the curve (improved force and velocity). This allows the athlete to improve both types of athletic expression.

3.   Training aimed towards improvements in maximal force tend to improve most of the curve even including much of the higher velocity end of the curve.  

4.   Conversely, any specific improvements in maximum velocity tend to fail to improve the higher force end of the curve.

5.   Training and/or practice aimed towards specific improvements in maximal velocity tend to be short-term improvements with very limited ability to be progressed across longer periods of training.

6.   If long-term, high-quantity improvements in the major underlying adaptations responsible for both high force and high velocity muscular outputs are desired (as is the case with young competitive athletes), then the primary focus for most of the training calendar should be high force training.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The force-velocity curve describes the inverse relationship between a muscle’s ability to contract forcefully (i.e., high strength) or quickly (i.e., high speed). It is important for coaches and athletes to understand the force-velocity curve and how it behaves with various modes of resistance training because it informs subsequent best methodologies. Simply stated, the negative relationship between force and velocity means that as the demand for force increases, velocity predictably decreases; and inversely, as the demand for force decreases, velocity is allowed to increase. Image below: 

Force-Velocity Curve of Muscular Contraction

This concept is demonstrably very simple. You can always throw a baseball faster (therefore, further) than a bowling ball. You can push a grocery cart faster than a car. And, if you took equally maximal attempts at throwing 3 kg, 4 kg, 5 kg, and 6 kg shot puts, you would throw them in that exact order for maximum distance. Once more, force and velocity are inversely proportional. While this may be a simple concept, there is much misunderstanding regarding how strength training interacts and changes the curve for any given athlete.

An athlete’s goal should virtually always be to shift the force-velocity curve up and to the right. This creates greater area under the curve, and ultimately means the athlete can produce more maximal force, maximal velocity, and more velocity at any given level of force along the curve that is submaximal. Image below:

Positive Shift of Force-Velocity Curve from Training

Some nuances need to be understood with any attempt to shift this curve into the direction of improved performance. First, there is a “trickle-down effect” that tends to occur. That is, improvements in the higher force side of the curve tend to lead to improvements down the curve in the direction of higher velocities. These increased forces tend to “trickle-down” into increased velocity. Thusly, training for improved force production will tend to improve both force and velocity—a very economical benefit.

Secondly, the previous “trickle-down effect” is largely a one-way road—acting in a downward direction. There is virtually no “trickle-up effect.” Training resources invested in attempting to directly improve the velocity side of the curve will not improve higher force productions. Therefore, high-velocity muscular contractions are, at best, less economical in that there are not simultaneous improvements at both ends of the curve. Unfortunately, high velocity “training” (not to be mistaken for the benefits of “sport practice”) may be even bleaker given our last nuance.

Barring short-term improvements in motor learning and muscular coordination, solely training high velocity movements does not tend to improve muscular contraction speed in the long-term. Once more, some minor neurological improvements (e.g., rate coding/discharge rate) can be made when directly training high velocity contractions, however these are only short-term improvements typically amongst more untrained individuals and these will not continuously improve over a long-term training program. Furthermore, these adaptations can be improved by other more productive means such as the aforementioned conventional high force training methods. All of this is to say that high velocity training is often not the best allocation of training resources. This is especially true if the athlete is already participating in high-velocity sport practices.

In brief conclusion, training targeting the high force side of the force-velocity curve is generally more productive and fruitful in the long-term within developing athletes who are already playing sports. High velocity muscular contractions are allowed when the external force requirements of a task are lower than the available surplus of force/strength. This can be elucidated with a simple example: a 300-pound max bench presser will always move 200 pounds more quickly than someone whose max is exactly 200 pounds. Everything else held equal, bigger engines tend to lead to faster speeds. Improving your strength-to-weight ratio will always be the holy grail of speed training, not generic and ubiquitous “speed & agility” programs.

Training Principle #2: Overload & Progressive Overload

Key Takeaway Points (TLDR):

1. Overload is the minimum level of exercise required to initiate progress. Progressive overload further describes how this minimum level of required stimulus increases as one’s level of fitness improves.

2. Overload is the switch that initiates the stress-recovery-adaptation cycle. Without it, recovery is not warranted, and any desirable subsequent adaptations are unnecessary (no progress is made).

3. Overload is the summation of many exercise variables, not just weight. The most useful variables to manipulate for the purposes of continuing progressive overload are weight, reps, number of hard sets, and number of assistance exercises. The latter two are volume-related variables that can always be increased to reintroduce progress.

4. While important, variables like technique, tempo, proximity-to-failure, rest interval, and frequency should generally not be manipulated for the purposes of creating overload. These should be pre-established variables within the greater program structure.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Second only to specificity, the principle of overload is a primary tenet of strength training that must be considered when designing and implementing any high-quality program. Despite the concept of overload being a relatively simple principle, even experts in the field mistakenly conflate overload with other ideas and concepts. Additionally, there are overload-related errors that  are ubiquitous amongst novice trainees. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the overload principle is necessary.

Overload describes the minimum level of exercise stimulus (stress) required to initiate the desired process of improvement towards one’s goal. Recall the stress-recovery-adaptation cycle discussed previously. Within that same paradigm, overload is the required level of training stress that subsequently necessitates the recovery and adaptation responses. This is quite important and can be often overlooked. If a bout of exercise does not meet the required overload threshold, then there will be no adaptations/improvements from that training session. In other words, if a “workout” does not correctly manage the calculus of exercise-related variables which cause sufficient physiological overload, then it may be a waste of time and effort. 

Similarly, we have the concept of progressive overload. Progressive overload further details how this required minimum threshold of stress is an increasing target. As one’s level of fitness increases over time, so too does the overload requirement. Therefore, training variables must continuously increase over time if long-term continued progress is the goal. There are many training variables that, in sum, constitutes the total amount of stress that aims to exceed the goal threshold of overload which will bring about progress towards the goal. This is a good thing, because if there was only one manipulable variable, training progress would quickly become stuck.

Most novice strength trainees have a handle on how progressive overload is applied to the loading variable (just add weight). However, eventually everyone will realize that the weight on the bar cannot perpetually increase week after week forever and ever. As training status/maturity increases, progress slows and the ability to add weight every session will eventually cease. Unless other exercise variables are well-understood, many trainees will get stuck and find themselves plateaued. Luckily, there are other variables in addition to weight that can be improved/increased to assure continued progressive overload can still be applied:

1.  Increased Load/Weight

2.  Increased Repetitions

3.  Increased Number of Hard Sets (Volume)

4.  Increased Assistance Exercises (Volume)

This is a rank-order list of improvable variables to continue progress. Start with increasing weight whenever possible and work down the list. If load cannot be increased, and if set repetitions cannot be added, then volume (either by way of added sets or added exercises) is the final adjustment that can always be made. When everything else is stuck, volume can always be added to create sufficient overload.

Now, this list is in no way representative of the many variables that could be altered. This list omits several important strength training variables. Generally speaking, and for the purposes of strength and hypertrophy (muscle-building) training, important variables like technique, tempo, proximity-to-failure, rest intervals, and frequency should largely be held constant. These variables are important to dial in, but after they are, they should not be altered very much.

The progressive overload model also points to a couple additional problems that are commonplace. Most conventionally written resistance training programs will not account for the necessary adjustable factors to continuously produce progressive overload. Consider the following common template:

Exercise #1 :  4 x 6

Exercise #2 :  4 x 8

Exercise #3 :  3 x 10

Exercise #4 :  3 x 12 

With the template above, there is no room to manipulate anything other than the weight selected for the given exercise, which we have already established as inevitably becoming plateaued. The reps, sets, and exercises are established and rigid. So, unless someone knows how to alter these correctly and progressively, programs like this will only work for a short while and their usefulness will be quickly exhausted—there is just no avenue for progressive overload.

Lastly, progressive overload inherently requires consistent, frequent, hard effort. While this is my last consideration on the topic of progressive overload, it is the most important. Without consistent, hard training sessions that are organized with adequate weekly frequency, progressive overload does not exist (see errors #4-#6 here). Without hard effort, there is no overload. And, without proper frequency, there is no progressive overload. Overload only becomes progressive when it is reoccurring.

In short conclusion, a bout of exercise (e.g., strength training session) must be adequately stimulative. The minimum amount of required stimulus to create progress is called overload. This threshold will increase as progress is made. There are exercise-related variables that should be altered to achieve this, as well as variables that should not be altered. Above all else, consistent, frequent hard effort is always required to improve.

Training Principle #1: Specificity

Key Takeaway Points:

1.   Specificity is the #1 physical training principle. Despite this fact, most coaches/athletes will get this wrong.

2.   Specificity refers to the SAID principle which states that physical improvements from exercise are directly linked to the exercise variables applied.

3.   Specificity should always be viewed through two separate lenses, skill-related and ability-related.

4.  Sport-Specificity simply means carryover to sport. This can also be referred to as “dynamic correspondence” or “transference.”

5.   The most common error committed when attempting to be sport-specific is utilizing skill-related demands to produce ability-related adaptations. Demand-adaptation coupling should be either ability-specific or skill-specific and any erroneous crossover is a failure to understand this most basic principle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Specificity is at the bedrock of the strength and conditioning world. It is the training principle that precedes all other training principles. And yet, so many coaches and trainees get it all wrong from the start. The principle of specificity dictates that there are specific adaptations gained from the specific demands applied to the physiological system. Therefore, specificity is also known as the SAID (Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands) principle. This is very important because this requires the correct set of demands to be selected and applied to achieve the adaptations that are most desirable for the relevant goal. This selection process of innumerable variables can be substantially nuanced and is often misunderstood.

The greatest source of confusion comes from a simple lack of fundamental understanding. Specificity should always be viewed through two separate lenses. This is to say that from a practical standpoint, there are two sub-categories of specificity, skill-related and ability-related. Skill-related specificity is the more obvious type which involves motor learning and neurological adaptations. This is hyper task-specific. For instance, if the goal outcome is for a basketball player to become a better 3-point shooter, then he/she must spend large amounts of time practicing and drilling 3-point shots. Contrastingly, ability-related specificity involves the development of physical attributes such as strength characteristics (e.g., power and speed) and bioenergetic pathways (e.g., aerobic conditioning). In this case, the training stimulus might not (and probably should not) look like the sport at all.

This brings us to sport-specificity. Sport-specificity is very simply the carryover that an exercise produces towards the performance of one’s sport. This idea can also be referred to as “transference” or “dynamic correspondence.” As viewed with our two lenses, this means that practicing shooting 3-pointers is sport-specific for basketball (skill-related) while squatting and lunging in the weight room are sport-specific for developing the strength aspects required for an improved vertical jump (ability-related). Both examples aim to produce outcomes that carry over to basketball performance. However, the latter example is much more difficult to quantify and takes a science-savvy coach to determine. A coach would first have to understand the scientific literature that connects the sport to the appropriate list of key performance indicators (KPI)—in this case, the vertical jump is a known KPI for basketball. Then, he/she would have to know what exercise variations, techniques, and programming prescriptions optimize the development of the specified KPI. Simply:

Exercise Selection -> Improved KPI -> Improved Sport-Specific Ability

(verified with the available scientific literature)

This leads us to the most common mistake made while attempting to improve ability-related sport performance in the weight room. Selecting exercises that look like the sport are usually a large waste of time and do not improve sport performance on any significant metric. Again, while skill-related sport-specificity should yield exercises and drills that look like the sport (e.g., dribbling, passing, shooting, small-sided games, scrimmage, etc.), ability-related specificity should yield exercises that best improve the underlying abilities which will not look like the sport at all (e.g., squatting, lunging, pressing, etc.). This is because the goal in the weight room is to indirectly improve sport performance by directly improving the KPI’s that have been scientifically selected to be specific and beneficial to performance outcomes.

Interestingly, I would propose that this mistake is subconsciously known by most, despite it being a commonly implemented mistake. Logically, if the sport itself was enough to produce optimal increases in strength, power, speed, or any of the corresponding KPI’s, such as 40-yard spring times, agility tests, vertical jump heights, or bat speeds/velocities, then there would be no use for the weight room at all, or any strength and conditioning staff for that matter. An athlete would simply continue to play their sport to improve these attributes. However, we know that this is not the case. Playing baseball does not optimize an athlete’s 40-yard sprint time. Playing football does not optimize an athlete’s vertical jump height. Playing basketball does not increase the strength or injury resilience of an athlete. The list goes on and on to describe how simply playing a sport fails to fully serve an athlete’s performance needs. We have known this since 1970 when strength training programs first started being credited for winning championships.

Because all these abilities/physical qualities are best improved off the field/court, then it becomes an obvious mistake to recreate the sporting behavior in the weight room/gym. This continues to be true even under increased loaded conditions. Weighted medicine ball throws, cable exercises designed to look like swinging a bat/club, or banded circus tricks aimed to look like throwing or striking all fail to produce meaningful, long-term progress or enough transfer to sport to improve performance outcomes. Weighted bats, clubs, and racquets have long been used to attempt to improve striking power/velocity. Similarly, weighted baseballs and basketballs have long been used to improve throwing power/velocity. These often not only fail to produce meaningful improvements, but they also tend to deteriorate the original skill leaving you with a less skilled/coordinated athlete.

In conclusion, the principle of specificity pairs exercise-induced adaptations with the demands that create them. Sport-specificity is dictated by whether these adaptations benefit the performance and outcomes of the focused sport. This is achieved by a combination of skill-related and ability-related sport-specific exercises. Using skill-specific demands to produce ability-specific adaptations is a misuse of the concept of specificity and is a waste of time. It should be considered a big red flag if a personal trainer, strength coach, or physical therapist attempts to use strength training “exercises” that simulate or imitate sporting skills. They simply don’t have a fundamental understanding of the principles of strength and conditioning.

Corrective Exercise Theory

We should jump straight into a couple of quick definitions lest anyone immediately find themselves lost in any technical jargon from the start. Corrective exercise (CE) is the intentional application of an exercise, or selection of exercises, to specifically improve biomechanical dysfunction. Once more, this definition requires yet another. Biomechanical dysfunction is any developed decrease in joint mobility and/or joint stability, which in turn, tends to cause skeletal malalignment, musculoskeletal pain, and/or nervous system compensation. If employed early enough, CE aims to either improve or completely rectify the dysfunctional problem of focus. If CE is employed too belatedly (beyond the “degradation event horizon”), its role becomes to maintain and stave off any additional deterioration of functional capacity.

CE is both a term that I love and simultaneously loathe. I absolutely love CE because when it is prescribed intelligently, it can truly produce some seemingly miraculous results. Being able to assist people achieve pain-free movement is the holy grail of physical rehabilitation. The level of improvement in one’s quality of life when physical function improves, and pain is removed is quite remarkable. However, I find myself often struggling with the more conventional concept of CE because—as is always the case with fitness—the industry has contaminated its true essence. If we are to correctly understand and apply CE, we need to first understand the stepwise origin of how dysfunction develops:

1.    Lack of Specific Overload (i.e., muscle- & position-specific disuse)

2.    Muscle Degradation (i.e., cross-sectional & longitudinal atrophy)

3.    Movement Dysfunction (e.g., decreased mobility/stability, pain) 

            When the body is removed from a complete variety of physically demanding tasks, it begins to degrade. It is this degradation that leads to dysfunction. Expressed another, very simple way:

Behavior —> Morphology —> Function

Now that we have established the root cause of developed dysfunction, we can easily derive a logical solution to the problem. If a lack of overload (which causes weakness) is the culprit, then the resolution to the problem is quite simple. The obvious antidote to weakness-related dysfunction is strength training (overload). Now, the cure to the problem is not as simple as general strength training. It is much more complex and nuanced than that. Because it is a lack of specific overload that initiates the cascade of events, we require very specific strength training to improve developed biomechanical dysfunction. Moreover, strength training is the only type of true CE—every other modality is merely attempting to treat the symptoms rather than rectifying the underlying cause of the problem.

Improved joint mobility is created via muscle-, length-, and vector-specific loading (strength training) which leads to the longitudinal growth of target muscle tissues (i.e., the muscles grow in length). Similarly, improved joint stability is created via muscle-, position-, and vector-specific loading which leads to cross-sectional growth of the target muscle tissues (i.e., the supporting muscles grow in thickness) that control the joint. Additionally, both joint mobility and stability require considerations that pertain to muscular balance (both intra- and inter-muscular) and regional interdependence (the health/function of any given joint depends on its neighboring joints to also be healthy and well-functioning).

As already stated, muscular adaptations to physical activity and exercise are exceptionally specific. It is for this reason that it is quite common for (mostly) strong people to have minor weaknesses that go unmissed. Without an adequately comprehensive and well-programmed strength training program, it is possible to become impressively strong in traditional movements (e.g., squat, bench, etc.) and develop a hidden weakness that leads to diminished joint mobility and/or stability, which will eventually lead to dysfunction that requires correction. This means that CE acts as a common ground between everybody—people of all ages and fitness statuses require CE to either defend against or reverse out of biomechanical dysfunction. This also means that not all strength training programs are created equal. The best programs simultaneously develop performance while minimizing any of these potential hidden weaknesses.

To conclude, CE is a subset of strength training that involves highly informed exercise programming. This strategic exercise selection and application aims to improve local muscle and joint function to further improve global bodily function. While unfortunately common, CE does not utilize any specialized gadgets, gizmos, or any other “gym toys” that are repeatedly demonstrated to waste your time (e.g., the infamous foam roller). All that is required is intelligent, goal-oriented adaptations that improve neuromusculoskeletal function. Be sure that your strength training program is not only created under the lens of performance, but also includes a strong corrective/injury preventative perspective.

Takeaway Points: 

>Corrective Exercise is the application of strength-based exercise(s) to improve biomechanical dysfunction.

>Biomechanical Dysfunction is a developed decrease in joint mobility and/or stability which can lead to various musculoskeletal symptoms (e.g., pain & compensation).

>The culprit of these dysfunctions is weakness. Specific strength training is required for complete resolution of the problem. Everything else is a bad Band-Aid that will keep falling off.

>CE-based strength programming must consider local and regional joint mobility, stability, and balance. Loss of function is characteristic of decreases in longitudinal and cross-sectional hypertrophy.

>Even the strongest people have hidden weaknesses. These weaknesses can cause problems for even the fittest individuals. High-quality strength training programs are needed.

Stress, Recovery, & Adaptation

The Stress-Recovery-Adaptation (SRA) Cycle describes the change in performance levels across time when a person is subjected to strenuous exercise. It is an adaptation from the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) which describes action-reaction processes in physiology. For athletes, or any other goal-oriented exerciser, this cycle is important to understand even if only at an introductory level. This is because many issues with performance-related plateaus (stalled progress) are rooted in a failure to properly program training variables with respect to the SRA cycle. Consider the graph below for further discussion:

Figure 1, “Single SRA Cycle”

A few quick notes. First, it should be noted that this is not a perfect model. There are other “fitness-fatigue” models that have a greater level of nuance; however, the SRA cycle is the better pedagogical tool. Secondly, the terms, “exercise” and “stress,” are going to be used interchangeably here as exercise is a stressor to your physiology. Lastly, “performance” in the SRA model can refer to any measure of fitness (e.g., strength, speed, vertical jump height, endurance).

            Timepoint (TP) #1 is the administration of an overloading exercise session after which performance is temporarily diminished as various measures of fatigue have accrued. TP#2 marks the greatest decrease in performance, and it is after this point that recovery will increase the level of performance back up to the original baseline. Beyond simply recovering to baseline, your physiology attempts to further adapt or “super-compensate” as performance continues to improve beyond baseline towards TP#3. This is physiology’s attempt to become more capable should it continue to encounter this same type of stress again. After TP#3, if the previous exercise stimulus is not repeated, then performance will begin to diminish again towards baseline—TP#4 (short-term detraining). Furthermore, if the original baseline activity is also removed, then performance can even begin to drop below previous baselines of performance (long-term detraining). To recap simply:

->TP#1 = Overloading bout of exercise.

->TP#2 = Greatest decrease in performance after exercise bout.

->Recovery = Subsequent performance increase back to baseline.

->Adaptation = Performance increase above and beyond previous baseline.

->TP#3 = Greatest increase in performance after recovery and adaptation phases.

->TP#4 = Performance’s return to baseline if the stimulus is not applied again (detraining).

            Ideally, exercise/performance training takes advantage of this timeline of events and reintroduces an overloading exercise stimulus at or near TP#3. If this is timed correctly, then TP#3—the height of the adaptation phase—will act as the new baseline and the cycle will initiate again and performance during the following adaptation phase will increase even more greatly than before. This is the entire basis of training for increased performance—timed, repeated bouts of progressively overloading exercise sessions. This timed administration of multiple bouts of exercise is modeled below:

Figure 2, “Timed, Multiple SRA Cycles”

If this cycle continues week after week, month after month, and year after year, you end up with whatever performance measures that you set out chasing whether that be increased strength, vertical jump height, speed, mobility, or endurance. Both of these models (single SRA & cyclic SRA) highlight common errors in training and athletic development:

->Error 1 = No overload is produced. Exercise variables, namely intensity and volume (number of hard sets and repetitions), are too easy and under-challenging. TP#1 must create TP#2 if TP#3 is desired. This also requires overload to be progressive with time and increases in performance.

->Error 2 = Too much overload is produced. Exercise variables—especially volume—are too hard. Excessive overload creates a scenario where resources are focused disproportionately towards recovery and not towards the subsequent adaptation. TP#2 cannot be driven excessively low.

->Error 3 = Recovery and adaptation are not emphasized outside of the gym. Poor sleep and dietary habits can quickly squander performance improvements even if high-quality training is being implemented. The path between TP#2 and TP#3 needs to be augmented by improved lifestyle factors.

->Error 4 = Timing of reoccurring overloading exercise is too delayed. This will result in no long-term progress in performance. Reoccurring stress must be scheduled closer to TP#3 than TP#4 in order for baselines to summate.

->Error 5 = Timing of reoccurring overloading exercise is too soon/frequent. This will result in a decrease in performance due to overtraining and lack of rest (when recovery and adaptation phases occur). Reoccurring stress must be scheduled closer to TP#3 than TP#2 or performance baselines will be driven downward.

->Error 6 = Lack of long-term consistency. Significant adaptations to performance training requires long periods of time—months and years. This means an appropriate amount of overload needs to be implemented (without errors 1 & 2), in a well-timed/scheduled exercise program (without errors 4 & 5), while emphasizing recovery and adaptation phases outside of training (without error 3), with consistency over long durations of a calendar. Without this long-term consistency, significant amounts of performance improvements will not be accrued.

->Error 7 = Poor maintenance of an achieved goal/new baseline. All performance improvements are subject to detraining (i.e., losing them) if the stressors that created the adaptations are completely removed. For many athletes, this means switching to an in-season program. These programs have modified training variables (especially volume) designed to maintain improvements while ensuring very little fatigue is incurred (TP#2). This simultaneously allows the athlete to perform at a high-level while not negatively affecting sport practices and competitions.

In conclusion, the SRA curve is extremely important to understand when designing a program that aims to improve any desired performance outputs (e.g., strength, power, speed, endurance). A lack of understanding will lead to poor program design, subsequent violation of the aforementioned errors, and the inevitable failure to produce the intended progress/results. Lastly, this required precision highlights the difference between goal-oriented “training” versus the random “workouts” that are so common within the fitness industry. Directionless, unplanned, and unstructured programming typical of the average workout will guarantee that you have nothing to show for your efforts.

Takeaway Points:

>The Stress-Recovery-Adaptation cycle should inform many aspects of your training program.

>Lacking a working understanding of the SRA cycle will lead to multiple training errors.

>These training errors are often the reason behind poor results and the lack of performance-related progress.

>Train—don’t just workout—because athletic development is much more than just showing up.

Reaction Time & Agility Training

Both reaction time and agility are remarkably complex components of sport performance. They require a high degree of blending between various skills and abilities and therefore are a product of both practice and training. The fact of the matter is that some components of reaction and agility are optimized in the sporting environment while some of the components are optimized in the weight room/gym. This means that there are important roles that both the sports coach (SC) and strength and conditioning coach (SCC) play in the development of reaction and agility. This is important because it is highly common for coaches (especially SCC’s) to drift out of their lane.

First, let’s define our concepts. “Reaction time” is usually used to describe how quickly an athlete responds to a stimulus with some sort of movement-related response. Imagine a basketball player reading a developing pass, making a quick steal, and initiating a fast break down the court. Many people would attribute the player’s increased reaction time for the success of the play. In this example, there was a pre-stimulus warning (reading a pass play), a stimulus (the action of passing the ball), the decision and initiation of the movement required to make the steal (maybe a directional lunge), and the time to execute the entire movement. Consider how this example aligns with the image below:

(figure 1, “Reaction Timeline & Components”)

It is important to note that the colloquial usage of the concept of reaction time includes this whole timeline despite the true scientific meaning primarily pertaining to the decision-making portion of the whole equation. Also recognize that there are components of overall reaction responsible to the SC (sport practice elements in purple) and components that belong to the SCC (gym training elements in green).

Very similar to the concept of sport-related reaction time is the idea of agility. Agility is usually used to describe a sporting action that mixes reaction time with change of direction speed (CODS). The basketball player may have utilized quick reaction time to steal the pass, but he would have additionally required a level of agility to sequence his directional lunge into a fast acceleration down the court. There is a high degree of overlap between these qualities, but consider the following image to understand the breakdown of components:

(figure 2, “Agility Components”)

If we utilize both images, we can describe what the basketball player did to successfully make the play. He utilized visual scanning (maybe he saw an open passing lane and an open player signaling/waving) and auditory scanning (maybe he heard the open offender calling for the pass) during the foreperiod time leading up to the stimulus (pre-stimulus warnings). When the ball handler initiated the pass (the stimulus), the defender responded by reacting (making a decision) and executing the necessary movement (directional lunge + acceleration/sprint) quickly (CODS skills and abilities).

It is very important to understand these components of reaction and agility because there is a significant amount of time wasted in gyms trying to improve the purple pieces to the puzzle laid out above. Athletes “reacting” to flashing lights, whistles, or “right!” and “left!” shouts are not improving the athletes’ sport-specific reaction time or overall agility. These are examples of what is known as “simple reaction” and real sporting scenarios are far from simple. Sport-related reaction involves lots of dedicated practice that improves their “sport intelligence” which helps with their cognitive-perceptual and decision-making skills. Furthermore, most reactions in sport are not even in direct reaction to a stimulus, but rather a reaction to anticipating what is going to happen before it even happens (“reading the play”, i.e., perceptual skills during the foreperiod). All of this is to say, stop wasting time on reaction time in the gym.

The real role of the SCC is to improve mobility, strength, power, speed, and CODS. The blue components of agility (CODS skills) may or may not be the responsibility of the SCC. This marks a gray area between coaches. Sometimes some basic motor skills need to be practiced in a dedicated learning environment outside of the chaotic sport setting. However, it is important to note that sport practice always includes CODS skills and therefore this element is often unnecessary in the gym environment due to redundancy. If the goal in the weight room is agility, then most of the time they just need to work on speed development.

Takeaway Points:

>Improvement in reaction time and agility requires the confluence of sport practice and intelligent weight room training.

>Generalized reaction and agility training is largely a myth. Most components that comprise these complex traits are highly sport-specific and require lots of game-related practice to improve sport-intelligence.

>The fastest “reactions” in sport are often not even initialized with a stimulus, but rather by anticipating an upcoming action using cognitive-perceptual and anticipatory skills.

>95% of effective agility training in the gym is just the development of mobility and power (strength expressed quickly). Stop wasting so much time attempting to directly “train” reaction and agility.

Balance & Proprioception Training—Debunked

Balance is the state of equilibrium where your center of gravity is contained within your area of base/support. While standing, if your center of gravity (somewhere between your belly button and spine) stays inside of the borders of your feet, your balance will be maintained, and you will not fall over. This is a learned skill and is largely why toddlers cannot automatically stand. 

Balance is a part of many skills, and it is always specific to those skills. Balance is not a general ability. If you learn the necessary balance as a surfboarder, you will not improve your balance as an ice-skater. Likewise, if you learn the required balance as a gymnast, you will not improve your balance as a skateboarder. You will have to devote time to each activity because balance is only improved within the task being practiced.

Therefore, it is important to understand that balance exercises performed within the gym setting do not transfer to other skills as each is task-specific. As an example, single-leg balancing on a BOSU ball will not improve one’s balance as a hockey player—there is no dynamic correspondence (transfer) between these activities. This begs the question: Why are people doing them then? If not mistakenly attempting to improve balance (which cannot be improved in a general sense), then the next common answer to the question is to improve proprioception. Here, the word proprioception is used almost mystically and acts as scapegoat to the conundrum.

Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense or awareness of bodily position and movement. A simple example of this is if you close your eyes, you can (mostly) accurately bring your fingertip to your nose. You can do this without the guidance of your other senses. Think of proprioception as our “sixth sense,” which it is sometimes referred. Now, can we improve the sense of proprioception? First, let’s consider these examples:

->You’re looking at a Where’s Waldo puzzle. You cannot find/see Waldo. I point out where Waldo is in the picture. Now you can see Waldo for yourself. Has your vision improved? Of course not.

  ->You’re at an orchestra with little knowledge of classical instruments. You find that you cannot decipher the differences within the brass section. I explain that the trumpet is the piercing, highest pitched brass instrument while the tuba is the deepest, lowest pitched. You now begin to differentiate between these two instruments within the music. Has your hearing improved? Of course not.

I could easily create similar examples for your other senses, smell and taste. All the same, these “improvements” will have only occurred due to something that was learned. These are not improvements in the underlying sensory ability, but rather the acquisition of knowledge. For some strange reason, the next example tends to fool exercise professionals:

->You’ve never balanced on a BOSU ball before. You step onto one for the first time and are extremely wobbly and unstable. After ten minutes of practicing, you become increasingly stable and less wobbly. Has your proprioception improved?

The answer is still, “of course not.” In this instance, where the sense of focus is proprioception, the knowledge gained is a part of the motor learning that has occurred during practice. Just as with the other sensory examples, there is no improvement in underlying sensory ability or any neurophysiological change within the proprioceptors that are responsible for your sense of proprioception.

This should lead us to the only logical conclusion: balance and proprioception training is fallacious and completely futile. Intra-task balance can always be improved if that very task is being practiced, but inter-task balance cannot be trained in a general sense. Moreover, the innerworkings responsible for your sense of proprioception are not improved with special exercises. Do not allow your precious gym time to be wasted by such a sham.

  This is not all to say that balance cannot be indirectly improved within the gym setting—it can. Think of balance as being the following formula:

Balance = Mobility + Strength/Power + Task-Specific Motor Learning

Time in the gym should be utilized to improve the underlying abilities that improve the acquisition of skill-specific balance such as mobility and strength/power. Then, once you begin practicing the skills that require balance, they will be more quickly learned as you will already have the prerequisite amounts of mobility and strength. A skier or snowboarder with strong legs and mobile hips will learn their respective winter sport (and the balance required therein) at a greater rate than someone who has weak legs and immobile hips. This is another example of how improving abilities tend to enhance skills. Lastly, because this is so common (especially in physical therapy settings), I would be remiss not to point out that the loss of balance within the elderly is just simply the loss of mobility and strength/power.

To concisely conclude, balance and proprioception “training” is based on presuppositions, misconceptions, and a poor understanding of the scientific evidence on the topic. If improved balance is the primary goal, then look to improving mobility, strength/power, and practicing the tasks/skills of interest.

Takeaway Points: 

>Balance is not a general ability that can be generally improved or transferred between tasks. Rather, it is automatically and specifically improved when practicing the skills that require it.

>The sensory hardware responsible for proprioception is not improved with special exercises.

>Neither balance nor proprioception training hold up against simple critical thinking, leave alone any deep understanding of the scientific literature.

>Exercises that hope to improve balance and proprioception are largely a waste of valuable resources—time and effort, namely.

>There are underlying abilities that can improve the balance-requiring acquisition of skills such as mobility, strength, and power.

Speed Development

“Speed kills”—a very popular phrase in sports. This is for good reason because speed is often the determining physical factor in the outcomes of most competitive sports. It is often the common denominator during pivotal moments that determine wins versus losses. Speed is king. Simply defined, speed is the physical ability that describes the rate of change of position. This can be defined as linear (e.g., 100-meter track sprint) or multi-directional (i.e., change of direction speed or agility). While speed is simple to define, it is often very hard to achieve.

            One of the greatest contributing factors to speed, and our first point to highlight, is power-to-weight ratio (PWR). This should be a familiar concept to anyone who likes fast cars. Consider the following examples:

            > Heavy Car w/ Low Horsepower = Very Slow

            > Light Car w/ Low Horsepower = Slow

> Heavy Car w/ High Horsepower = Slow

            > Light Car /w High Horsepower = Fast

This concept is the same with athletes. The goal is to possess relatively low body fat (nothing too extreme) with high force-producing capabilities (strength and power). This is our first topic specific to speed simply because many larger athletes address everything that they possibly can to get faster without addressing the one thing that matters the most to them—their extra bodyweight. Sometimes speed is best improved with improved nutrition.

            Now that we have established the importance of leanness in the greater equation of speed development, let’s address the necessary muscular adaptations. If speed is the primary goal, then there are three musculotendinous adaptations that are of primary focus. These are longitudinal muscle hypertrophy (muscle length), cross-sectional muscle hypertrophy (muscle thickness), and cross-sectional tendinous hypertrophy (tendon thickness/stiffness). These adaptations, when combined, will promote mobility (for improved technique/mechanics), force production, and rate of force production. All of these are extremely important ingredients for speed development. Of course, these adaptations must be applied to the correct tissues—the specific muscles which are more heavily responsible for sprinting performance (e.g., hip and thigh musculature).

            Next, we must address the nervous system’s contribution to the overall development of speed. High force and high velocity training will improve neural drive and rate coding. These are the nervous system’s abilities to create large and fast electrochemical impulses which will lead to stronger and faster muscular contractions—a necessary attribute for improved speed. The other major component of the nervous system which requires improvement is technical coordination. Speed training always requires concurrent strength training and sprint practice. The specific act of sprinting fast/maximally (either linearly or multi-directionally) is always necessary. Technique must be practiced and learned and needs to be drilled for both acceleration and top-end speed mechanics. Motor learning always requires the specific activity of focus.

            In conclusion, speed development requires the correct combination of leanness, muscular development, nervous system efficiency, and skill/technique development/motor learning (practice). Sprinting alone will not produce a fast sprinter. Likewise, weight training alone will not produce a fast sprinter. These elements need to be combined. The strength training component needs to be highly specific to sprinting and must include parameters that are muscle-, position-, vector-, and velocity-specific. These specifics will optimally prepare and improve the neuromuscular system for high-level sprinting. A highly qualified coach that understands these nuances will be able to implement the correct programming variables to produce these outcomes.

Takeaway Points:

>Speed is often one of the most valuable athletic/physical abilities.

>Leanness (low bodyfat) is extremely important for power-to-weight ratio and subsequently speed.

>Speed-related neuromuscular adaptations include muscle length, size, tendon stiffness, neural drive, and rate coding.

>Practice maximal sprinting! Drill technique: linear, change of direction, acceleration, and top-end speed. 

>Strength training aimed at speed development is not generic, but rather highly specific in its exercise selection and programming variables.

Effective Stability Training

Despite being quite simple, stability is a word that gets thrown around without much real understanding. In fact, I would suggest that its colloquial usage has detracted from its true meaning and subsequently its true development via exercise intervention. Put simply, joint stability is a joint’s ability to resist movement. Now, there is certainly a time and place to discuss the intricacies of joint centration and joint approximation, or passive stability vs. active stability; however, we are going to get straight down to the brass tacks—dynamic joint stability.

When exercise professionals are prescribing exercises to improve “stability,” they are usually aiming to improve dynamic joint stability. As such, that is entirely the focus of this discussion. Dynamic joint stability (stability, hereafter) is the ability of the surrounding muscles (via the nervous system) to produce adequate amounts of balanced force to resist undesirable movement (e.g., joint malalignment, dysfunctional positioning, and/or subluxation/dislocation). Because stability is a product of force production, stability is therefore a product of strength—the bodily ability to produce force. This means that stability training must abide to the same principles of all other strength training. All of this is to say that stability training is just highly specific strength training. This is where everyone gets it wrong.

In its most common and current form, stability training has been completely degraded. Because of this, we should quickly discuss the tactics commonly employed that do not meet the requirements of real, efficacious stability training. First and foremost, stability training is not instability training. Unstable surfaces (e.g., BOSU balls, balance boards, etc.) and unstable loads (e.g., flexible bars, slosh pipes, banded weights, etc.) do not meet the requirements of hypertrophy (muscle growth) and/or strength training. Environmental instability is not necessary to produce improved joint stability. There is no scientific evidence to support this illogical conclusion. Furthermore, and even worse, environmental instability is often not even sufficient to produce improved joint stability.

Secondly, comprehensive stability training is not uni-positional isometrics (static contractions). Despite stabilizing muscles often being required to isometrically contract to produce dynamic joint stability, isometrics are continuously demonstrated to be inferior for producing long-term improvements in hypertrophy and strength as compared to dynamic muscular contractions. The idea that stabilization muscles’ function is isometric, therefore they require only isometrics to be developed is incorrect and unsupported.

The reality of high-quality stability training is that intelligent and informed traditional exercise programming is required. This includes comprehensive exercise selection that is muscle-, position-, contraction mode-, and vector-specific. These exercises should also be quantifiable and lend well to progressive overload. Furthermore, attention should be paid to intensity, volume, velocity, and tempo parameters. These highly goal-oriented exercise programming variables usually require a considerably knowledgeable strength coach. A deep understanding of applied biomechanics, strength training theory, and regional interdependence is necessary to achieve goals that are specific to improvements in joint stability.

Takeaway Points:

>Dynamic joint stability is a product of highly specific muscular strength.

>Instability and isometric exercises are not necessary and are often ineffective.

>Stability exercises should not be all that dissimilar to traditional strength training exercises.

>Improved joint stability is at the junction of applied anatomy/physiology, strength training theory, and regional interdependence which often requires a knowledgeable strength coach.

Injury Risk Theory, Modeling, & Intervention

Injury risk is an extremely important component of sport and subsequently, the practices of strength and conditioning. This component deserves—requires—a high level of attention and active management. Perhaps counterintuitively, the application of strength and conditioning methodologies can sometimes prioritize the management of injury risk even over performance enhancement. This is because an athlete that is strong, powerful, and fast is of no use when they are significantly injured and absent from competition. An athlete’s performance can go from 100% to 0% very quickly if injury risk is not managed properly. Therefore, this area should never be overlooked when the aim is improved sport performance and athletic development.

A needs analysis is always required and can be conducted to ascertain relative likelihood of specific types of injuries. A needs analysis considers profiles of both the athlete as well as his/her sport. An athlete’s profile may consist of key performance indicators, strength ratios, range of motion deficits, and previous injury history. This should be combined with a sport-specific profile. There is an abundance of published peer-reviewed data on the injury profiles of virtually all sports. For instance, we know that striking and overhead sports such as baseball and tennis have higher occurrences of injuries to shoulders and elbows. We know that highly multidirectional sports such as soccer, football, and basketball have higher occurrences of injuries to knees and ankles. We know that hockey players have a greater susceptibility for hip-related injuries. We also know that sports that require high-speed sprinting are more likely to have hamstring, groin, and hip flexor strains. We truly have a tremendous amount of data that should inform our training decisions to better manage an athlete’s injury risk so that we can keep them healthy and actively competing.

            If we are to manage injury risk, we must understand the fundamental mechanisms of injury (non-contact injuries). Foundationally, injuries occur due to external forces exceeding internal tissue capacities. This can be a problem in and of itself or it can be exacerbated by other factors such as inappropriate workloads, dysfunctional loading strategies, dysfunctional joint mechanics, and/or poor recovery. External forces can exceed internal tissue capacities in several ways:

1.    The musculotendinous unit can lack adequate levels of strength. Muscle and connective tissues should have a surplus of capacity which consists of—at least—high levels of strength, adequate muscle lengths, and stiff connective tissues. This requires effective implementation of highly precise training protocols to ensure these adaptations are achieved to defend against potential injury.

2.    Acute workloads can exceed chronic workloads. A high ACWR (acute:chronic workload ratio) can dramatically increase injury risk. Increasing workloads should always be managed and should be titrated incrementally and progressively by a coach. Sudden spikes to the ACWR are large contributors to injury and should be avoided whenever possible.

3.    Load-distribution strategies can be dysfunctional. This is a neuromusculoskeletal issue that involves the nervous system’s contribution to proper/safe biomechanics. Poor mechanics and loading strategies can unnecessarily magnify internal forces and subsequently lead to injury. Highly informed training interventions need to be employed that consider various aspects of the nervous system in addition to the muscular system.

4.    Dysfunctional joint mechanics can lead to “overuse” injuries. A maladapted neuromusculoskeletal system can lead to compromised arthrokinematics (the way joint surfaces interface with each other). This change in joint biomechanics requires training interventions that consider range of motion deficits and strength ratios to ensure that the nervous system has a balanced muscular system at its command.

            These are all mechanistic underpinnings of preventable sport-related injuries. This does not include contact-related injuries as they introduce a greater degree of unpredictable randomness and cannot be as thoroughly controlled. The above listed components can be managed through informed and intelligent program design by a qualified strength and conditioning coach. Athletes need sport-specific preparation that entails progressive exposures to some combination of high forces and high velocities. These must be muscle- and contraction-specific as well as joint- and action-specific. Lastly, specific weaknesses need to be evaluated to identify potential red flags that act as indicators of potential injury risk. These discovered weaknesses must be rectified with the appropriate training interventions.

Takeaway Points:

>The management of injury risk is at least as important as direct sport performance and should never be overlooked. Stay healthy and keep competing.

> There is an abundance of scientific, peer-reviewed data on sport-specific injuries. A needs analysis specific to the athlete and sport must be conducted to properly implement the correct training interventions for decreasing injury risk.

>Fundamentally, non-contact-related injuries come from external loads exceeding internal tissue tolerance/capacity—this can be exacerbated by several known manageable metrics. All of which require management.

>A qualified coach is responsible for implementing the best evidence-based practices to assure comprehensive development. This includes training adaptations induced by multi-directional exposures to high forces and high velocities. Weak links are a big red flag and need to be evaluated and remedied.

Recovery & Adaptation

Recovery is currently an extremely hot topic within sport performance circles. One that needs to be addressed due to the many misconceptions that are being propagated. Ideally, hot topics would be selected by their magnitude of supporting scientific evidence demonstrating strong, significant effects and benefits. Unfortunately, this is not the case this time. While recovery is in fact a very important topic with some extremely important lessons to be taught, it has become a hot topic solely because it has become an industry-driven cash-grab that relies on duping the uninformed into wasting time and buying gadgets and gizmos.

          Effective, real recovery is the management of physical training (i.e., programming, periodization, and planned rest) combined with the management of lifestyle factors (e.g., stress, sleep, and nutrition). Understand that 99% of recovery is physiologically automatic—you just have to stay out if its way. Consider the “Recovery & Adaptation Pyramid” (see figure 1, below). The vast majority of recovery (virtually all of it) will be optimized if the three foundational tiers are properly controlled by the athlete. Nearly the entire focus of recovery should be aimed at stress management, sleep habits, and nutrition status. Instead, the majority of modern, young athletes get tunnel vision on what they can buy—foam rollers, muscle E-stimulators, massage guns, compression garments, and cryochamber treatments. In short, they focus on the top aspects of the pyramid. Ironically, athletes who are chronically sleep-deprived will scroll through Amazon to determine which kind of Theragun they want to buy to improve their recovery. This is the equivalent of stepping over a 100-dollar bill to pick up a nickel—the athlete’s priorities are misplaced and the multi-billion-dollar industry wins.

(figure 1, “Recovery & Adaptation Pyramid)

          To quickly highlight the foundation of recovery, let’s consider athletes who have the bottom of the pyramid optimized. In terms of stress management, their training is programmed with stress-recovery-adaptation (and fitness-fatigue) timelines and cycles pre-planned by a coach. They regularly practice mindfulness and mental relaxation practices (e.g., meditation) and abstain from drug use/abuse—this includes marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, and even caffeine. Their pre-sleep routines include minimizing screen time, lowering their body temperatures, relaxing, and abiding by strict, consistent bedtimes. This leads to sleeping 8-9 hours per night with high-quality, cyclic, multi-stage sleep patterns leaving them feeling refreshed the following morning. Lastly, high-performance athletes interested in real recovery maintain hydration levels (water + electrolytes) and select a variety of whole, multi-group foods that are lowly processed, within their goal-specific caloric needs (surplus, maintenance, or deficit). These foods fulfill their macronutrient (adequate levels of protein, carbohydrates, and fats) and micronutrient requirements. Regular sun exposure assists in vitamin D creation, micronutrient bioavailability, mood, and hormone profile. Nutrient timing and supplementation can be implemented to specifically target athlete-specific goals and to accommodate their physical training, sport practice, and recovery schedules. That’s recovery in a nutshell. If the bottom of that pyramid has not been addressed anywhere close to this example, then a Theragun and a foam roller is not going to even scratch the surface of any real recovery needs.

          Water immersion has a special place amongst the recovery modalities and requires a special consideration. Cold-water immersion (CWI) is sometimes held in higher regard than how it is being credited here. Consider the NSCA’s recovery pyramid (see figure 2, below) which lists it just behind their sleep and nutrition tiers—this is a considerably high status. Why the difference? One needs to consider differing definitions of recovery. CWI can be used successfully, to some degree, for recovery to a baseline level of performance. Consider a soccer tournament with multiple matches being played each day for several days. CWI can dampen muscular soreness and bring levels of speed and power back towards baseline. This makes this tool useful for training, practice, and game schedules that are poorly designed for optimal physiological recovery. However, that is just one definition of recovery—the return to baseline of performance.

(figure 2, National Strength & Conditioning Association’s Recovery Pyramid)

      The better long-term definition to be used for recovery includes adaptation or supercompensation. This entails not just a return to baseline but a subsequent increase that is above and beyond previous levels of performance. This is the type of recovery that is necessary for long-term improvement and athletic development. Despite CWI having an interesting usefulness is managing challenging physical schedules in the short-term, CWI blunts inflammatory responses (just like ice and NSAIDS) and can diminish progress in the long-term. This comes with a quick clarification: generally speaking, it is not desirable to blunt inflammation. Inflammation is a requirement of the healing process and to decrease inflammation is to decrease the healing process altogether (a whole other topic of discussion). It is for this reason that CWI has been shown to decrease performance adaptations to exercise related stimuli (i.e., it is bad for this type of recovery—that which includes improvement). It should be noted that CWI is just a singular example of how there may be narrow windows of usefulness for other passive recovery (and maybe some trendy fads) techniques; however, it remains the case that these potential benefits lie within the final 1% of recovery and barely deserve any attention.

In conclusion, recovery is largely not a hands-on/active process that requires any extra inputs or interventions. Do not be fooled by the greed of the industry which wants you to believe that you need to perform “soft tissue work” (whatever that really means) or anything adjacent. It would be remarkably naïve to think that some kind of gadget, gizmo, or piece of new flashy “tech” can improve or speed up the highly evolved cascade of automatic events that allows the human body to recover and adapt. Recovery in its essence is discipline—which is hard (and antagonistic to the ease of a massage). Exercising the discipline to manage physical training, stress, sleep, and nutrition is real recovery. Everything else either has no supporting evidence or has a low-level of evidence demonstrating a low-level magnitude of effectiveness.

Takeaway Points:

>Do not be fooled by the industry-driven cash-grabbing concept of recovery.

>Real recovery is the management of physical training and lifestyle factors.

>Do not be persuaded by the higher aspects of the pyramid when the foundation is being ignored (this is like stepping over a hundred-dollar bill to pick up a nickel).

>Water immersion has a small window of effectiveness for short-term use when training, practice, and game schedules are chaotic.

>Disciplined control over stress, sleep, and nutrition is the foundation of recovery and adaptation.

Effective Mobility Training

Mobility is a physical ability that describes joint-specific range of motion. More accurately, high-quality mobility includes ranges of motion (especially end-range) that are pain-free, stable, and have adequate motor control. Movement that is restriction-free is nearly universally beneficial and is a common goal that we all tend to share. This is because improvements in mobility almost always have positive implications for both health and performance. Unfortunately, the pathway to improve mobility is riddled with red herrings.

If mobility is joint-specific range of motion, then we need to be keenly aware of the primary tissues that can create or restrict range of motion under normal, healthy conditions—the muscles. Many will be fooled into believing that the nervous system is at fault for decreased mobility. However, the nervous system is only secondarily responsible. The cascade of events that lead to detriments in mobility are as follows (the simple version):

1.    Muscle disuse (length-specific).

2.    Shortened muscle tissue.

3.    Hyperactive nervous system.

4.    Decreased mobility.

5.    Pain and joint tissue degradation. 

As previously stated, there are many red herrings in the attempt to improve mobility. Many of these are industry-driven and often involve strategies that address the third step of the cascade of events, a hyperactive nervous system. These include but are not limited to tactics such as static stretching, activation drills, massage (often “myofascial release”), cupping, needling, vibration and percussion, joint distraction and mobilization, and the list goes on ad infinitum. The primary issue with all these strategies is that they do not address the start of the cascade of events—the root cause. Only addressing the nervous system will typically create a temporary, pseudo-improvement which will soon return to back to baseline. Without any real alteration to physiology, these nervous system tricks lead nowhere.

Let’s address the root cause of the issue. Understand that muscle tissue is extremely adaptive (and therefore, maladaptive). Muscle tissue is in constant flux and is always attempting to adapt to the physiological demands being applied to it. When there is a cessation of overloading demands, they begin to degenerate (think of an astronaut in prolonged zero gravity). One specific form of disuse that leads to degradation is length-specific disuse. This type of disuse literally leads to muscle degeneration longitudinally (length-related properties decrease). If the root cause of the problem is distilled down to its very essence, then loss of end-range strength is what leads to loss of mobility. That is correct: mobility is a strength-related physical ability.

Real, effective mobility training involves strength training that utilizes specifically selected exercises that include stretched muscle lengths with a force vector that emphasizes that stretched position. When high-quality, well-programmed strength training (e.g., exercise selection, technique, tempo, progressive overload, etc.) is applied, the muscles hypertrophy longitudinally (literally grow longer) and result in greater mobility about the joints they control. Even better, all aspects of the nervous system (proprioception, activation, motor control, coordination, and timing) simultaneously improve. Mobility training is strength training—the kind that is aimed at length-/position-specific weakness.

Takeaway Points:

>Mobility is joint-specific range of motion, and it is universally desirable for health and performance goals alike.

>Changes in muscle tissue architecture and subsequent length-specific weakness is the root cause of decreased mobility in normal and otherwise healthy joints.

>Most industry-driven modalities only create temporary changes to the nervous system and do not lead to long-term, durable changes in mobility.

>Because muscular architecture and its succeeding physiology is the catalyst leading to diminished mobility, progressive overload must be applied to create the desirable adaptations for improvement.

>Length-/position-specific strength training improves all aspects of mobility when properly programmed and performed.

Athlete Development & Sport Performance: A Dualistic Approach

There are two major categories for long-term athlete development and sport performance. The first is Strength & Conditioning (S&C) while the second is sports practice. If optimization of performance and outcome are of primary interest, both elements will need to be adequately addressed. This dual approach pays strong consideration to the fundamental differences between motor abilities and motor skills which are best improved in their respective environments with their unique methodologies. In short, abilities are best trained in the gym under a S&C coach while skills (as well as tactics and strategies) are best learned through practice on the field/court with the direction of a sport coach.

Let’s better understand the differences between motor abilities and motor skills. A motor ability is a bodily capacity to produce various levels of movement. Examples of these bodily capacities are attributes such as strength, power, speed, mobility, and endurance. This sharply differs from motor skills which are learned, coordinated, and quite specific behaviors. Examples of motor skills are dribbling, passing, catching, shooting, and other similar motor learning tasks. While some crossover/overlap exists between some abilities and skills, there is a simple analogy to better understand their differences. Think of ability as a matter of “hardware” while skills are a greater matter of “software.”

          The hardware-software analogy points towards an underlying truth—ability precedes skill. This is because skills are the nervous system’s utilization of physical abilities in order to perform complex movement patterns. Consider this: the skill of dunking a basketball is irrelevant if one does not have the ability to produce the necessary vertical jump (i.e., power) to achieve the task in the first place. Therefore, ability describes movement potential—it’s the engine. Now, it is important to understand that not all sports, games, and actions require the same levels of abilities as others. Throwing a dart at a dart board, while a skillful task, does not require very much underlying ability. This contrasts the inherent strength requirements of performing high-level pass blocking as an offensive lineman. The bottom line is that the development of ability (hardware) transfers very well to the improvement of skills.

          Now that we have established that the development of physical ability enhances the skills pertaining to sport, we must understand the opposite is usually not the case. That is, practicing sports and developing skills often does not develop abilities very well. Playing (some) sports will, to some degree, improve measures of strength, power, speed, and endurance. However, these qualities will be improved at smaller extents and will certainly never be optimized under these conditions. S&C methodologies have been scientifically developed across decades and are better suited for this task. Therefore, this is a bit of a one-way road. Developing abilities improves sporting skills, but unfortunately simply playing sports does not sufficiently improve physical ability. S&C becomes a necessity.

          In conclusion, optimization of sport performance requires a dual approach which includes both S&C and sport practice. It is all too common that either the S&C component is missing altogether, or it is not employed with the knowledge and intelligence it requires for successful carryover. The truth of the matter is that many (maybe most) programs that are implemented lack the necessary methodology to promote transfer to sport. In either instance—an absent S&C program or a poorly implemented one—performance is being left on the table and risk for injury is greatly increased. If you are serious about your sport(s), you will need to be serious about your year-round S&C.

Takeaway Points: 

> Sport performance is the result of combined motor abilities and motor skills.

> The improvement of abilities (strength, power, speed, mobility, endurance) generally enhances the performance of sporting skills.

> Because they are fundamentally different from skills, most abilities are best developed with S&C methodologies.

> The serious approach to sport performance requires both S&C and sport practice. Not just one or the other.