Frans Bosch: Reactivity Training

Posted On Wednesday, 12th September 2012

by James Marshall

"Humans aren't descended from apes, but are

a bad crossbreed of kangaroos and horses"

Frans Bosch delivered 4 great presentations at

GAIN V this year each one packed full of information
and ideas.
This included two practical sessions. One was gym
based and one was running based. That helped
immensely with my understanding and application.
Here are some of my thoughts on his analysis of sprint
mechanics, based on his anatomical model. He looks
not at how the "wheels turn, but how the motor
runs". This requires an internal focus of running
mechanics, not an external focus.

He uses comparisons of human anatomy with that of

kangaroos, horses and springboks: the best
runners and jumpers. By comparing hamstring and
gastrocnemus length with tendon length in the
different species, we could see how improvements
could be made in speed and jump training.

He started off with 3 building blocks for

improving sprinting:

1. Muscle slack (the most important)

2. Reactivity
3. Reflex Patterns
Working on improving and developing these areas
will improve your running speed.

What is muscle slack?

Imagine a rope dangling from one end, then being

pulled from both ends: the slack has been taken out of
it. Jogging is bad running with more muscle slack,
removing the slack increases your speed.

Slack is not a bad thing, it helps with control of lower

speeds. But, to run fast you have to eliminate the
slack.

The 2 ways to do this are either:

1. Use a countermovement, which is what less co

ordinated and slower athletes do.
2. Use pretension where the muscles are co
contracting (preferred option).
Bosch then explained why certain weight training
exercises don't help pretension because the bar
does the work for the muscles. Instead use other
exercises that allow the body to provide solutions.

(As an aside someone from the ECB told me that a

cricketer I was working with who couldn't do a body
weight squat, could be tested with a barbell because
the weight helped him get lower to the ground!
Unfortunately he wasn't allowed to do fielding in
matches with that weight on his shoulders!).

Bosch has also eliminated the countermovement

from any weight training exercises or drills that he is
doing with the Welsh Rugby Union at the moment.

4 Ways to get a bouncy athlete

1. An erect posture (max 20 degree of knee

flexion when jumping). Really good jumpers have
5-9 degrees of knee amortization. These are
sometimes known as speed jumpers compared to
power jumpers. (Bosch said that power jumpers
are just speed jumpers with bad technique!)
2. Short contact time and little change in joint
angles
3. Pretension prior to ground contact.
4. Drop height no higher than the jump
height of an athlete (you shouldn't store more
than you can unload)
Bosch then went into more detail on the running
mechanics themselves (regular readers and our
athletes will have as seen this before).

I first saw Frans at the RFU speed conference 3

years ago and was blown away by the concepts. This is
what we have been working towards with our athletes
since then.

The bottom line is that our athletes are benefitting

from this. (Jazmin Sawyers got a Long Jump
bronze medal at the Junior World Championships
having been trained using this methodology.)

I can't say I grasped all of his concepts at this

conference, but am able to watch the lectures back on
video which helps!

Positive Running by Frans Bosch

When I was in Holland Frans Bosch

introduced the concept of Positive Running to
me. I thought it was thought provoking and
should be put on the table for discussion.
Frans was kind enough to translate some of
his remarks on his idea into English. Much of
the background for this is the Book and the
DVD available at www.gambetta.com

Positive Running - Maintaining top speed in

running - Basic ideas

By Frans Bosch

In top speed running there are limiting factors. One

could be the amount of power muscles can generate.
There is good reason to assume this not a very
important factor. An important factor is the ability to
maintain elastic energy in the system by converting it
to kinetic energy and back to elastic energy again. This
means a lot of elastic energy is transported from one
leg to the other each step. In sprinting this occurs 4-5
times per second.

How is elastic energy transported from one leg to the

other?

In top speed running hamstrings play a crucial role. In

the swing phase, at the moment of the fast knee
extension, the hamstring is stretched elastic by the
pendulum motion of the lower leg. To load the
hamstrings elastic pelvic rotation backward has to be
avoided, since backward rotation unloads the
hamstrings. Therefore it is necessary to have the
pelvic not in a forward tilted position immediately
before the hamstring-loading phase. This means that
at the end of the stance phase forward pelvic rotation
has to be avoided. Abdominal muscles play a crucial
role in this.

When there is no or limited forward tilt at the

moment of toe-off. m. iliopsoas activity of the behind
leg can help with loading the hamstring together with
the knee extension. (See BK book)

Around the moment of toe off (in the leg that was the
stance leg) there is an important transition in muscle
activity from one set of muscles (hamstring gluteus
erector spinae) to an other set of muscles (abd.
Iliopsoas rectus). This big change in muscle activity
means transferring elastic energy from one group of
muscles to the next is under pressure. It becomes even
more difficult when there is forward tilt of the pelvis,
because abdominals only have a narrow range in
witch they can generate big forces.

Is avoiding of forward rotation of the pelvis difficult

and is it a limiting factor in high speed running?
Avoiding too much forward tilt of the pelvis together
with keeping the pelvis in a forward position (like M
Johnson etc. >> making it possible to load the abd,
iliops rectus -set with lots of elastic energy) facilitates
the energy transfer from one leg to the other. Losing
control of the hip position under fatigue can be
observed in many runners (being unable to bring the
swing leg forward fast enough).

How is this stabilizing of the pelvis done?

In positive running a large retroflecive motion of the

stance leg is avoided, because that will always result in
pelvis tilt forward. The knee of the stance leg does not
travel far behind the hip. In Asafa Powell's technique
this is done to an extreme, the knee hardly travels
until behind the hip. Many sprinters that are excellent
in the last stage of a 100m show this pattern and they
show it even more in their best races (Carl Lewis in
his world record race).

Why is it called positive Running?

Take the moment of toe off and draw lines trough the
upper legs (yellow dotted line). Divide the angle in
two equal parts (a) and draw a new line (blue). In
sprinters with the mentioned speed maintaining
technique this blue line points forward (positive) in
runners with less suited technique the blue line points
more downward (more in a negative direction). This
positive resultant is seen in the whole running cycle,
also for instance at the when the stance leg is vertical,
the swing leg has passed it already a lot in positive
running.

Maintaining elastic energy in the system by keeping

the pelvis in the right position is difficult at high speed
and could be the limiting factor in running. This can
be improved with;

Technique training
Conditioning the muscles in the front of the body to a
much higher level than done before. (from my
experience this easily can be achieved) Muscles in the
front are often neglected.

Notes from Frans Bosch – Transfer of Strength

Training: Implications from the CNS

This was an important lecture for me as it introduced

several concepts that prompted me to study many
important aspects of skill acquisition as I mentioned
in my introduction to What is good coaching?

Frans Bosch is professor of biomechanics and motor

learning at Fontys University for Applied Science in
the Netherlands and sprint consultant to the Welsh
Rugby Union – you can read more about him here.
My notes, in bullet point format, from the lecture are
below:

4. The laws of motor learning should be central in

designing a strength program rather than
Newtonian laws
5. In order to maximise the learning result Strength
exercises need:
Precise intention
Variable execution
6. Basic motor properties such as strength,
endurance, flexibility, co-ordination etc don’t
exist
7. This is because there is no clear dividing line
between properties – there should be a
guaranteed transfer of that property between
movement patterns but this is not the case
8. A well trained high jumper can get Maximum
Voluntary Contraction to 95% executing a high
jump (compared to an untrained person’s level of
75%) but they couldn’t do the same in a Javelin
throw as it is a different movement pattern
9. If muscle is not pre-tensed in an isometric
contraction prior to movement then it has slack
10. Up to 50% of a countermovement jump, for
example, can be taken up with the muscle going
from slack to taut
11. Resistance exercises like a barbell hang clean
provide pre-tension for the muscles through the
weight of the barbell providing a counterbalance
12. This results in the body becoming lazy as regards
pre-tension – Frans has eliminated
countermovements from lifts for his athletes for
this reason
13. As a result strength cannot be considered a stand-
alone bio-motor property and classic mechanics
do not address motor control and is too
 reductionist an approach
A more in depth explanation of the concept of muscle
slack is provided in this article

Frans’ Rules of Specificity as the main

requirement for transfer

3. Types of muscle action must be similar to those

used in competition (Inter/Intra muscular)
4. Structure of the movement must resemble that
used in competition (motion of limbs)
5. Sensory information must resemble that present
in competition
6. Dominant energy systems used in competition
must be called on
7. Result of the movement must be the same as
competition
5. 1& 2 are the usual suspects – 3 is a key factor
often overlooked. Frans did not mention in his
lecture but this is due to perception-action
coupling which I mentioned in my blog What is
good coaching? Two papers of interest on this are
here and here.
6. Focussing on a movement outcome produces a
better learning effect than focussing on
performance of a skill
7. Frans detailed a study that split discus throwers
in to 2 groups that received feedback from:
An elite coach – giving them Knowledge of
Performance (KP – how well or poorly they
executed the throw)
 A measuring tape i.e. they were only told how
far each throw went – giving Knowledge of
Results (KR)
8. Those in the Knowledge of Results group attained
results as good as those receiving feedback from a
coach in the short term and performed better in
the long term
9. KP results in an internal focus for athletes where
they are thinking about where to position their
limbs, sequence of movement which can result in
overload (otherwise called reinvestment) and
poor performance
10. KR leads to an external focus whereby the athlete
is only thinking of achieving the goal
11. Therefore a Clean type movement is better than a
High Pull as it has a clear outcome goal where the
bar is racked on the shoulders

I emailed Frans to ask about the study he mentioned

and it was by Ballreich but pre-digital era and he only
had a hard copy. The Wulf and Prinz Review
mentioned on the slide is here.

Dynamic Systems Theory

• There are many differences in running between an

elite track sprinter and an elite rugby player such
as more trunk lean and lower heel recovery
height for the rugby player but how relevant are

they?
• Degrees of freedom – the number of parameters that
may independently vary – click here for more
info on this and here for a study on free(z)ing
DoF
• In the arm there are 1,000′s of degrees of freedom
through the various joints & muscles
• Too many degrees of freedom can make control
impossible therefore the body seeks to stabilise
certain elements that then serve as attractor wells
for the unstable elements (see pic on right)
• We start with relatively unstable technique but as
certain key elements stabilise they increase the
 depth of the well they sit in which attracts the
unstable elements more easily
• Skilled practitioners show a high variance in
movement patterns that are repetitive
• E.g a Blacksmith hitting an iron will have a different
start position each time but hit the same end
position each time – based on work of Bernstein
(who interestingly coined the term
“Biomechanics”)
• Therefore we should look to address 2 or 3 key
attractors for a skill that are always the same
rather than try to address every facet
• E.g a Clean that finishes with a single leg up on to a
step has the same attractors as running and the
fluctuations (differences such as knee lift heights)
are irrelevant

Decentralised Self Organisation

• The body tends to be variable but the implement it is

using or outcome it achieves is very precise
• There is no hierachy of top down, brain to muscle
signalling
• The whole system is involved throughout a
movement correcting errors as it develops
(decentralised self organisation)
• As the signal is filtered down through the system
noise is fine tuned to remove errors
• A squat in the gym has no pertubations whereas
sport has many due to the chaotic nature
• As a result instability in training (weights and
surfaces) is very important due to the theory of
differential learning
• Aiming for perfect technique in a stable environment
(e.g. back squat in a gym for a rugby player) does
not improve competition performance whereas
strength training that has variable performance
in an unstable environment does
• Learning a skill is not learning a perfect technique
but learning how to correct errors
• Therefore instability and variation in strength
exercises are crucial for the learning effect
This lecture rattled a few cages from what I heard
other delegates saying afterwards. As Ian King often
says, there was an immediate over-reaction followed
by a long term under-reaction on this as many came
away thinking Frans was saying all strength training
must be done on one leg on a upturned BOSU and
therefore they would ignore what he presented.

I had my own opinion on the main point of the lecture

and fortunately managed to corner Frans afterwards
to clarify this. It is important to note the difference
between General Preparation Means and Specific
Preparation Means. This article does a good job of
explaining these classifications. Once this is
understood you can see that transfer is only really a
consideration for Specific Preparation exercises.

Frans was not saying that all strength training must

be done on unstable surfaces and every exercise must
be on one leg etc. He was saying that within a
program you must take in to account the fact that
sport is chaotic and in order to properly prepare for
this these are important considerations. He is a
consultant to the Welsh Rugby Union and it is clear
that their players are not waving 2.5kg dumbbells
around sitting on Swiss balls all the time. They do
traditional strength training as part of their General
Preparation but also incorporate these methods
around Specific Preparation such as speed and sport
training with great success.

I think certain delegates (not all I hasten to add)

missed the key messages surrounding motor learning
and skill acquisition. As with most things in life, there
is a blend of many factors necessary for success yet
people are keen to polarise debate where this does not
in fact reflect reality.

I personally found this lecture fascinating and it

directed me to many interesting topics within skill
acquisition which I feel are now benefitting me
greatly.

Part 1: Reactivity Training

Martin: You are best known as a hurdle
coach, but you have also coached a lot of
other events. Which events have you worked
with?

Gary: I didn’t start in the sport myself until I was a

junior in high school. We didn’t have a track program
until my junior year. I ran hurdles a little, but I was
primarily a high jumper, long jumper, and triple
jumper. It was the same throughout college. When I
went to graduate school at Oregon State I was helping
Will Stevens with the jumpers there too. When I went
to Florida State I inherited some sprinters and
hurdlers and I had to learn to be a sprint coach. That
is how it’s been.

People get labeled as a certain type of coach, but if you

get fortunate in your recruiting or inherit some
athletes you have to become a hurdle coach to survive.
I’ve coached every event: cross country, steeplechase,
a few pole vaulters, and throwers. When I was a head
coach in college I would typically pick up the events
where our coaches didn’t have as much experience.

Martin: I’m sure that gives you some

perspective to compare and contrast training
among different event groups. This is a broad
question, but what can throwers learn from
hurdlers about training? In other words:
what do you see in hurdle training that
throwers might be overlooking?
Gary: I certainly don’t understand throws as well as I
should, but I tell people that one of my two favorite
events to coach is the hammer even though I’ve only
done it for a couple of years. But I thought it was a
fascinating event.

Martin: It’s one of my favorite events too.

Gary: What I was trying to do when coaching the

hammer back in 2007 was apply some of the reactivity
principles that Frans Bosch talks about. As the turns
get quicker of course the speed of contact with the
ground gets quicker. I was trying to coach the angle
and reactivity on the ground. This is the same thing I
was trying to do with hurdlers in their take off. It
would have been fun to continue to do it for a few
more years. It seemed to make sense for me.

Martin: Could you explain a little more about

the concept for those, like myself, that might
not be as familiar with Bosch’s work?

Gary: The concept is that we sprint primarily through

the production of vertical forces. The best sprinters
are those that put the most amount of force into the
ground in the least amount of time. When you get
above 7.5 meters per second in your running the only
way to produce forces in that short amount of time is
to produce them reactively. And so we set up the body
to allow the tendons such as the Achilles and IT band,
the elastic anatomical components in the body, to
produce force because they are the only things that
can produce forces that high at that speed.

In sprinting people have talked about the ankle for a

long time and how it needs to be a rigid structure
when it contacts the ground to take slack out of the
system. If the ankle is rigid when you hit the ground
you will be rigid in the knee and hip as well and you’ll
have a solid system where the muscles are all tense
and allow the tendons to stretch and reflex, which will
give high forces in a short amount of time.

To take it a step further if you just try to keep the

ankle rigid when the foot contacts the ground the
ankle will always collapse. Once the ankle collapses
the knee and hip will collapse as well. So you’ve lost
the rigidity in the system. Frans would say there is
slack introduced into the system. What has to occur is
that, just prior to the foot coming in contact with the
ground, for the purposes of conversation let’s say
about one centimeter off the ground, the foot needs to
actively plantar flex into the ground. The active
plantar flexion shortens the system and gives it a
greater potential for rigidity and you don’t have the
collapsing occur.

Martin: How did you implement the

reactivity principles in hurdle training?
Winckler coached Perdita Felicien to a world title in
the short hurdles in 2003.
So in hurdling I would utilize this on the penultimate
step before the hurdle. If we can get this kind of
reactivity off the ground on the penultimate step it
ultimately then makes the action of the lead leg
automatic and transfer the momentum from the run
between the hurdles to the takeoff and clearance of
the next hurdle.
That was my initial goal, but once I started playing
with this I was surprised how easily athletes pick it up
and also discovered that the better the quality of
reactivity off of the penultimate step ultimately
determined the quality of the flight over the hurdle. So
if we had situations where arms were going off to the
side or the lead leg was coming across the middle of
the body, situations the people often try to correct
while the athlete is in the air, if you simply went back
and corrected what was going on in the last two steps
before the hurdle to achieve a good reactive force
production then all the anomalies over the hurdle
disappeared. It made coaching the event very easy.
This make sense since if you are coaching the long
jump or high jump and don’t like the flight, what do
you do? You go back and look at what happened on
the ground.
Martin: I find the impact on technique very
interesting and I’ll get back to that point
later. But I’m curious whether the reactive
element is trained as a technical point
through cues, or is it acquired through
supplemental exercises in the weight room?

Gary: I try to incorporate it into some of the weight

room activity we do. I pretty much put together my
training in a very thematic way. If the theme of the
day is speed it doesn’t mean we can’t go to the weight
room or do longer running, it just means that every
activity we do that day will be addressing speed. So if
we are doing flying 30 meter runs or technical work
on the track we might end the session by going into
the weight room and doing snatches or reactive step
ups where the goal is not necessarily moving a lot of
weight but it’s working about coordination with a
resistance.
Martin: And how did you work on
implementing it in the hammer throw?

Gary: Let’s just say you are a right handed thrower

turning counter clockwise. What I was trying to do
was working on the last two right foot contacts and
trying to get them to be much more reactive on the
right side. As the right foot comes down they would be
more reactive with the ankle in the ways I described
earlier. In other words have the toe up and as the foot
comes to the ground be very active with the plantar
flexion to speed up the right hip.

The important concept of all of this in throwing,

sprinting, or any activity you are going to do this
reactive work with is that the foot has to enter
perpendicular to the ground. Everything is down from
above. When the right foot comes around in the
hammer it comes down from above, performs the
reaction off of the ground, and boom accelerates the
hip around.

Frans Bosch & A Guiding Framework

From August 15-18, I had the opportunity to head
down to Athletes Performance in Phoenix to attend
Frans Bosch’s Speed Development & Motor Behaviour
clinic.

Although the Canadian Athletics Coaching Centre will

be hosting him in December (which I am hoping to
attend), I thought it was somewhat of a responsibility
of mine to “leave no stones unturned” and attend.
Since his book goes into great detail on running
mechanics and given his knowledge of motor learning
(his new book has yet to be translated to English), I
was confident that hearing him speak more than once
would be conducive to my professional development.

50+ pages of notes later, I’d say that mission was

accomplished.
To say that this clinic was deep in content would be a
huge understatement. And although the roads to
Rome – especially as it relates to training
methodology – are great in number, any course that
forces cognitive overload even days after it has ended
would be considered a success in my books.

Patrick Ward already wrote up a summary of his notes

and thoughts, so in this post I figured I would
incorporate my interpretation of some of Bosch’s
concepts into a guiding framework.

So consider the following:

14. Know what you see

15. Know what you don’t see
16. Know why you don’t see what you don’t
see
17. Know how to best get what you want to see
18. …so that you can see it consistently
The above was discussed in a recent conversation
about effective coaching, analysis and therapeutic
intervention that I had with our head coach not too
long ago. In many sports, and especially track & field,
I’d say that this sums up a decent sized component of
coaching and performance therapy quite well. So if I
had to describe or summarize the Bosch “method” as
briefly as possible, it would be with the five bullet
points above.

But to let me expand on each, based on my

interpretation of his teachings over the course of the
weekend.

Know What You See

From a standpoint related to therapists, I hold firm in

my belief that it is important for the therapist and any
member of the applied integrated support team be
present and see the athlete in competition and
especially training. During the weekend Bosch had
mentioned that being able to identify the main issue
(in faulty mechanics and/or mechanism of injury) is
very intuitive, and I’m of the mindset that “deliberate
practice” in human movement analysis facilitates the
development of intuition. Effective analysis, technical
coaching, and applied therapy is far from being cut
and dry and requires consistent studying and practice.
In my mind, from here dynamic technical models (to
utilize as frameworks) will arise and hopefully be
followed by relative success in being able to identify
what you see.

Know What You Don’t See

Once one develops an eye for being able to understand

what they see, the ability to identify rooms for
improvement should follow shortly behind. That is, to
have a working knowledge of what should be ideal and
what is lacking. Bosch was able to accelerate my
learning in this department by providing us with a
flowchart for error detection in “top speed” (upright)
mechanics, broken down into 4 categories and
possible causes. These include, but are not limited to,
involuntary high frequency of running, excessive long
axis rotation, lower extremity backside – “round
pendulum” as he calls it – mechanics and arm action.

He then presented a similar, yet more systematic,

flowchart for error detection in the start and
acceleration. He strongly suggested that each of these
should be addressed in a sequential order, not
dissimilar to the SFMA algorithm in clinical
movement assessments. His order, on a superficial
level, consists of start trajectory, knee and hip
collapse, ankle angle, and the amount of whole body
slack – or lack of stiffness – present.

Some of the above information is in his book

and DVD so feel free to check them both out.

Know Why You Don’t See What You Don’t See

As a motor learning and behaviour junkie (for lack of

a better term), Bosch firmly believes that running is
not just about optimization, but also robustness
against many perturbations. Peter Reeves and his
balancing stick analogy immediately came to mind
during this section of the weekend and it was hard for
me to not find similarities in their lines of thinking.
With that said, when analyzing our athletes – again
for performance enhancement and injury prevention
– it is important for us to take a whole body approach
in analysis and refrain from the opposite reductionist
model. I think we need to move away from the single
minded “just strengthen the glute med” line of
thinking and better ourselves in understanding why
we don’t see what we don’t see. Again, this takes
practice, but truly it is never just a single joint that
should be in a specific angle. It is always the
relationships between the joints that matters, as
Bosch suggests. That said, Bosch does recognize and
suggest that good technique is often frontal plane
dominance, with bad technique often emanating from
sagittal plane dominance. So from a “general strength
(GS)” and wholistic athletic development standpoint,
I’m of the current mindset that warm up and GS
exercise selection should not be limited to linear
exercises.

Perhaps novel to some of the attendees (at least to

myself), Bosch views traditional strength training as
Isaac Newton based, with neurophysiology often
being under appreciated and dynamic or variability
training lying second tier to linear strength
development models. Where this is relevant is in Hill’s
model of muscle and tendon properties, that many
coaches often outweigh passive tissue (tendon and
series elastic components) development in favor of
active tissue (muscle and parallel elastic
components) development. Bosch went to great
lengths reiterating that during running, most
“lengthening” ideally should occur in the tendons and
thus, the importance of isometric contractions of
muscle bellies. And as mentioned in my previous
post , this makes me inquisitive about individuals
from various demographics and specific tendon-
muscle ratios. It is known (read Epstein’s “The Sports
Gene”) that some demographics that have greater
tendon to muscle ratios in given muscle complexes.
Additionally, from my own (admittedly) anecdotal
experience, there are also individuals from specific
demographics whose connective tissues are thicker
and more dense than others. With both of these in
mind – at least in my mind – each of the above
(greater tendon to muscle ratios and greater density of
connective tissues) would be conducive to transmit
forces more rapidly up or down the “chain”, have
greater resilience to neuromuscular fatigue, and be
better able to possess more spring-like properties. So
again from a therapeutic standpoint, would it not be
wise to take a more systematic and targeted approach
(with at minimum, the technical model in mind) to
soft tissue therapy rather than the common
application of whack-a-mole?

For example, many are familiar with the term “muscle

slack” from Bosch and his views on the importance of
“taking up” such slack during the initial and
instantaneous phase of contraction. According to
Bosch, once slack is taken up, elastic loading can
occur. “Becoming supple” is currently all the rage, and
while slack is important for variability – a steering
mechanism in distance runners – Bosch suggests that
regulating stiffness (decreased slack) is the ideal in
sprinters. This is not surprising, and by no means am
I suggesting that mobility is not important, but I have
come to appreciate and accept – as well as relatively
ignore – passive and low load mobility restrictions in
certain sprinting demographics…at least when it
comes to performance. Yes, I do understand that
Bosch’s concept of slack has to do instantaneous
contractions, but where I’m getting at is my somewhat
evolved views on analyzing (walking) gait, and passive
testing without regard for comparison to technical
proficiency and postural stability.

Another consideration to expand upon – based on

Bosch’s discussion of the series and parallel elastic
components – has to do with the neutral lumbo-pelvic
complex, or lack thereof. Now this is a topic that’s
consistently running through my mind so please feel
free to discuss, but I’m starting to wonder whether or
not I would “allow” a greater saggital plane range of
motion of the lumbo-pelvic complex in certain
individuals, so long as control and efficiency are
present. My current line of thinking is that this is still
the exception rather than the rule so please bare with
me, but if a given individual displays greater tendon to
muscle ratios, would it not be reasonable to presume
that they are better able to store and transmit forces
traditionally around the hip from above the pelvis?
Again, control – and in many instances, high
performance – is paramount, but one would be hard
pressed to convince me to alter this specific aspect of
several high level sprinters’ mechanics. So for those of
you wondering how this relates to “knowing why you
don’t see what you don’t see”, my assumption is that
contemporary “neutral” may be missing from certain
individuals due to tendon-muscle ratios.

Know How to Best Get What You Want to See

The application of science across many realms is truly

an art and in athletics, the same can be said for both
coaching and performance therapy, as well as the
integration of the two. Just ask Kevin Tyler and Gerry
Ramogida. But with respect to the juxtaposed
stimulus-adaptation relationship, there was no
shortage of thought provoking and discussion
generating topics floating around the Bosch weekend.
Take, for example, the concept of muscle contraction
as being 3 Dimensional, rather than simply the
approximation of joints. Those of you familiar with
DNS will understand this notion of muscles “bulging
out” or volumizing. Because while many will throw
soft tissue therapy out with the bathwater, for me the
importance of tissue quality and compliance –
particularly of muscle bellies – holds priority over
lagging level 1 research.

The importance of coordination and the isometric role

of biarticular muscles were two of several major
themes throughout the Bosch weekend. Coordination
I was quite familiar with but Bosch’s methods of
“training the hamstring” (beyond the information
contained in his book) I was not. Needless to say, his
views and methods were thought provoking but I will
admit that he currently has me thinking more and
more about how best to facilitate isometric
contractions of such muscle groups so their respective
tendons can better act like springs for force
transmission.

From the first day until the last, Frans spoke a great
deal about Dynamic Systems Theory (DST), both in
theory and application. This theoretical construct is
quite deep and I would rather not to do it a disservice
with misrepresentation. But still, it would be prudent
for therapists to understand “the butterfly effect” –
that small changes can have large and cumulative
effects – from chaos theory. And within the realm of
DST, there are no protocols to govern – just a few
simple rules to follow – resulting in functionality and
coherence in behaviour, as stated by Bosch.

One of such rules is the rule of stable attractors and

variable fluctuations. An example of this is the knee as
an attractor versus the ankle as a fluctuation as he
discussed in his CACC podcasts. That knee angles
should change little while the ankle should be trained
in variable environments (grass, mats on the track,
etc).

Bosch also discussed his preference of co-contracting

muscles over countermovement activity, for the
purpose of minimizing muscle slack buildup. He also
suggested that the more (traditional) lifting an athlete
performs, the greater the potential for the weights to
compensate the muscle slack for the individual. That
the body should learn to take up the slack itself, rather
than the weights. Therefore, his summary was this –
that muscle slack may limit performance, that co-
contractions (without instantaneous release) may also
limit performance, (and) yet co-contractions also limit
muscle slack. So according to Bosch, coordination
training and co-contractions prior to impact of
unpredictable external forces are key in open and
closed skill running. For me, I wonder if this is where
EQIs fit in… Because the more isometric the
biarticular muscles function, the less degrees of
freedom to control, according to Bosch. This – to him
– results in greater stability and force transfer due to
the increased use of passive elements, but only when
muscle belly length is kept in its optimal length. So he
suggests to go after the SEC. To train in isometric
contractions with variable
conditions/environments. In sum, Bosch suggests
that there should only be one degree of freedom:
isometric contraction in an optimal length. This is his
rationale for training the hamstrings in such
specialized contractions and in higher intensity
movements. Training the attractor. And since
fluctuations are variable, his rationale for training
ankle adaptability via – for example – running with
changes in center of gravity and on variable surfaces.

Very briefly, Bosch discussed comparisons of humans

to horses and kangaroos. In short, he suggested that
the angle between the femur and foot while running is
optimal for energy transport. That the more parallel
the two, the better.
After two days of going over the ingredients, Bosch
used days 3 and 4 to discuss how best to create a
recipe. Again, Bosch is big on motor learning and I
think we can all better ourselves in this regard. For
therapists, I think our biggest downfall is knowing
and studying anatomy. And if you look back to
coaching in years past, I’m sure you would be hard
pressed to find a successful coach who mentioned the
words “glute” and “activate” on the track.

For Bosch, effective motor learning is saving directly

to the hard drive and bypassing the short term,
working and random access memories. Motor
learning research – and good coaches – suggest
that the more you (inappropriately) cue and talk, the
more you activate the working memory. And this is
contrary to the ideal. Learning is decentralized and
not top down. Yet unfortunately, the top-down
process is commonplace. And training the top-down
process often leads to “reinvestment” – conscious
monitoring and control – in competition. So if you are
a therapist, please remember that what you say
matters. And may I suggest, say as little as necessary!

I wish I had the time and patience to summarize the

motor learning component of the weekend. But truly,
it was content rich and I would rather not do so
incompletely. So if you don’t speak Dutch (again his
new book has yet to be translated to English), and
want to learn about types of feedback, the differences
between knowledge of performance and knowledge of
results, intrinsic and observational learning, and the
value of metaphors and analogies, I highly suggest you
take a peek at Developing Sport Expertise. The 2nd
Edition was just released, and I’m excited to crack it
open real soon.

…So That You Can See It Consistently

Ultimately, when you put all of the above together and

constantly strive for best practice implementation,
you would be hard pressed to not achieve working
success in performance therapy. And as difficult as it
may seem, I do agree with Bosch in that we have to
deviate from the model that we normally find
intuitively useful. From varying the environmental
stimulus to achieve adaptation and prevent poor
performance from monotony, he and others
appropriately suggest that in order to get what you
want to see and see it consistently,

“The best method is to vary the variation…vary the

task, vary the environment…then vary these again!”

The Journey to ‘Specific’

In recent years I have researched how people learn to

move as support for the interventions we are trying in
Primary schools and the Junior layers of sport. It has
been a very interesting journey but I have found some
difficulty in learning a new language and vocabulary.
‘External attention’; ‘Internal attention’;
‘Constrained Action Hypothesis’, are some of the
descriptors I have come across. As a coach who uses
the rules of pedagogy and, hopefully, an experienced
coaching ‘eye’ these words and phrases have meant a
lot of learning for me. I still don’t quite ‘get it’ all but
my clumsy research has either confirmed that some
practices I have used are actually based upon well
founded theories, or opened my eyes to some different
ways of coaching.

As I keep trying to work out, for the better, the

journey the athlete is on, I am concerned about the
‘quick-fix’, ‘fast-track’ scenario we all face today. The
race towards sports-specific activity without a firm
foundation, that is offered by the development of a
deep and wide ‘movement vocabulary’, appears to me
to be a major flaw.

This is just an attempt to put my own thoughts in

order so it is open to all sorts of criticism, complaint
and ridicule I know. I don’t profess to being an
intellectual or a scientist – I am a coach at heart – and
I try to understand all the research, detail and jargon I
come across as best I can. The key is to take the
information from the written page to the actual
coaching delivery and is the task of every coach.
Sometimes we get it right and other times we don’t
quite ‘get it’. This may be one of those ‘get it wrong’
times but I don’t have all the answers.

So, on to the journey.

Schmolinsky (1978) describes General Training as a
process that “develops a wide spectrum of
physiological, mechanical, psychological and moral
qualities“. He goes on to say that some of the
outcomes produce, “condition and good coordination
through locomotor skills, non-locomotor skills and
manipulative skills; correct movement patterns; a
general capacity for hard work.”

One can also add that this ‘general’ environment also

includes a full range of learning circumstances and
styles. People learn by a variety of ways e.g.
mimicking, following instructions and experimenting
as life presents formal and informal opportunities.
There is never one way of learning and adapting and
so the ‘general’ period should include a wide range of
learning opportunities to go with all the
aforementioned physical qualities.

Frans Bosch describes ‘specific’ training exercises as

having the following qualities:

The types of muscle action must be similar to those

used during competition (intra and inter-
muscular). The structure of the movement must
resemble that present during competition (motion of
the limbs). The sensory information must resemble
that present during competition The dominant
energy system used during competition must be
called upon. The movement result must resemble
that present during competition Bosch & Klomp,
2001-7
Many coaches are cognisant of these points and some
even prescribe exercises that match the above criteria.
Others tend to choose exercises that, on the face of it,
seem to get the athlete stronger or more stable or both
and then ‘hope’ that they transfer to the required
competition movement. This is illustrated by the use
of the double leg stance exercises of Squat, Clean,
Snatch, etc. As ‘triple-flexion / extension’ exercises
they are first class and have taken many a weightlifter
to high performance.

The key issue is the specificity of these exercises to the

skill of, say, running. Any runner will need the ability
to transfer weight from one leg to the other at high
frequency and with enough precision to be able to
tolerate and use the resultant ground-reaction forces
as they travel through the body from ‘toenails to
fingernails’. In this case we may look at exercises such
as Single Leg Squat, Single Leg Clean / Snatch, Single
Leg RDL’s, the Lunge matrix, Bounding activities, etc.
They are still part of the ‘triple-flexion / extension
family but now appear to be a little closer to the
movements required for running.

My colleague Steve Myrland listed the ‘order’ of things

from the general to the specific as being (my exercise
selection as an illustration):

Competition (absolute specificity) – e.g. the Sprint

start from blocks – Triple/ extension (concentric
strength emphasis); Specific (1st derivative) – Start
practice from blocks with a gun. Start practice from
blocks with a gun + weighted jacket. Special (2nd
derivative) – Single Leg Squat, Single Leg Clean, Push
Up, Split Squat Jumps, Bounding, Resisted Starts e.g.
Sled pulling, standing start hill sprints. General (3rd
derivative) – Squat, Lunge, Push, Pull, Brace, Rotate,
Hinge – varying speed, direction, amplitude,
complexity.

It is the precision, efficiency, consistency and

resilience of these actions that form the foundations
of what we refer to as ‘running mechanics’.

How, then, do we train the athlete to be in an optimal

position to solve these ‘specific’ movement puzzles?
How can we train a developing athlete to be in the
very best position to actually contemplate these
specific exercises? The point is that we, as coaches,
will need to give them the physical tools to do these
‘specifics’ well. The running cycle from ‘contact’
through ‘recovery’ to ‘contact’ brings to the table
myriad patterns of movement and neuro-muscular
sequences. If the body cannot produce, reduce and
stabilise force at exactly the right time in exactly the
right direction then the aforementioned ‘specifics’
cannot occur repeatedly with any precision.

Every time we challenge the athlete to ‘change’ by

attempting a new posture, shape, direction or timing
of an action, we are setting them a ‘movement puzzle’
to answer. If the ‘cue’ is correct (meaning that the
coach has the ability to select the correct puzzle to
solve, in the right order, at the right time) then it will
be the ability of the athlete to ‘know’ where they are in
time and space and to have a set of ‘answers’ ready to
choose from if they are to solve the puzzle.

These ‘answers’ may be found in the ‘general training’

environment if we create an appropriate period of
time where the athlete experiences and develops a
wide and deep vocabulary of mechanical and
physiological responses that they can call upon. Not
only will they have some ‘answers’ to bring to the
‘puzzle’ we have set them, but they will also have a
range of learning processes to call upon. In some
cases they will mimic, in others they will follow some
instruction and at other times they will experiment
themselves towards a solution.

As coaches we should be cognisant of all these

processes and ensure that we are supporting them by
the way we communicate with the athlete in terms of
the learning style we are presenting. This brings us to
the point of how we coach; how we present the puzzle;
the learning style we present.

If these learning processes are indeed important to

skill acquisition (and I tend to think they are) then the
way that we coach becomes even more important. If
we choose to get the athlete to focus on the result of
the movement they are attempting rather than the
way that they actually do it might be an important tool
in the coach’s toolbox. I have found that by presenting
this formula of learning within the total movement
pattern, at close to competition speed the athlete does
manage to learn within the movement itself rather
than in a drill. This is not to say that ‘drills’ (where the
movement is broken down into smaller parts) are not
important – far from it. There are plenty of drills that
are very useful for various reasons including the
movement pattern itself; strength and timing;
flexibility and stability, but the trap is to see the
athlete becoming good at the drill and less effective at
transferring to the total movement pattern.

Wolf and Prinz (2001 Psychomotoric Bulletin &

Review) mention the ‘Action effect hypothesis’ where
focussing on movement outcome gives a better
learning effect than focussing on performance. “This
external focus is more effective with better retention.”
(Frans Bosch)

One can describe this ‘outcome’ based learning as

being part of the ‘guided discovery’ process used by
the coach. Often the less said in coaching, the better.

“Tinker with and tweak. Then sometimes have the

courage and wisdom to know when to leave well
enough alone.” Tracey Fober

By creating a learning environment where the athlete

has to experiment with solving the puzzle – with only
a brief ‘guideline’ from the coach that describes the
outcome of the movement – may be an important step
to include in the process.

The benefits of an external focus of attention are

typically explained using the constrained action
hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that directing
attention externally facilitates non-conscious
automatic cognitive processing, which allows the
motor control system to produce fast and accurate
movements. The automaticity that is facilitated by an
external focus of attention promotes efficient
neuromuscular activation, optimal movement
patterns and elevated force generation, and
enhanced agility performance. In contrast, when
attention is directed internally, automatic processing
is interrupted. This interruption “constrains” the
motor control system, negatively influencing motor
skill execution. Porter, Jared M.1; Anton, Philip M.1;
Wu, Will F.W. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research: September 2012 – Volume 26 – Issue 9 – p
2389–2393

Using external focus imagery is most in-line with the

literature, but as a practical matter we may need
internal cues at the onset of interaction so the athlete
knows what part of the body we are actually referring
to. There just isn’t enough creative imagery to
describe a movement that they simply haven’t done
before. It is hard to get them to experiment fully when
they don’t know what it is to begin with.

“The research is virtually unanimous that external

focus cues outperform internal focus cues for skills
involving precision, efficiency, endurance, and
strength. Does this mean all of our internal focus
cues are wrong? I wouldn’t go that far yet.” Phillips

So it’s a balance between ‘discovery’ and ‘robotic’. It is

also a matter of giving the athlete a background in a
variety of actions and postures. It is known that many
elite athletes have come from a multi-sport
background. It is also an argument for creating a
‘movement-based’ PE curriculum as opposed to a
Competitive Games based curriculum.

Beginners and novices are able to apply automatic

processes learnt in other motor tasks to the one they
have had no previous experience with (Lowen, 2010).

The CAH (Constrained Action Hypothesis) theorises

that automatic processes of related well-rehearsed
tasks may be applied to the unfamiliar or less
practiced task at hand. (Lowen, 2013)

This seems to describe clearly the background that we

might consider for the developing athlete – a multi-
sport/movement background of learning from which
some of these ‘automatic’, specific answers can be
found. In other words a wide and deep movement
vocabulary, assembled from a range of ‘movement
puzzle’ solving from which answers to specific
movement can be found.

This, then, might be a pathway that links ‘general’ to

‘specific’. Start with a process that develops a wide
and deep movement vocabulary and, at the same
time, equip the athlete for the future by exposing
them to a variety of ‘learning’ opportunities.

“If a child can’t learn the way we teach then maybe

we should teach the way they learn” Estrada

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Kelvin

Giles. Bookmark the permalink.

Understanding the Kinetic Chain – Part One

My understanding of this unique description of the

body’s infrastructure has grown from a single
statement from my early mentor Wilf Paish who, with
this phrase, concisely guided me to a simple
foundation to my training prescription –’Train
toenails to fingernails’.

As time has unfolded and training mistakes made and

corrected (they are only mistakes if you don’t learn
from them) this stance has helped me enormously in
my coaching career. I spent most of my coaching life
serving as the provider of all four pillars of the
athletes needs – technical, tactical physical and
mental – and just as these are inter-woven into the
complex fabric of the athletes performance picture so
I learned that just about everything else was
connected.
It is in this context that my thoughts on the kinetic
chain have been assembled. This journey took me
from seeing the human body as a set of individual
components that needed to be trained individually
and then glued together by some coaching miracle,
through to understanding that the synergy that
creates human movement means that nothing works
alone.

On reflection I can understand why I started with this

isolationist view. My tertiary education had put me in
front of the forebears of modern sports science, a
group of people who measured things and then played
with all the numbers they collected. To measure they
had to isolate and most things were presented to me
neatly packaged in separate little boxes. I began my
coaching career thinking that the energy release
mechanisms of the body came in neat, separate
packages – alactic / lactic / aerobic – and even
thought that I could train them separately. Even today
there are theories that focus on isolation. In recent
years there has been a focus on the muscles
supposedly at the centre of core stability and
researchers and many in the world of Sports Medicine
advised that we should develop the skill of activating
Multifidus and Transverse Abdominus as the key
action. In Stuart McGill’s “Low Back Disorders” he
makes the statement,

“the reason for the clinical emphasis on the

Multifidus may well be that the bulk of research has
been performed on this muscle.” As educational as it
was back then for me, sports science not only helped
me but hindered me as I interpreted things in a ‘paint-
by-numbers’ manner – just as it had been presented
to me.

I was also taught the origins, insertions and major

actions of individual muscles of the body. The result
was that my teaching and coaching resembled this
‘paint-by-numbers’ process where I would choose
individual muscle or small muscle groups and expose
them to a training load and then hope for a miracle
that the body would recognise the individual
components and put them all together for me.
Hamstring curls and leg extensions were a prime
example as they appeared in my early exercise
prescription – and it never really worked.

My career then put me under the wings of some very

experienced coaches. These were men and women
who spent their time teaching and coaching
movements that formed a journey to sports-specific
performance production. The explanation was quite
simple for their exercise choice – the sport / event
demands ‘all the body, all the time from top to
bottom, front to back, side to side, in the correct
order, at the right speed, at the right time – all the
time’. It seemed to them that if the contest demanded
such a complex system of movement then the athlete
should train that way. Looking back I also think that
these coaches simply had to find the time to do all this
preparation in a world when athletes did their
training after work. They had to ‘get to the point’
pretty quickly and so it was easier, and smarter to
choose / create exercises that were multi-joint, multi-
plane and multi-directional and encouraged all the
body to get involved, rather than a piecemeal
approach that took far too much time.

Now, here in the 21st century, we have all become

appreciative of the incredible ability of our sports-
scientists and the overall medical profession as they
use modern technology to research and confirm or
otherwise those hard-earned teaching and coaching
principles of yester-year. They are blessed with the
technology and opportunity to investigate and analyse
what we, many decades before, worked out by trial
and error.

There are copious statements from fellow

professionals who, during their research, present
illustrations of how this complex neuro-muscular set-
up known as the ‘body’ conducts itself in a
‘connected’, ‘toe-nails to fingernails’ manner. Leon
Chaitow a British Chiropractor stated, when speaking
about the fascia:

“Any tendency to think of a local dysfunction, as

existing in isolation should be discouraged as we try
to visualize a complex, interrelated, symbiotically
functioning assortment of tissues, comprising skin,
muscles, ligaments, tendons and bone, as well as the
neural structures, blood and lymph channels, and
vessels that bisect and invest these tissues that are all
given shape, form and functional ability by the
fascia.”- Leon Chaitow, 2011, JBMT 1-11

As he focused on the role of the fascia (an underrated

component of the body’s movement infrastructure) he
clearly enabled us all to see the complexity and
connection between all the components available to
the human being in a physical setting.

Eyal Lederman in his book Neuromuscular

Rehabilitation & Physical Therapies presented a
strong case for training ‘movements not muscles’
when he stated, “Muscles work in complex synergies
– they never work alone. All muscles are important,
even muscles that are silent.”

There are other descriptors and commentary that

illustrate how the kinetic chain might be perceived.
One cardinal rule that all teachers and coaches should
keep at the forefront of their decision-making is that
the body is self-organising. Right or wrong the body
will always attempt to complete the task even when
parts of the ‘chain’ are compromised in some way. It
may well ‘pass the buck’ between body parts as a
physical puzzle is encountered and a body part fails to
do its job. For example, according to Fryette’s law of
spinal (that big pillar that is involved in everything we
do) motion, if motion is lost in one plane, it will steal
it from the other two planes. The body will ‘find a way
or make one’ and it our job is to enable it to choose
the most effective, economical and efficient pattern
with which to solve the problem.

Vern Gambetta illustrates the phenomena of

connection and linkage when he says, “Movement is
not an isolated event that occurs in one plane of
motion. Rather it is a complex event that involves
synergists, stabilisers, neutralisers and antagonists
all at the same time to produce effective tri-planar
movement”.

Joe Przytula, a world-class practitioner in New Jersey,

USA, offers another illustration of how forces from all
directions and planes influence what happens during
motion. He was talking about issues with the
Adductors but added a clear picture of other related
structures and actions. “Remember the adductors
come off the pelvis; and forces coming ‘bottom up’
from the same side foot, & ‘top down’ from the
opposite leg, torso, and arms also need to be taken
into account. It sounds complicated, but it’s really
not. Trying to piecemeal individual muscles is what
makes it seem complicated.”

The leading joint theory (LJT) – as described by

Natalie Dounskaia (Exercise Sport Science Review,
2010 October; 38(4): 201-208) also infers the
connectivity of the body parts.

The leading role is endowed to a joint that has

mechanical advantage in the limb. Because of
relatively high inertia and the increased musculature
of the proximal limb segment, the mechanical
influence of proximal joint motion on distal joints is
much higher than the influence of distal joint motion
on proximal joints. For this reason, the leading joint
is often the proximal joint that acts similar to a whip
handle, a single wave of which can cause complex
motion of the cord.

However, the choice of the leading joint also depends

on the task. If a task requires much smaller range of
motion at the proximal than the distal joint, the
mechanical effect of the proximal joint would be
minor, and therefore, the distal joint may be more
suitable for the leading role. In both cases, each
movement is performed by exploiting a specific
mechanical effect that can be generated through
motion of a single joint.

These thoughts illustrate more about ‘connection’ and

reaction along the kinetic chain. Dounskaia intimates
that the role of one joint along with its properties,
action and location when coupled with the specifics of
the task creates the control of human movement in a
cascade process. In sprinting, ground contact time is
too short for proprioceptors to have any input. At high
speeds foot-ground impact force takes less than 50ms
to reach peak magnitude and ankle inversion can
reach 17 degrees in as little as 40ms. Under these
conditions the spinal reflex is too slow to initiate a
corrective response. Frans Bosch believes that, rather
than reflexive, this type of neurological input is
contained in the muscles themselves. The latest
research coming out of a recent Fascia Congress
seems to support this. The “cross talk” that EMG
technicians see on their monitors might just be a way
that muscles communicate with one another. This is
another example of how things are connected.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Kelvin

Giles. Bookmark the permalink.

Frans Bosch (NED) delivered the keynote address

on high speed running and strength. He discussed
ground reaction forces and his “whip from the hip,”
noting that ground force production and not leg
speed is the limiting factor in running velocity! He
also noted that researchers and coaches must be able
to make complex analyses but offer simple solutions
to the athletes. Bosch focused on the need for specific
strength development of the pertinent muscular
systems, noting that traditional power training
through Olympic lifts introduces too much muscle
slack and is probably not very effective for speed
power training unless the movement is modified to
remove the counter movement and slack. Indeed, the
countermovement causes slack in many exercises,
including jumps and hops, and thus should be
avoided in specific strength and power training.
Strength training is not the holy grail! His main focus
was on “Positive Running,” where pelvic posture, big
pendulum vs. small pendulum, forward hip rotation at
toe-off, reduced scissors action and casting foot in
front of hip, and “the most difficult moment in the
running cycle: reversing the pendulum” are all
important. Positive running helps muscles and
tendons work in the optimum length. He stressed that
the knee should not travel behind the pelvis in
positive running and that athletes need to keep the
free hip higher than the hip on stance side – an
excellent cue to watch. At toe-off, the stance shoulder
is lower and the free hip should be higher. Overhead
stick and jump rope and dumbbell runs can help
athlete organize their own system to develop this.
Bosch also noted that control of anterior-posterior
pelvic rotation is crucial for hamstring function. At
high speeds large quantities of energy are transported
from one leg to the other leg by elastic stretch as many
as 4-5 times per second. The iliopsoas is also crucial in
hamstring loading - there is no such thing as an
overactive iliopsoas. A functional hamstring wants to
stop knee extension and wants to assist hip extension
and the isometric condition in the hamstring is
controlled by pelvic rotation in the sagittal plane.
Bosch recommends training the hamstrings with
maximum strength exercises in the lengthened state –
prone trunk raises with weights are done with the
single leg. In addition, at higher speeds there is less
vertical oscillation and shorter ground contact. More
force is produced in a shorter time, and this goes hand
in hand with the pelvic rotation and hamstring
function. Maximum strength is not limiting – there is
plenty of force available, but the right force is needed
in a short time and in the proper direction!
The “whip from the hip” means pushing the foot into
the ground on contact. The simultaneous hip, knee,
and ankle extension applies force to the ground earlier
in stance, using the rectus femoris before the
hamstring. Overall, Bosch provided an excellent
presentation of the need to re-examine the details of
high speed sprinting.

Pistons and Springs

Posted on October 12, 2011 | Leave a comment
You are lifting a ton of weight in the weight room and
you are gaining mass while at the same time enjoying
your maxes ride up a steady incline. You can really
see the improvements of all the hard work and
dedication in the training facility. Now, we will pick
up the life remote control and fast forward to your
season and take a look at your future. The first thing
you feel is much faster during your first few steps.
You are explosive for 2-3 steps. When you are tied up
with an opponent you can manipulate his body very
easily due to your raw strength. You can feel the work
you did in these situations. After your practice you
watch the film and you start to get a little concerned
with what you see. You did not gain any speed after
the first few steps. You are getting knocked back on
collisions and impacts with other athletes. Why are
you slower than others out of your cuts and plants?
‘This should not be happening, I am a better athlete
and stronger than these other players…why?!’
Reactivity.

Any time our muscles need to move our bodies from a

standstill we rely heavily on concentric strength. This
is why our athlete improved in their 1st few steps.
After the initial acceleration, the need for this
concentric strength decreases greatly. After a certain
degree of speed is attained our bodies need to
function like springs. Concentric strength does not
allow our bodies to work like springs. Concentric
strength gives us the necessary pistons to accelerate
from slower speeds. At higher speeds our bodies need
a high degree of elasticity and springiness. Muscles
also need to be able to absorb force and then very
quick output force. When muscles have this reactive
strength, they make room for the body to be highly
elastic. If we train conventionally in the weight room,
then we will always be building stronger pistons while
neglecting our springs. How you are training in the
weight room is determining how your body will work
on the playing field.

Conventional wisdom tells us to start a repetition with

an eccentric phase followed by a concentric phase.
This is the widely accepted method to train with
resistance. For the purpose of teaching, we are going
to look at the lower leg. Picture an athlete doing calve
raises. They have the ball of their foot on a surface
while their heel has room to drop, offering the ankle
plenty of room to move. The athlete starts the rep by
lowering their heel and getting a good eccentric
contraction in the calve muscles. When they hit a
certain degree of depth the athlete pushes the ball of
the foot into the surface leading to a concentric
contraction causing the ankle to extend and we see the
calve muscles become very contracted. This should
help the athlete run faster and jump higher…Wrong!
The problem with this thinking is we are looking at
running and jumping from a very elementary
perspective. We are assuming the calve’s muscle belly
performs a definitive eccentric-concentric contraction
while running and jumping. Conventional wisdom
has not only widely accepted this, it tells us to
reinforce this movement pattern in the weight room.
You are turning your muscles into half-deflated soccer
balls.

A different approach is to look at how great athletes

hit the ground and investigate how their lower legs are
functioning. After a lot of research, great minds
(Bosch, Klomp) have found that their bodies are like
springs. Their muscles are very elastic. When the foot
hits the ground the calve muscles are isometrically
contracted. There is zero visible movement in the
calve. This isometric strength allows the tendons and
fascia of the muscle to stretch and recoil like a spring.
Tendons and fascia are highly elastic. We turn our
muscles into hard rubber super balls when we train
them this way. So, let’s head back into the weight
room and look at the calve raise from a different
perspective. The athlete will maintain the same foot
positioning as the previous description of this lift.
This time the ankle will maintain 90 degrees (A
neutral position) the entire time by performing and
isometric contraction in the calve muscle. After this
rigid contraction is performed, the athlete will bounce
up and down on the surface while the contact point is
the ball of the foot. The athlete has zero visible
movement in the calve muscle during the entire
exercise. We have just forced the elastic components
of the muscle to spring the body up and down. This is
reactivity.

Reactivity requires a lot more than just bouncing up

and down or doing plyometrics. The athlete must
have high amounts of muscle coordination and well-
timed contractions for this to occur in the playing
arena. Athletes need pistons and they need springs.
We need to make sure our bodies do not only have the
needed pistons to accelerate us from standstills, we
have the reactive muscle capability to be springs at
high speeds.

This article is not intended to fully explain the

theories of reactivity. It is meant to you’re your eyes
to muscle function in sport and the weight room.

Are You a Stiff? I Hope So….

Posted on March 24, 2011 | Leave a comment
One of the key factors in becoming more mechanically
efficient while sprinting is having a lot of muscle
stiffness at initial contact. The instant your foot hits
the ground, your muscles need to be very stiff all the
way up the chain (From foot to upper body). The
reason for this is simple, energy…or the transfer of
energy to be more specific. Thanks to the works of
brilliant minds like Frans Bosch we have a stronger
understanding of the bio-mechanics of running. In
this article we will discuss the importance and the
reasoning for having a stiff musculature while
sprinting.

Lets start with the energy concept. If we are able to

use more of the energy in the environment, then, we
will spend less muscle power, making us more
efficient. When our body needs to move, our muscles
generate power; spending energy, to move limbs
necessary for motion. What if it were possible to cut
down on the amount of muscle power needed to
move? Would this mean that we can use the energy in
the environment to move? Yes.

Frans Bosch has described different parts of our

bodies as elastic and others, well, not as elastic.
Tendons, fascia, and other rigid structures are very
elastic (These are the elastic components). Muscles
are not as elastic (These are the contractile
components). So, if we are able to let the elastic
components do the work, the contractile components
(Which spend energy), have less of a requirement to
fulfill to move the limbs. When a muscle is
isometrically contracted there is no movement in the
muscle. This means the contractile components must
move. If the muscle is not trained to isometrically
contract, then the muscle will move (We call this
slack), putting less demand on the elastic
components. When muscle slack happens, we lose the
ability to store elastic energy throughout the system.
We want the elastic components of the system to have
a high demand on them, leaving the contractile
components with a lower contribution to the
movement of the body.

Let’s start with the initial contact of the foot. The

moment the foot hits the ground we have kinetic
energy. If the muscles are stiff and rigid, then that
energy gets converted to elastic energy and it shoots
up the chain. When the energy traveling up the chain
hits a non-stiff contractile component it is absorbed.
If we have a completely rigid foot and leg, we conserve
all of the elastic energy until we hit the core. If the
core is completely rigid, then, again, we have complete
conservation of elastic energy. Now, we hold a rigid
musculature and transfer all of that elastic energy into
the opposite leg. From here we convert the elastic
energy into kinetic energy when we hit the ground
again. In a perfect world, we use zero muscle power
once we hit maximum velocity and utilize the stored
elastic energy in our body to move. Being human and
far from perfect, we are a long ways from being able to
conserve 100% of the elastic energy. Muscle slack,
imbalance, poor timing, loos of function all contribute
to the absorption of elastic energy in the system.
Again, when energy is absorbed, our brain now calls
upon the muscles to generate power to create
movement. This is okay during acceleration phases,
however, it is a killer in max velocity stages of
running. It leads to fatigue.

In theory, this seems to be a very simple concept.

However, it is extremely difficult to teach the body to
hit the ground stiff with the correct timing repeatedly.
Concentric lifting, stretching, poor mechanics are just
a few of the factors that contribute to the body acting
less rigid. The body needs more than just muscle to
move efficiently, it needs appropriately trained muscle
with the correct coordination and timing. We are
currently filming several of our drills that we use to
teach stiffness. Our goal is to create high amounts
conserved elastic energy within the system, making us
run faster using far less energy. Keep in mind, the
best runners in the world spend 30% less energy than
the rest of us.