Category Archives: Strength & Conditioning

Minimum Effective Training Dose

You hear the phrase all the time, “I’m a real minimum effective dose guy”, or, “We train only as much as we need and then no more”.

Everyone says these things, but what do they really mean? What is a “minimum effective dose”? Is the minimum effective dose different for different people? Do some people need more training and some less? While the phrases sound good on paper or when uttered at a training conference, how do we take the theory of the minimum effective dose and turn it into practice?

To be fair, these are great ideas and statements that really do resonate with me in my approach to program design. Why expend physical resources (energy) on training that are unnecessary and potentially limiting your recovery from the previous session, thus diminishing your ability to train harder the next time around? As I like to say, “There is always a cost of doing business. All training comes at a cost and in order to reap the benefits you need to make sure you pay that cost and then replenish the checking account before paying again.”

Recently, I had a great discussion with two colleagues I respect – Sam Leahey and Nate Brookreson. We were discussing concepts around an individualized training approach, and the main discussion points began with us first reading and talking over two papers by Kiviniemi, et al., Endurance Training Guided Individually by Daily Heart Rate Variability Measurements (Eur J Appl Physiol, 2007) and Daily Exercise Prescription on the Basis of HR Variability Among Men and Women (Med Sci Sports Exer, 2010).

Both studies utilized a similar type of training approach for the two training groups. One group performed a standard, predetermined training program – just like a coach would write for an athlete, dictating what should be done each day of the week (exercises, load/intensity, sets, reps, etc). The other group performed their training based on their HRV readings taken first thing in the morning, upon waking. The mode of exercise in the studies was endurance training, and days were broken into high intensity (40min at > 85% of maxHR) or low intensity (40min at 65-70% maxHR) or complete rest.

The way it worked for the HRV-dictated training group was that they would take their HRV, and based on the outcome, compared to a rolling average, they would alter their training for the day performing either a high intensity session, a low intensity session, or taking a rest day. Thus, training was guided by what the body was prepared to do.

Interestingly, the HRV-dictated training groups improved their fitness while training high intensity sessions less frequently during the study period than the predetermined training group (More is not better. Better is better). Basically, on days when their body was ready for a high intensity training session they went for it, and when their body was not ready they backed off and allowed the body time to replenish the checking out, so to speak, before repaying the cost. They gave the body what it needed.

Some of my thoughts

Heart Rate Variability is not the be-all-end-all of athlete monitoring, as some make it out to be. It is one small piece (a small piece with rather noisy data, mind you) in a much larger puzzle. That being said, I do believe it can have a role in athlete monitoring if you understand its limitations, standardize the collection process, and couple it with other methods of monitoring the athlete and evaluating their capability and capacity on a given day.

These studies seem to move us closer to understanding the concept of a minimal effective dose and perhaps offer a newer approach to program design and periodization – similar to the concept of auto-regulation. Earlier this year I put together a decision tree for training, similar to the one shown in one of the studies mentioned above, where a few factors were taken into consideration and put into the tree, and the results of those factors allowed the athlete to alter their training program based on the input they plugged in. This allowed us to adjust the program up or down on a given day based on how the athlete was responding. Instead of writing training programs that told the athlete to do “x” on Monday, “y” on Wednesday”, and “z” on Friday, the athlete was given different workouts with different training targets (2 workouts reflecting the main physiological targets of the training block, 1-2 workouts reflecting the secondary, or maintenance, physiological targets of the training block, and 1 recovery based work).

Depending on how the athlete was reporting that day, we would choose which workout to do. This would end up sometimes pushing our training week out longer than 7 days (sometimes it would take 10 days to get through the training cycle). This was apparent, particularly, in older athletes whose bodies took longer to recover from the training session or athletes who were out of shape and lacked fitness and needed the extra time to make appropriate adaptations to the training stimulus imposed upon them. If we were working on a timeline and had a set duration of time to perform a block of training (for example the athlete would only be able to train 10 weeks in an offseason), we would adjust the workout on a given day by lowering either training volume or training intensity (which of those we lowered was dependent on the physiological targets of that phase of training and what the main objective was).

What was also interesting in the studies above was that if the subject had recovered the following day from a high intensity training day they would then perform another high intensity session (although after two successive high intensity sessions they were asked to take a rest day). The high-low training concept of organizing high intensity stressors on one day and low intensity stressors on another day is a great one and one that I have used for many years; however, there are times when the athlete needs to be able to put together back-to-back days of high intensity work due to competition (i.e., basketball or hockey) or hard practices (i.e., NFL training camp) being stacked together. By using a training approach driven by monitoring the athlete’s response and adjusting the workout to suit their needs and abilities on a given day, we can slowly build up the athlete’s resilience to tolerate high intensity work to a level that allows them to train hard, recover quickly, and then train hard again. This is a key piece that ties together the stress resistance/stress tolerance and fitness components of my Physiological Buffer Zone methodology, which I discussed in THIS interview.

What it basically boils down to is that each athlete is an individual. Each athlete has a different way of responding and adapting to the training stress you apply to them (and even to the treatment stress if you are using soft tissue work!). The time it takes to recover and make favorable adaptations to a training session may differ from one athlete to the next, and an individualized approach, based on monitoring various qualities, is essential to understanding what the athlete needs. Too often coaches try and force fit an athlete into their training program without respecting these laws of individualization. Hopefully the future will allow for better methods to test athletes, monitor/evaluate athletes, and adjust training for athletes to ensure that their body receives the type of training it needs – the correct amount at the correct time.

A Scale of Perception for Bar Velocity

Questionnaires have been around for a long time and been found to be valid and reliable once the athlete is properly anchored to the scale. While it may sound simple, there is actually a lot of complexity within the simplicity of just asking a person a few questions regarding how they feel today or how hard they felt a particular activity was (RPE). However, once the individual understands what they are being asked, and gains some experience rating themselves, usually about 4 weeks, questionnaire data can be very helpful in planning training. (I have been a fan of using questionnaire data as a method of understanding how an athlete is tolerating training for several years and wrote about the daily questionnaire I use in a previous blog article.)

Recently, Bautista and colleagues (2014), have attempted to create a new scale, which allows the athlete to rate their perception of bar velocity in the bench press (CLICK HERE for full paper).

Measuring bar velocity is incredibly helpful and is done by attaching some sort of linear position transducer to the bar to objectively measure the speed at which the bar is moving through various lifts (E.g., bench press, squat, deadlift). The 1RM of the subjects in the study was established prior to using the rating scale, during an incremental load protocol. A linear position transducer was used to understand bar velocity at various percentages of the individual’s 1RM during the incremental load test:

Light = < 40%
Medium = 40% – 70%
Heavy = > 70%

Over a 5 day testing period, the subjects performed each set in a random order, using the intensity parameters above, and were blinded to the amount of load on the bar via partial occlusion pads, which prevented them from seeing the weight. The subjects performed 2-4 repetitions with a given load and then provided their perception of bar velocity using a scale developed by the authors, based on bar velocity during the incremental load 1RM test:

The verbiage below the numbers, used to anchor the subjects during the experimental portion of the test, was established using the corresponding bar speed form the incremental load 1RM test and the verbal qualification provided by the subjects following each of their lifts during the initial test.

A high correlation was found between the actual bar velocity and the perception of bar velocity provided by the subjects, particularly as their use of the scale increased. Thus, greater exposure and time using the scale improved their ability to properly classify their lift.

Practical Use

As stated earlier, I am a big fan of questionnaires. While they are especially helpful when combined with other objective data (GPS, HR, Fitness Testing, Bar Velocity, etc) as a stand alone they can provide rich information once the athlete is properly anchored to the scale.

I see the Rating of Bar Velocity scale used in this study being practical in a few ways:

Not all strength and conditioning programs have funds to provide a linear position transducer unit at each lifting platform. However, if athletes gain an understanding and awareness of how to rank their bar velocity, this method can be useful as an inexpensive means of determining individual percentages for power training. (NOTE: I do think it would be of value to at least have one or two linear position transducers available to allow the athletes to initially understand how fast they are moving the bar, as well as to have available on testing days.)
Not all athletes will move the same relative intensity at the same speed. This will allow the coach to adjust the training intensity up or down for the athlete, in order to stay in their ideal zone of bar speed, depending on the training goal for the day.
Similar to using a Rating of Perceived Exertion on a fitness test, the Rating of Perceived Velocity can be used on a strength test or Rep Max test and charted over time to show improvement with the same load or the same relative intensity.
Finally, having athletes rank their efforts like this, I find, increases their awareness of the training session and engages them more in what they are doing. Rather than going through the motions, the athlete has to now be conscious of what (s)he is trying to do.

Life Stress, Training, & Recovery

Recovery from training and competition is dependent on many systems (E.g., endocrine, hormonal, musculoskeletal, etc) to coordinate the appropriate responses to the stress placed on the body. Just like your bank account – you withdraw money and then (hopefully) you put money back in, attempting to not allow the account to drop below a certain point – there is a cost on the body that is paid every time we train and compete and we have to do things to try and repay that cost. As I say, “there is always a cost of doing business.”

Currently, coaches are rushing to find various methods of monitoring their athletes within the training environment (IE, GPS, HR, Force Plates, etc); however, one critical aspect that may often get overlooked is the athlete’s life stress. As I discussed in a previous article, Your Stress Account, understanding both specific (the things we have control over as coaches) and non-specific (the external stressors, outside of the competitive environment, that the athletes have to deal with) is essential to ensuring that we know how much we can push and how much we may need to back off.

While the above methods of monitoring training are helpful, quantifying the amount of stress being placed on the athlete is a cost effective way of understanding how they are adapting. I discussed the questionnaire I have used in the past in a previous article, Doing Simple Things Well, and while many coaches will often say to me, “We ask the athletes every day how they are doing when they come into the gym”, I do believe that putting a number on it, documenting it, and following the responses over time can be beneficial, not only for the coach to track the athlete’s trend, but also to educate the athlete about how they are doing.

Life Stress and Training

Life stress plays a key role in how we adapt (or don’t adapt) to training. A 2008 study by Bartholomew et al., evaluated 135 undergraduate students grouping them into either low or high stress groups based on a series of psychological measures. What they found was that those who were considered “high stress” subjects had a more difficult time adapting to the 12-week, periodized resistance training program. These high stress individuals saw lower scores on both bench press and squat as well as girth measurements (hypertrophy) in post program testing.

More recently (2014), Stults-Kolehmainen and colleagues evaluated the effects that chronic mental stress had on the recovery of muscle function and somatic sensations (E.g., perceived energy, fatigue, and soreness) over a four day period. To quantify life stress, the Perceived Stress Scale and the Undergraduate Stress Questionnaire were completed by the subjects. The subjects completed a leg press training session of 6 sets x 10 reps at 80-100% of their individual 10RM. Maximal isometric force, jump height, cycle power, perceived energy, fatigue, and soreness were assessed at 24hr intervals following the training session. Interestingly, it was found that chronic stress had an impact on muscle recovery following the leg press training session, with low recovery curves being seen in those reporting high levels of stress. The subjects with lower levels of stress saw more efficient recovery curves. Perhaps the low stress individuals are in a position to tolerate and adapt to training more efficiently.

What About Injured Athletes?

Often, when an athlete sustains an injury, they will stop doing things like daily questionnaires because they feel that these questionnaires are only for those who are “training”. This becomes problematic because understanding an athlete’s psychological state can impact their recovery and rehabilitation. While injuries often have typical recovery time lines (E.g., 3-4 weeks), the goal should be to try and speed up the recovery process as much as possible without compromising the athlete’s health. One of the best ways to speed up this process and “drive in the fast lane”, so to speak, is to create an optimal environment for healing to take place. Educating the athlete on things like sleep, nutrition, hydration, and rest are essential. Additionally, it is helpful to understand the athlete’s psychological state and do whatever you can to create an environment that allows the athlete to continue training in some capacity, as well as fuels optimism and decreases the negativity that some athletes can have once they get injured. Ford et al., (2000) found that an athlete’s psychological state can impact their time lost due to injury. Those that were less optimistic and didn’t cope well with stress had greater time loss following injury compared to those who were more optimistic and had better self-esteem. Finally, a meta-analysis conducted by Walburn and colleagues (200), found that wound healing was actually impaired due to stress, emphasizing the need for a better understanding between stress and healing.

Summary

The stress that athletes face outside of the competitive environment has the potential to impact their ability to train, adapt, recover from injury, and heal. While there are many methods of assessing athletes within the training environment, a simple questionnaire evaluating the athletes psychological status (discussed in a previous article on this site) can provide the coach with a better understanding of how the athlete is psychologically coping and can drive interventions and program changes to ensure that the athlete gets the appropriate attention they need.

Strength Coaches & Data

As North American sports begin to take interest in data and metrics (and try and catch on to what the Australians and Europeans have been doing for several years) there seems to be a number of strength coaches who are starting to embrace the trend.

As I look back on my journey in this profession I can sum it up with three very distinct stopping points along the way where, if you had asked me at the time, I would have told you that these things were the most important things to know in order to be a strength coach:

1. Programming/Periodization & Coaching your lifts2. Stress, Recovery, Adaptation
3. Data collection and analysis

While I can’t say that any one of those three categories are more important than the other (certainly the first two are critically important if you are coaching athletes) I can say that the third stop along the way in my career has been incredibly interesting because, while not directly having to do with coaching athletes in the gym, it has allowed me the ability to connect some dots and provide context to the other two areas above it. It has allowed me to explain things that I see and explain why certain things happen and others do not with specific individuals in training. It has added depth to my training programs that I was previously lacking.

There are three areas where I feel data can be helpful to the strength and conditioning coach:

Athlete Profiling

Athlete profiling is essential because it allows us to define the needs of the individual and create training programs that are specific to what their body needs in order to enjoy success in their sport. While most think of athlete profiling as physiological testing, which is certainly a part of it, athlete profiling can encompass other metrics as well including data about how the athlete plays their position within their sport, how much the athlete plays, and their typical game demands. Rather than just developing a generalized way of categorizing the sport or the position by profiling the athlete we can begin to understand similarities and differences between athletes in the same position and find unique needs that the athlete may have to be prepared for, which can influence how we design our training program.

Enhancing Program Design

Most people don’t think about the program design aspect of things when it comes to collecting data on athletes. Often, coaches believe that collecting data on athletes automatically leads to telling the athlete to “do less” and “not overtrain”. While preventing overtraining is important we can use the data we collect to influence our program design. Some of the ways that I have done this are to adjust training as needed – either increasing training volume/intensity or lowering training volume/intensity based on what the athlete is prepared to do that day – and creating key performance indicators (KPIs) within training phases that allow us to determine if the athlete is improving and if we are getting what we expect to be getting from the training program. The KPIs should reflect the goal of the training phase and can be in the form of an exercise test (where the athlete may not even know they are being tested) or a submaximal test that can be used to reflect improvement when measured against previous tests.

Monitoring Fatigue / Health Management

Finally, what most people think about when they think about data and monitoring, understanding player health and preventing overtraining. As stated above, adjustments to the program based on what the athlete is prepared to do that day is one piece of the equation within this bucket. Other areas of importance here are looking at various factors of the athlete’s health and helping to educate the athlete (and coaches) about how they are tolerating the stress of practice, competition, and life. This area of data becomes incredibly important for the strength coach during the in season period as the goal is no longer to do a maximum amount of training but rather to get from one competition to the next in the most efficient manner possible and training at the minimum effective dose in order to prevent adding extra stress on top of competition stress.

Conclusion

Data can be incredibly helpful to the strength coach and it is nice to see others starting to embrace data collection and analysis as a means of trying create a more complete understanding of their athletes. It is my hope that in future blog posts I can share some ideas around data collection and integration.

Tommy John & Pitch Counts

This year, eighteen pitchers have undergone Tommy John surgery in the MLB (last I checked) and we are not even half way though the season. There is tons of speculation about why we are seeing such a rise in ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries and I don’t think it is ever easy to boil any injury down to one single factor. Even when you think you have everything figured out and have crossed your “T’s” and dotted your “I’s” injuries can creep up because of factors that you might not be aware of or factors that are outside of your control.

That being said, one of my good friends works in major league baseball as a manual therapist and strength coach and during a conversation one day he mentioned that it would be interesting to know how many pitches Jose Fernandez (the second year phenom pitcher for the Florida Marlins who pitched in 8 games this year before undergoing Tommy John Surgery and will miss the remainder of the season) threw in those eight games. Again, hard to pin-point injury to one single factor and just having something like pitch count doesn’t provide you with enough information to really understand the whole situation (although famed orthopedic surgeon, Dr. James Andrews, does feel that throwing too much and overuse may be one potential factor in UCL injury). However, I thought it would be interesting to look at so here are some of the things I quickly found after looking at a few websites and getting pitching statistics.

During Jose’s 2013 season (his rookie year) he:

Threw 2604 total pitches over 28 starts
Averaged 93 pitches per game

During the first 8 games of the 2013 season he:

Threw 665 total pitches
Averaged 83 pitches per game

During Jose’s 8 games in 2014 he:

Threw 770 total pitches (105 more during the first 8 games of this season than the 2013 season)
Averaged 96.25 pitches per game (averaged 13 more pitches per game over the first 8 games than the 2013 season)

Graphically, this is what Jose’s 2013 season looked like:

You can see that over the first 11 games the teamed seemed to take it a bit easier on the rookie and ease him into the swing of things (there may be reasons for this – again, tough to know with just pitch count information) – before really pushing it the rest of the way.

In comparison, here is what the first eight games of the 2013 and 2014 seasons looked like together:

I don’t know that there is a big take away here other than it is interesting to look at the way Jose was managed from his rookie year to his second year in terms of pitch count. There was a considerable jump in the first 8 games of the 2014 season compared to the 2013 season and the second half of the 2013 season. It would be great to have more information – daily readiness information, fitness information, how much throwing he does/did between starts, how much he did in spring training, etc, on-and-on.

Perhaps one factor (of many) that plays a role in UCL injury is the management of pitchers in terms of how much they throw or how it is determined that they are fit enough to go out and throw a certain amount or tolerate greater volumes of throwing? I’m sure the picture is much larger than this though.