• Fitness & Health
• Sport & Exercise Science
• Physical Education
• Strength & Conditioning
• Sports Medicine
• Sport Management
• Dance

How to create a great program

This is an excerpt from Strength and Conditioning Coaching by Michael J Boyle.

It’s imperative to have underlying goals or objectives to create a great program. Your goals or objectives should be simple and reflect your fundamental beliefs.

Objective One: Prevent Injuries During the Training Process

I always believed that assumption was so basic and such common sense, it didn’t need to be mentioned. However, the proliferation of CrossFit^® and related programs that flirt with or cross the line between safe and unsafe tells me that objective needs to be clearly stated.

To prevent injuries during the actual training process, coaches need to minimize risk. This doesn’t mean eliminate risk, only minimize it. Everything you want to include in the program must be analyzed in terms of its risk-to-benefit ratio. Is the benefit of the exercise worth the risk inherent in it? This ratio of risk-to-benefit changes with age and level of experience. While excellent choices in general, exercises like squats, deadlifts and Olympics lifts aren’t for everyone.

Training an Athlete for 18 Years

I get criticized on the internet so often, I sometimes wonder why I bother to explain myself. However, I also remind myself that I get more positive attention than I do criticism. Strangely, much of the criticism of my techniques revolves around my desire to keep our athletes healthy and injury-free. I repeatedly ask myself why so many coaches fail to see things the way I see them.

There are a couple things that are different about me and what I do. First, I’m in my 60s and have 40 years of coaching at the college and professional levels. I’ve also had the unique experience of coaching the same athletes for up to 18 years straight. I’ve seen athletes transition from healthy young men to grizzled veteran professional athletes. I’ve realized during this process they can still play the game, but they don’t tolerate the training as well.

My 18-year-old collegiate athletes arrived at Boston University with young, resilient bodies. They were the filet mignon of the athletic world, the best of the best in their sport. In the 1980s and ’90s—and even into the 2000s—we used squatting movements, Olympic lifts and all types of presses and pulling exercises. I’d have described us as having a relatively conventional strength program. Few athletes complained about any of these exercises being uncomfortable. Most players stayed with the same program over the course of four collegiate years. They gained size, strength and speed.

A first professional NHL season is a bit of shock for young players. The season moves from approximately 35 collegiate games to 80 games, plus playoffs. The in-season period is now almost eight months with three or four games each week. Playing 80 games plus playoffs takes a toll on the body and results in a mad dash during the summer to get healthy and regain strength.

Sadly, 100% of the players’ strength is rarely regained. If I’m lucky enough to keep them for four years, most of my NHL players will find the strongest time of their careers will be the summer prior to their senior year of college. Each following summer will see them lose a little strength as the length of season, number of games and wear and tear take their toll. Around the third year in the NHL, athletes often realize their backs no longer seem to tolerate Olympic lifts and squats. Usually, this is first manifested by a small back spasm that subsides in a few days, but I learned to read the signs.

Our older, established athletes are often on a program that features trap bar jumps, kettlebell swings and lots of single-leg work. It’s not that I no longer want them to do the exercises I once favored; it’s the realization that these exercises are no longer suited to the high-mileage body of a professional athlete. My standard joke is that they start out like filet mignon, but finish up as beef jerky.

My job became rehab and reconditioning as my clients progressed in age. The goal is to get healthy and back in shape for the next training camp that arrives all too quickly. Most of the things I considered fundamental in their teens and early 20s are no longer relevant in our program.

Those coaches who get to train their athletes post-college experience the same things I do, but they don’t often write about it.

When you choose to criticize another coach, ask yourself how long you’ve trained someone other than yourself. Experience counts, but experience training yourself doesn’t count as much. There are too many coaches who only lift, and they fail to see firsthand the effect that playing year after year takes on a player.

Trust me, my middle school kids still do hang cleans, bench press, squats and deadlifts, but each year brings with it a “mileage” cost. The body is much like a car; the miles add up.

Becoming a Better Coach

The following are my two simple rules to becoming a better coach:

Injuries in training are our fault.

No one should be injured in training.

While speaking at a seminar more than 30 years ago, Vern Gambetta stated that coaches need to accept responsibility for injuries experienced while on a program they designed.

Hearing that was a turning point for me as a coach. Until that day, I’d have classified myself as just another meathead strength coach. I believed “real” lifters should have sore shoulders and backs. Aches and pains were viewed as a byproduct of hard training. After that seminar, I took my first step toward becoming a better coach. I made a conscious decision to make my athletes better on the field and to keep them healthy in training. I’m ashamed this was such an epiphany.

No one should ever be injured in training. Does this mean we train with machines and don’t take any risks? No. It means we constantly balance risk-to-benefit ratios.

What we do with a young healthy 20-year-old is different than what we do with our 35-year-old NHL clients. What we do with our 35-year-old NHL athletes is different than what we do with our 55-year-old personal training clients. One size does not fit all and neither does one exercise.

This is the reason we rarely perform front squats and never do back squats or Westside-style box squats. It’s also the same reason we Olympic lift from a hang position above the knees rather than from the floor. As coaches, we must constantly make choices that balance the risk-to-benefit ratio.

Objective Two: Reduce the Incidence of Performance-Related Injury

The second objective of a high-quality strength program is to reduce performance-related injuries. I used to view this as goal number one; however, recent developments in the field forced me to adjust.

Notice I used the word “reduce” and not the word “prevent.” No coach or program can prevent injury. Injuries will happen—we know this. However, it’s critical that we place the goal of preventing injury ahead of the goal of improving performance.

In the NFL, MLB and NHL, strength and conditioning program success is measured by the strength and conditioning coaches’ ability to keep the best players playing consistently. The NHL uses a stat called “Man Games Lost;” the NFL uses “Starters Games Missed” and MLB uses “Disabled List Games.” Whatever the phrase, the greatest teams keep their best players playing.

Question-Should We Fix Everything?

A guy decides to ride his motorcycle on a cold day, but right before he hops on the bike, he realizes the zipper on his leather jacket is broken. Still eager to ride, he puts the jacket on backward to break the wind. A bit down the road he hits a patch of sand, wipes out, and is knocked unconscious.

A good Samaritan arrives on the scene and starts to help.

Shortly thereafter, an ambulance arrives. The paramedic runs up and says, “What happened?” The good Samaritan says, “I found him unconscious, but by the time I was able to get his head back on straight, he was dead.”

Objective Three: Improve Performance

The biggest takeaway is that your main objective isn’t improving performance. We need to keep training as safe as possible. We must work to prevent or reduce in-contest injury potential. We get improved performance with that.

There are many who disagree. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard coaches talk about the need to “take risks” or “lay it on the line.” Those who advocate risk usually work in the area of fitness where they can brainwash clients and dispose easily of the injured. In the world of elite sport, coaches and management take training-related injury very seriously. Strength and conditioning coaches who encourage their athletes to lay it on the line in training end up in the unemployment line.

There needs to be balance. A vanilla, machine-based program without risk won’t reduce the incidence of performance-related injury. The key for us is developing the ability to balance the risk-to-benefit ratio.

It’s amazing how often coaches and trainers violate what I consider to be the most basic rules of program design. The information that follows isn’t just my opinion; it represents a consensus among most successful strength coaches. Certain rules should be followed to achieve consistent success in program design.

Explosive Movements First

If you’re using Olympic lifts or their derivatives, do them first in the program. Do exercises with high technical and neural demand at the beginning of a strength training session. I initially judge programs on this one point.

If an athlete asks me to review a program and I see the program calls for an Olympic lift after a multi-joint strength exercise like a squat or deadlift, I automatically disregard the rest of the program and usually the coach who wrote it. I feel very strongly about the basics.

Exercises that stress the nervous system as the Olympic lifts do must be done when both the muscular and nervous systems are fresh. This not only ensures the effectiveness of the lifts, but also makes them much safer. The Olympic lifts require a high degree of skill and coordination. Athletes must be fresh when performing these exercises.

Some high-level strength and conditioning coaches (most notably, Joe Kenn) have advocated intentionally performing explosive exercises after strength exercise to develop power in fatigued states. I understand the thought process, but I don’t agree with it. It violates my belief in balancing risks and benefits.

Note: Now that we’ve moved through the CrossFit decade, performing explosive exercises for more than six repetitions is another major program flaw. At MBSC, we never go higher than five, but five versus six is splitting hairs. High-repetition Olympic lifting is a CrossFit phenomenon that needs to go away. Olympic lifts are highly technical and were never intended for high repetitions or to be used as conditioning exercises. If you disagree, ask the opinion of any knowledgeable Olympic lifting coach.

Multi-Joint Exercises Second

This concept has been stated over and over, but here’s one more time for emphasis. Most coaches get this part right. Very rarely will you see a program that prioritizes single-joint exercise over multi-joint exercise in modern coaching.

Single-Joint Exercise Last…or Not at All

Most single-joint exercises are a waste of time! There are some exceptions, specifically hip and scapulothoracic work. However, exercises like leg extensions, leg curls and triceps pressdowns have little value for athletes. The time spent (wasted) on these exercises can be utilized to add exercises that have similar goals but far greater benefits.

Single-joint exercises for hinge joints like the knee and elbow simply waste time. Don’t let anyone sell you on the “injury prevention” angle for things like a leg extension or leg curl. A good single-leg progression and some intelligent posterior-chain work will prevent or reduce injury incidence far better than single-joint machines.

Limit Machine Use

This is another statement I didn’t think I’d have to make, but sometimes we overestimate how far the field has come. The only machines necessary in an athletic strength and conditioning program are adjustable cable columns or functional trainers. Adjustable cable columns allow rotary training (chopping and lifting actions), as well as standing row movements. Every other exercise can be done better with a weight than with a machine.

Machines that mimic conventional free weight exercises are the silliest new trend. There’s a reason most machine companies have begun to manufacture benches and squat racks in addition to machines. Space is the best thing for a great strength and conditioning program, and machines rob a facility of space. Whenever I look at a machine, I ask myself how much use I could get out of the square footage and how many people could use that empty space.

Never Do More Than 10 Reps Unless You Specifically Want Endurance

Eight reps might even be better than 10. Spending too much time on “hypertrophy” exercises is one mistake I’ve made. Athletes need to lift heavy weights—and advanced athletes need to have great variety in programming. However, if the objective is strength, they need to consistently lift more. The Michael Yessis “one set of 20” concept is an exception to this rule. I’ve used 1 x 20 with athletes as a change of pace and they enjoyed it. For details, google “Matt Thome.”

Our earlier thoughts on hypertrophy were based on flawed assumptions rising out of bodybuilding in the steroid era. Hypertrophy is generally thought to be achieved by doing a higher volume of exercise. That’s a drastic oversimplification. There’s a large body of anecdotal evidence that shows hypertrophy may have a genetic component. If you speak to coaches who deal with ectomorphic athletes in sports like basketball, you won’t see support for the volume = hypertrophy theory. If you want to delve into this topic, look at writings on what have been classified as “hardgainers” by people like Stuart McRobert and Jason Ferrugia.

Know How Long the Workout Takes

Be realistic. I can’t tell you the number of programs I’ve read that don’t add up. Look at the time each set will take and look at the rest time allotted. I’ve seen programs that if done as indicated would take three hours.

Twenty sets is a good guide for an hour-long strength and power program. When you design a program, take the time to do the math, and try out the program to ensure your estimates are accurate. Allot one minute for each set and at least one minute between sets, although even that’s fast. At this pace, you could get 20 sets in 40 minutes.

Tempo May Be Overrated, but Think About Contraction Type

Tempo was a big deal in the late 1980s and early ’90s. If you were a follower of the late Charles Poliquin, his workouts were all about tempo. Although Poliquin gets the credit for introducing tempo to North America, Australian Ian King might have been the real innovator.

I have to admit I fell under the tempo spell for a few years. I spent a lot of time trying to get athletes to slow their eccentric contractions. However, all that tempo emphasis didn’t seem to change the results, and eventually I abandoned the idea. Athletes probably just need to control the descent of the bar.

There are a couple of important points that could get glossed over when I say we no longer emphasize tempo. For long-term progress, I mix conventional concentric-focused training with eccentric and isometric emphasis. This mix might be best for advanced trainees.

However, most athletes with lower training ages don’t need a mix of contraction types.

Cal Dietz has popularized what he branded “TriPhasic Training,” and this may benefit more advanced athletes. However, the tri-phasic idea isn’t new. Coaches like Jay Schroeder began to re-popularize isometric exercise with iso holds in the late 1990s, and the excellent work of Canadian strength coach Christian Thibaudeau made eccentric training much easier to understand and implement. Eccentric training relies heavily on the tempo concept.

Tempo is a measure of the time a repetition takes. It’s usually described with three numbers, the first indicating the eccentric portion of the lift, the second indicating the time to pause at the midpoint (zero indicates a touch-and-go rep) and the last number is the concentric phase. A normal rep would exhibit a 1–0–1 tempo.

I have a few opinions on tempo:

Normal tempo is 1–0–1. I’ve timed lots of lifters and was surprised that even a normal controlled rep was clearly 1–0–1.

I don’t love pauses because most athletes have difficulty holding a tight position during the pause, and the pause can cause unnecessary joint stress.

I don’t like slow concentric movements. Poliquin sometimes advocated a slow concentric contraction. I don’t think this has value and we never do it.

This means tempo variation is lengthening the eccentric contraction or doing some sort of isometric hold.

As I mentioned, Christian Thibaudeau came up with some excellent guidelines for eccentric training in Black Book of Training Secrets.

I had little success when I first tried eccentric training. The primary reason we weren’t successful was that I believed what I read in the research. Research tells us that a lifter should be able to handle more weight eccentrically than concentrically. Some early estimates ran up to 120% of the concentric max. If you believe this, you’re doomed to failure in your use of eccentrics.

For example, if you can bench press 300 pounds, try lowering 360 pounds (120%) under control. You’ll fail miserably, and might get injured.

Most athletes couldn’t do a controlled eccentric with even 100 percent of their max. What you’d see is what would best be described as an attempt at a yielding isometric, where the athlete just attempts to control the descent.

Athletes may eventually be able to lower more weight than they can raise, but the athletes I coached weren’t even close. I don’t know where the studies were done that imply athletes can lower more weight than they can raise, but it isn’t true in my experience. Most athletes aren’t used to lowering the bar with control; they actually lift via elasticity. As a result, they aren’t able to lower the bar with control.

To develop eccentric strength, which may enhance concentric strength, Thibaudeau recommends the following:

75% 8-second lowering, 2 reps per set

80% 6-second lowering, 1 rep per set

85% 4-second lowering, 1 rep per set

One way to look at eccentric training is that the number of seconds of controlled eccentric contraction should be roughly equal to the number of concentric reps you can do. If you bench press 225 for five reps, you should be able to do a controlled five-second eccentric lowering with 225.

Time Under Tension

Time under tension is the total amount of time a set takes from start to finish. Specifically, 10 reps at a 1–0–1 tempo would yield 20 seconds of time under tension. Time under tension was another well-known Poliquin/King concept. I don’t worry much about time under tension, tempo or hypertrophy anymore. I do worry about technique and controlling the bar, particularly in the eccentric portion of the lift, but hypertrophy in a non-drug-using athlete will be achieved through a good program and diet. I no longer believe that bodybuilding work has much value, particularly for ectomorphic or endomorphic athletes.

We’ve been misled by the high responding mesomorphs of the world who’d probably respond positively to just about any type of program.

More Excerpts From Strength and Conditioning Coaching

---