Techniques August 2014

contents

Volume 8 Number 1 / August 2014

in every issue

14

2 A Letter from the President 3 USTFCCCA Presidents 56 Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center

FEATURES 6 True Grit

Re-evaluating Traditional Endurance Training Methods Based on Contemporary Fatigue Research

By Matt Gittermann

14 Common Ground

Technical Commonalities in the Jumps

30 Discobolus

A New and an Old Twist in Discus Technique

By D Scott Irving

38 Functional Movement Screening

30

A Tool for Identifying Fuctional Limitations and Asymmetries in Female Distance Runners.

By David Harmer and Sara Kettelkamp

AWARDS 49

50

52

54

USTFCCCA National Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division I: USTFCCCA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division II: USTFCCCA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division III: USTFCCCA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year

COVER

Photograph courtesy of Phil Hoffman

38

AUGUST 2014 techniques

1

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

I

always thought that throughout my professional career as a coach, that I (as we all are) was presented with continuous everyday challenges to conquer and that life was pretty much lived on the run daily. Then on June 26 of this year I made a career changing decision and accepted the position as Director of Track & Field/Cross Country at the University of Tennessee. As those of you in our profession who have made this same type of career changing decision know, if you thought you had previously lived life on the run, you quickly discover you’re now in an everyday hundred meter sprint race, but one that lasts for the length of a marathon!

Also you quickly realize how many others are also affected by your decision: Family, staff at the institution you’re leaving and their families, current staff at your new institution as well as their families, student-athletes at both institutions, incoming recruits at both institutions, new prospective student-athletes considering each institution and the list goes on. As we all are aware, coaching has a long list of responsibilities and I have certainly had a magnifying glass look at that over the past several weeks.

I’ve had a great experience at each institution in which I’ve had the privilege to coach, and Penn State was the pinnacle of that experience. Change however cannot only be new and exciting; it can lead to new opportunities, experiences and growth. A motto I live by is, if you are standing still, you are falling behind….change and challenge are a part of my DNA and I look forward to this next phase.

This is the beginning of my final year as President of USTFCCCA and to date my only regret is that I don’t have more time to contribute toward the growth and advancement of our two sports and our association on a daily basis. Our sports are as aged and historical as any sports in the world, and as we all know, running, jumping and throwing are the basics of all sports.

However, we live in an ever changing world, with new challenges, advancements, opportunities and competition arising daily. My recent job change has made me realize how important it is to create change and seek the opportunities and growth associated with change.

The National Association of Basketball Coaches motto states “we are the guardians of the game.” As track & field and cross country coaches, we need to be the guardians of our sports. For coaches to be the true guardians of our sports, we must be committed to identifying and focusing on the values and changes that are best for our sports to succeed and make us relevant in the future.

The USTFCCCA hired College Sports Solutions in December of 2013, to conduct an assessment of collegiate track & field and cross country and to provide a report on that assessment to the USTFCCCA membership at its 2014 convention. Many of you and your administrator’s have had conversations with Jeff Schemmel from CSS regarding the assessment project and I encourage those of you who haven’t to do so soon. I am both intrigued and excited, although mostly excited, to hear the comments and recommendations of an outside group on the status of our sports.

I challenge everyone including myself to be both open minded to change, if it is for the betterment of our sports, and to set aside our own individual and team preferences as we pursue identification of the true needs of our sports as a whole. We’ve all heard or read over the last few months about the challenges facing collegiate athletics today and the major effect some changes may have on the entire landscape of collegiate sports. We as coaches have the responsibility of working to position our sports to be a valued part of the future of collegiate athletics and not a fatality to this changing landscape.

Summer is ending soon and I hope you, your family and friends can make time for a day off before we jump on the roller coaster for another year. Cross Country is just around the corner.

Beth Alford-Sullivan President, USTFCCCA Beth is the Director of Men’s and Women’s Track & Field and Cross Country at the University of Tennessee. Beth can be reached at basullivan@tennessee.edu

2

techniques AUGUST 2014

Publisher Sam Seemes Executive Editor Mike Corn Contributing Editors Matt Cohen,

Sylvia Kamp MEDIA MANAGER Tom Lewis Media Assistant Kyle Terwillegar Membership Services Dave Svoboda Photographer Kirby Lee Editorial Board Tommy Badon,

Boo Schexnayder, Derek Yush, Gary Winckler

Published by Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 www.myneworleans.com

USTFCCCA

National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Fax: 504-599-8909

Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August, and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2014.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publisher. techniques is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts, photos and artwork even if accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. The opinions expressed in techniques are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the magazines’ managers or owners. Periodical Postage Paid at New Orleans La and Additional Entry Offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: USTFCCCA, PO Box 55969, Metairie, LA 700555969. If you would like to advertise your business in techniques, please contact Mike Corn at (504) 599-8900 or mike@ustfccca.org.

ustfccca PRESIDENTs DIVISION I DENNIS SHAVER

NCAA Division I Track and Field Dennis Shaver is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach at Louisiana State University. Dennis can be reached at shaver@lsu.edu.

sean cleary

NCAA Division I Cross Country Sean Cleary is the Head Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country coach at West Virginia University. Sean can be reached at Sean.Cleary@mail.wvu.edu.

DIVISION II james reid

NCAA Division II Track and Field James Reid is the Head Track and Field Coach and Assistant Athletic Director at Angelo State University. He can be reached at james.reid@angelo.edu.

Scott Lorek

NCAA Division II Cross Country Scott Lorek is Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country coach at Northwest Missouri State University. Scott can be reached at slorek@nwmissouri.edu.

DIVISION III Gary Aldrich

NCAA Division III Track and Field Gary is the Associate Head Track & Field Coach at Carnegie Melon University and can be reached at galdrich@andrew.cmu.edu

Robert Shankman

NCAA Division III Cross Country Robert is the Head Cross Country and Track & Field coach at Rhodes College and can be reached at shankman@ rhodes.edu

AUGUST 2014 techniques

3

6

techniques AUGUST 2014

True Grit

Re-evaluating Traditional Endurance Training Methods Based on Contemporary Fatigue Research Matt Gittermann

The ‘Holy Trinity of Training’ VO2 Max, Lactic Threshold and Running Economy: These three modalities of training have formed the basis of training programs of coaches and runners for more than a half a century. The prevalence of the use of the term ‘lactic acid’ in our lexicon can be traced as far back as studies from 1907 (Fletcher and Hopkins 1907), which in turn served as the foundation for another study that suggested a limit to oxygen use (VO2 Max) during exercise and a further examination of ‘lactic acid’ as seen in the work of Archibald Hill in the mid 1920’s (Hill et al. 1924a, 1924b). While examinations and critiques of VO2 Max and Lactic Threshold continued through the remainder of the century to present times, their prominence through practical application was disseminated to the masses via the Daniel’s Running Formula (Daniels 1988) in the late 1980’s. As the principles of VO2 Max and Lactic Threshold became under more scrutiny from modern research, the catch-all equalizer of Running Economy was introduced to explain the discrepancies between experimental values and race performances deviating from predicted values (i.e. why runners with different VO2 Max values could run similar times or why runners with the same relative VO2 Max values performed at completely different levels). While strength training and altitude training seem to be the most common modalities used to enhance running economy, the full spectrum of stimuli and the resultant adaptations could fill a textbook (Saunders, et al. 2004). In the end, the traditionalists would and still do suggest that the key to running faster is all about oxygen consumption and efficiency of its use.

The practical application of this research has led to the creation of training plans based around threshold training (tempo runs, aerobic threshold, cruise interPhil Hoffman photo

vals, anaerobic thresholds, etc.) or paces determined by percentage of VO2 Max (88% of VO2 Max, Critical Velocity, heart rate training, etc.). To cover the gaps between VO2 Max/Lactic Threshold levels and actual performance we have also seen a marked increase in use of supplemental training practices (strength training, plyometrics, hill strides, etc.) coupled with staples such as altitude training (and to a lesser degree hot weather training) to increase one’s running economy.

Specificity of Training and Multi-Tiered Systems While the ‘Holy Trinity of Training’ serves as the foundation of training principles, the human body is far too unique, especially individual to individual, to use such broad overarching principles to fine tune a specific individual, with a specific physiology, to perform in a specific race on a specific day. This naturally led to a specificity of training seen in the intensive multi-tiered systems of Horwill and Coe, where the training frame of an individual is created around specific race paces adjacent to their target event rather than percentages of VO2 Max. Or in contemporary systems of training in which a majority of interval work is based on percentage of date or goal pace of races at or around the target race distance.

These systems can be naturally blended with the ‘Holy Trinity’ as one can easily tune into the adaptation benefits of Lactic Threshold training (10k – HM Date Pace) and VO2 Max work (3k-5k Date Pace) into their training due to their close proximity to specific race paces. Furthermore by focusing on a specific frame of paces around a target race or a frame of paces skewed to an athlete’s muscle type distribution (fast twitch to slow twitch ratio), coaches are able to develop specific adaptations that help reduce ‘fatigue’ in a specific individual for a specific race.

AUGUST 2014 techniques

7

true grit

Defining ‘Fatigue’ and the Rise of the ‘Heretics’ When designing training, the assumed principle is simple, what can one do in order to run faster? However, it is arguable, that a better point of view would be what can one do not to slow down as fast and thus resist ‘fatigue’ in order to continue running at a desired pace for a longer period of time? From this point of view training design should be focused on developing adaptations that either prolong the onset of ‘fatigue’, or as will be discussed later, prolonging the potential cues of ‘fatigue’.

Traditionally, training has been done in such a manner that is it is attempting to either prevent the quick build-up of waste products such as hydrogen ions (acidosis) or slowing down the depletion of metabolic resources such as ATP and glycogen. Both the “build-up” and “depletion” models can be categorized as; “classic/traditional fatigue” due to them being the first prevalent view, “muscle fatigue” as per their location, “peripheral fatigue” in order to differentiate from any input from the central nervous system, and/or “catastrophic fatigue” due to notion that the body will continue to work at maximally efficient levels until it is either out of substrate for metabolism or accumulated enough 8

techniques AUGUST 2014

metabolites to inhibit function at which point the muscles shut down. By focusing on threshold training, percentages of VO2 Max, and paces at and around date paces, the hope of the coach/athlete is to create physiological adaptations (increase in red blood cells, increase in number of mitochondria, increase in muscle unit recruitment, buffering capacity etc.) that slow what is traditionally thought of as the causes of ‘fatigue’ and thus prevent muscle failure (i.e. rigor). See Figure 1 It is the causes of ‘fatigue’ and how it they are perceived that have become the frontlines where the debate heats up and these axioms of the past come under attack from a ‘heretical bunch’ of scientists that want to advance ‘fatigue’ away from the classical peripheral catastrophic fatigue models (build-up and depletion models) towards a new frontier of understanding.

The Central Governor Theory of Fatigue The most familiar of the new theories is found in the works of Tim Noakes of The Lore of Running fame and his Central Governor Theory. In this theory he explains that the body has a strong desire to maintain the status quo and homeostasis of its physiological systems. As the body undergoes damage, either from training or racing, the body will protect

itself from catastrophic damage through the efforts of a sub-conscious regulator (the brain) that will slow itself (the body/ muscles) down to prevent such damage from occurring. Noakes continues by stating that this system is not regulating using just real time feedback (H+ ions levels, levels of hypoxia, etc.) but uses environmental conditions, experiences, mental state and other dynamic factors to anticipate the damage before it happens and begin regulating the firing of motor units (pacing) before it is actually necessary in order to maintain homeostasis and avoid catastrophic failure.

In contrast to the catastrophe (buildup/depletion) models of fatigue, the build-up of metabolites (lactate, etc.) or depletion of substrate (glycogen, etc.) are used as feedback for the Central Governor to make adjustments to the subconscious pacing strategy to prevent failure rather than being the actual cause of failure. As Noakes describes, “the linear model of fatigue suggests that exercise would continue until the muscle, for example, was completely depleted of substrate, or the system was overwhelmed by metabolite accumulation.

In contrast, the Central Governor model suggests that metabolic variables are important ‘sensors’ of change themselves and initiate afferent feedback to the brain, which in turn directly resets metabolic and motor activity in a feed forward manner” (Lambert, St Clair Gibson, and Noakes 2005).

Studies regarding the Central Governor model typically revolve around the termination of exercise while there are still capabilities to not only continue but at times increase work production. For example, in a study involving a series of sprints on a stationary bike, participants show immediate and progressive decreases in power output and neural readings indicating that muscle unit recruitment and power output was decreasing even though the percentage of used muscle units were far below the maximum possible. In a homologous study, similar diminishing returns were seen however on the final sprint power output and neural readings increased, resulting in a phenomenon called the “end spurt” indicting that the facilities to maintain a higher power output through-

out were present (St. Clair Gibson & Noakes 2004). As coaches of endurance of runners, we have seen this on numerous occasions in which an athlete is dying a slow death lap after lap on the track only to be revived in the last 400 meters with a furious kick with energy they must have kept in escrow.

It is also proposed that the Central Governor is responsible for determining a pace during any sort of run or race by analyzing a variety of feedback and experiences to decide upon a pace that can be accomplished for the set duration. When the anticipatory aspect is manipulated via misinformation regarding the duration, studies have found that if duration is less than presented then performance is less than expected (similar results when no duration presented) while if the duration is longer than presented, power output greatly decreases or Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) greatly increases over the final portion (Tucker 2009). Tucker (2008) additionally notes that environmental conditions have an effect on pacing in an anticipatory manner, revealing that in hot conditions the human body will begin at a slower pace than normal despite a normal starting core body temperature suggesting the anticipatory nature of the Central Governor to maintain homeostasis. Furthermore, in his own study he found that when the body reaches a core body temperature of 104 degrees (40° C) it will essentially shut itself down in order to prevent catastrophic damage.

Additional studies have shown that with the use of drugs, this regulation by the Central Governor can be ignored, allowing cyclists to continue beyond this critical core temperature without a full shut down suggesting that reserves were still available (Tucker 2009).

The practical application of the trainability of the Central Governor is as tough as one would expect with regulation being overseen by the sub-conscious part of the brain. It is likely that training in hotter weather would not only improve running economy but would create adaptations that would also prevent the rise of the core body temperature as quickly thus stopping or slowing the progression to the 104 degrees shut down point. It should be noted that the overall size of the athlete will always be a limiting factor

in the heat with larger runners at a disadvantage. From a more anecdotal side, one could target the anticipatory regulation and pacing by creating workouts where athletes are ignorant of volume, distance and speed, or ones designed to put the athlete in a bad physiological spot prior to running a goal pace or a kicking simulation that might callous the body to running a desired pace in a distressed state.

Even, the inclusion of a few, highly structured and restricted “spiritual” workouts where athletes are pushed to the edge of their capabilities could create the callousing effect needed to “ignore” the Central Governor. However, with the potential negative effects of such a workout (injuries, overtraining, etc.) this would be a modality which you could only access once and while. See Figure 2

The Peripheral Governor Theory of Fatigue In a similar vein, Brian MacIntosh and Reza Shahi take the idea of anticipatory regulation and shift it from the brain (Central) to the individual cells (Peripheral) with MacIntosh and Rassler (2002) suggesting that “peripheral muscle fatigue is ‘a response that is less than the expected or anticipated contractile response, for a given stimulation’ as a consequence of repetitive or sustained contractile activity” (as cited in MacIntosh and Shahi 2010). The implication being that cells regulate the use of muscle units by individually adjusting the rates at which ATP is supplied and hydrolyzed, thus affecting the rate and force of muscle contractions (MacIntosh and

Shahi 2010).

In their review, “A Peripheral Governor Regulates Muscle Contraction”, MacIntosh and Shahi analyze a study (Bigland-Ritchie et al. 1986a, as cited in MacIntosh and Shahit) in which participants were asked to voluntarily contract their quadriceps to maximal levels every 30 seconds until the force production was less than 50 percent of the maximally achieved level. During the voluntary contraction an electric stimulation was applied in order to remove the central nervous system from the equation, resulting in two items of note. The first is from the very beginning there was a decrease in force with each subsequent contraction despite glycogen, ATP and lactate levels remaining relatively unchanged, which implies a regulation of muscle unit firing. Furthermore, there was very little to no difference in the force production between voluntary and electrically stimulated contractions, implying that the regulation was occurring peripherally, potentially at the cellular level, rather than from a Central Governor.

In regards to practical application, this theory can be integrated into traditional training methods fairly easily as specific endurance training can bring about various adaptations that would increase ATP production or improve the efficiency of use of calcium ions thought to be one of the items responsible for regulation.

While it would not prevent the anticipatory regulation it could in theory slow the regulation down and thus extend the force of muscle contraction further into the race. See Figure 3 AUGUST 2014 techniques

9

true grit

The Psychobiological Theory of Fatigue Emerging research from Samuele Marcora, Walter Staiano and associates is returning the regulation of exercise, and thus fatigue, back to the brain, but in a conscious format. In their research they have found that there is a strong relationship between Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and fatigue, while suggesting that mood and mental fatigue greatly affect RPE (Marcora and Staiano 2010), such that one should train (and rest) the brain in order to reduce RPE in order to increase peak performance. In contrast to the Central Governor theory, the implication is that performance can be “consciously regulated,” and as a result performance can hopefully be improved by “using psychological and psychobiological interventions” (S. Marcora, personal communication, April 24th, 2014).

In their recently released study, Marcora, Staiano and Manning showed experimental data that their Brain Endurance Training (BET) program decreased mental fatigue and thus led 10

techniques AUGUST 2014

to increases in endurance performance when used as a supplement to a traditional physical training model (Marcora, Staiano, & Manning, 2014). Additionally, Blanchfield et al (2014), showed that a structured two week self-talk program was able to reduce RPE and thus increase endurance performance (time to exhaustion). This is a big paradigm shift in how one would perceive fatigue and its potential ramifications for training as they, “propose that exhaustion is a form of task disengagement, not task failure, determined by perception of effort and potential motivation as postulated by the psychobiological model of exercise tolerance. In other words, subjects consciously decide to “give up” (i.e. disengage from the task) when the effort required by intense aerobic exercise is perceived to be maximal or exceeding the maximal effort they are willing to exert in order to succeed in the task (potential motivation)” (Marcora and Staiano 2010a).

The practical implications to training could range from very little to a large portion of your program at the coach’s dis-

cretion. A sports psychology component, which was undoubtedly already a necessity, is only more magnified in a more structured manner with occasional informal assessments of progression throughout the season. With the results only recently released or soon to be released, suggestions would only be conjecture at this point. However their work with athletes regarding self-talk has been shown to positive results, and potentially things as simple as holding team study hall before practice (creating mental fatigue) could replicate the results seen in their studies.

For those cross training athletes on the bike, it would be possible to recreate the experimental results seen as a result of the BET program as it was part of the initial methods. Additionally, one might look into potentially periodization of their sport psychology component throughout the year to mirror the volume and intensity of the physiologic component.

Potential for an Integrated Model of Fatigue See Figure 5. The push for all researchers

true grit should be an integrated model of fatigue (an unscientific attempt to summarize seen in Figure 4) that would be able to explain all aspects of fatigue within the human body, akin to String Theory in astronomy. While many of the theories are at odds with each other, there is the possibility due to the complexity of the human body to integrate portions of the models with each other or at the very least considerations into our current training programs.

As mentioned previously, there are regulatory similarities between the Central and Peripheral governors that could imply they could be a part of a more complex regulatory system or separate systems with a redundancy of homeostatic regulation. The trainability of the Peripheral Governor is most likely addressed in current training methods, while the trainability of the Central Governor, while a bit murky in regards to physical training application has merit so long as it is done in a very structured and observable format in order not to overdo it by constantly taking informal assessments of the athletes during and a formal assessment at the conclusion of the session.

The Psychobiological and Central Governor Theories dig deep into the motivations of the athletes and thus would work well with and potentially increase the importance of sports psychology within endurance sports. The Psychobiological model alone yielded results that would encourage coaches to develop and carry out a more structured mental training aspect (self-talk, mental rehearsal, visualization, etc.) in their program, even without implementing the full BET when available. The Central Governor Theory states since the “brain uses the symptoms of fatigue as key regulators” and do not properly show the true levels of fatigue then ‘fatigue’ can be classified as an “emotion” (Noakes 2012) and thus could potentially be worked through for lack of a better term, “mental toughness.” At the very least, coaches may want to become familiar with BRUM’s Subscales (mood survey) and Borg’s Scales of Perceived Exertion to informally track the mental status of their athletes versus their training and racing performances to analyze any possible relationships that may arise.

12

techniques AUGUST 2014

It should be noted that many of the aforementioned descriptions were intentionally designed to be short and simplified in order to be more palatable for easy consumption in this format, and as a result the complexity (and potentially the accuracy) of the models was not reached in depth. While each theory draws its line in the sand, the human body is complex enough that it lends itself for a more integrated model, where potentially, aspects of each theory are functioning simultaneously in a complimentary and/or redundant fashion.

As McKenna and Hargreaves (2008) noted, “fatigue during exercise can be viewed as a cascade of events occurring at multi-organ, multi-cellular and at multi-molecular levels. The challenge for scientists is to understand how these mechanisms work together.” The challenge for coaches is to reevaluate our reliance on traditional fatigue models and begin to incorporate aspects of these newer fatigue models to continue to improve our training programs and as a result, our athletes’ performances.

References Blanchfield A.W., Hardy, J., deMoree, H.M., Staiano, W., Marcora, S.M.. (2014).

Talking yourself out of exhaustion: the effects of self-talk on endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 46 (5), 9981007.

Daniels, J. (1988). Daniel’s Running Formula. Human Kinetics.

Fletcher, W.M. and Hopkins, F.G..

(1907). Lactic acid in amphibian muscle. J Physiol, 35, 247-309.

Hill, A.V., Long, C.N.H., and Lupton, H.. (1924a). Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and utilization of oxygen – parts IV-VI, Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 97, 84-138.

Hill, A.V., Long, C.N.H., and Lupton, H.. (1924b). Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and utilization of oxygen – parts VII-VIII, Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 97, 155-176.

Lambert, E.V., St Clair Gibson, A., Noakes, T.D.. (2005). Complex systems model of fatigue: integrative homeostatic control of peripheral physiological systems during exercise in humans. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 52-62.

MacIntosh, B.R., and Rassier, D.E. 2002.

What is fatigue? Can. J. Appl. Physiol.

27(1), 42–55.

MacIntosh, B.R., and Shahi, M. R..

(2010). A peripheral governor regulates muscle contraction. Appl. Physiol. Nutri.

Metab., 36, 1-11.

Marcora, S.M. and Staiano, W. (2010).

The limit to exercise tolerance in humans: mind over muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol, 109, 763-770.

Marcora, S.M. and Staiano, W. (2010a).

Reply to: what limits exercise during high intensity aerobic exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol, 110. 663-664.

Marcora S.M., Staiano W., Manning V. (2014). Brain training improves endurance performance.

McKenna, M.J., Hargreaves, M.. (2008).

Resolving fatigue mechanisms determining exercise performance: integrative physiology at its finest!. J Appl Physiol.

104. 286-287.

Noakes, T.D.. (2012). Fatigue is a brainderived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis. Frontiers in Physiology, 3, 1-13.

Saunders P.U., Pyne, D.B., Telford, R.D. and Hawley, J.A.. (2004). Factors affect running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Med, 54 (7), 465-485.

St Clair Gibson, A., Noakes, T.D.. (2004).

Evidence for complex system integration and dynamic neural regulation of skeletal muscle recruitment during exercise in humans. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 797-806.

Tucker, R.. (May 28th, 2008).

Anticipatory regulation of exercise in the heat. In Fatigue Series. Retrieved from http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/ fatigue-series-introduction/ Tucker, R. (2009). The anticipatory regulation of performance: the physiological basis for pacing strategies and the development of a perception-based model for exercise performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 392-400.

Matt Gittermann is the Head Cross Country and Assistant Track & Field coach at the University of Maryland – Baltimore Country.

14

techniques AUGUST 2014

kirby lee photo

Common Ground Technical Commonalities in the Jumps

W

hile obviously there are variations in technical aspects of the different jumping events, there are also many commonalities. In this excerpt from the USTFCCCA Track & Field Academy’s Jumps Specialist Certification Course curriculum, many of these commonalities will be pointed out and elaborated on.

Commonalities of the Approach Purposes of the Approach Developing Horizontal Force. The approach should provide the jumper with horizontal momentum and velocity. This assists performances in events with great horizontal components. This horizontal velocity also eccentrically loads of the muscles of the takeoff leg in all the jumping events.

Permitting an Accurate Takeoff. The approach should place the jumper in an accurate location from which to execute the takeoff, so that proper technique can be used and/or distance preserved.

Positioning the Body for Takeoff. The approach should place the body in the correct physical positions and motor environment to execute the mechanics of preparation and takeoff correctly.

Approach Basics Approach Length Determining Step Number. Approach length decisions should center about determining the number of steps, since actual distance covered in a certain number of steps is dictated by ability level. Ability level, training and competition age, and technical proficiency dictate the number of steps used. As these parameters increase, the jump approach should lengthen.

Displacement. When step number is considered a constant, better athletes will have greater approach lengths. This is because they are capable of producing larger forces and greater displacements. When coaching practices are constant, approach length is often a good performance predictor.

Event Specific Norms. The approach ranges from 12-22 steps in length in the long jump, 10-20 in the triple jump, and pole vault, and from 8-12 steps long in the high jump. The ability and maturity of the athlete should determine the approach length. In establishing the approach, the number of steps used is more important than the length of the approach as measured in feet and inches. Approaches may use an even or odd number of steps, depending on the athlete’s preferred takeoff foot. The starting stance should remain the

AUGUST 2014 techniques

15

common ground same in either case.

Check Marks. One or more check marks for the athlete’s and/or coach’s use can be helpful in finding inconsistencies in the approach. The athlete usually puts a mark where the run begins and most coaches place additional check marks at other places in the run. The athlete’s checkmarks should not be moved indiscriminately. Errors in accuracy usually result from errors in execution, and these errors should be addressed first.

Acceleration and Sprint Mechanics in the Approach. The jump approach consists of an acceleration from a stationary start to maximal desired velocity, achieving the assumption of maximal velocity mechanics. For this reason, the jumper must be technically sound as a sprinter, and a thorough understanding of acceleration and maximal velocity mechanics is essential to success in teaching the jumping events. Unique distributions and patterns of frequency development occur in jump approaches, but the process remains the same.

General Approach Mechanics Posture. We have already examined posture as it relates to efficient acceleration and maximal velocity mechanics.

In the jump approach, postural alignment is a great determinant of other key parameters.

Posture, Preparation and Takeoff.

Improper posture, particularly poor pelvic alignments, alter strike angles and prevent the efficient achievement of correct preparation and takeoff angles.

Posture and Accuracy. Improper posture, particularly poor pelvic alignments, introduce instability during the approach.

Typically jumpers react to this instability by advancing foot contact locations or adjusting frequencies in order to create needed takeoff angles. Either practice disrupts the target tracking process associated with steering and results in inaccuracy.

Amplitudes of Movement. The amplitude of movement displayed during the approach directly affects the jump takeoff.

Large amplitudes increase the period of the sinusoidal undulations of the body’s center of mass. This potentially results in greater displacement in the jump itself.

Frequency Development. Stride frequency should increase throughout the approach in a progressive but patient manner.

Increasing frequency too slowly makes attaining maximal velocity mechanics 16

techniques AUGUST 2014

and vertical pushing difficult. Increasing frequency too quickly results in poor momentum development, reduced amplitude of movement, and poor posture.

Distribution. Distribution of the approach refers to the time spent in each phase. Unique distributions of the acceleration process are found in various events. Proper distribution of the approach insures the development of sufficient momentum to effectively complete the approach and takeoff. A sufficiently long drive phase is the most important element in insuring the existence of this momentum.

Steering. Steering refers to the process of adjusting stride lengths in order to hit a target. In all jumping events, athletes adjust the lengths of the final steps in order to hit the board or take off from an appropriate point. This does not lessen the need for rehearsal for consistency, since minimizing these adjustments is helpful. Visual feedback is needed to effectively steer, so proper visual patterns during the approach must be taught.

Phases of the Approach. The jump approach consists of the following four phases. Although we divide the approach into phases for the sake of discussion, these phases should blend into each other smoothly, without radical mechanical changes between them.

The Start. In addition to adherence to the mechanical tenets of good starting, the approach start should be simple and involve very little extraneous movement.

For this reason, crouch and rollover starts are the best choices.

The Crouch Start. In the crouch start, the athlete assumes a staggered stance with 6 to 8 inches between the feet. The shins should be tilted forward, the head and shoulders low, and the hips high. The arms should be alternated in anticipation of the first step, with the arm of the rear leg side in front. Upon starting, the athlete pushes off forcefully, displacing the body in a forward and upward direction while the arms and thighs split widely.

The crouch start offers the advantage of great consistency.

The Rollover Start. In the rollover start, the athlete assumes a staggered stance with 6 to 8 inches between the feet. The athlete is upright with the hand opposite the front foot raised slightly. To initiate the start, the athlete bends at the waist, lowering the head and shoulders while the hips remain high. This places the ath-

lete in the previously discussed crouch start position prior to the first step. From this position the athlete executes the same movements as the crouch start.

The rollover start offers the advantage of giving the jumper visual contact with the takeoff site prior to the start and a more forceful pushoff.

The Drive Phase Drive Phase Length. The Drive Phase consists of the first third of the approach.

This results in drive phase lengths of approximately 6 steps in the long jump, triple jump, and pole vault, and 3 steps in the high jump.

Characteristics of the Drive Phase. The drive phase features pure acceleration, characterized by low frequency, high amplitudes of movement and large displacement with each step. A good drive phase helps the jumper to overcome inertia and build momentum so that later movements can be performed easily.

Progression of Body Angles. During the drive phase, the body progresses with each step from a significant forward lean to a nearly upright position. Pushoff trajectories progress in the same way, with the horizontal component continuously diminishing as the drive phase progresses.

While the degree of body lean changes in the drive phase, the relative positions of the head, spine and pelvis should remain the same with respect to each other. This progression of body angles results from the vertical component of the pushoff from each stride, as the body is pushed into a tall, upright running position.

The Continuation Phase Continuation Phase Length. The Continuation Phase consists of the steps in the middle of the approach. The length of the continuation phase can vary from 3 to 10 steps long, depending on the event and length of the approach.

Characteristics of the Continuation Phase.

This phase is characterized by continued progression to maximal velocity mechanics, more upright body positions and primarily vertical pushing with each step.

Amplitudes of movement should be large.

The Transition Phase. The Transition Phase consists of the final 4 strides in the long, triple and high jump, and the final 6 steps in the pole vault. While the characteristics of a good transition phase are very similar to those of a good continuation phase, many jumpers tend

common ground

to change their runs in this phase in anticipation of takeoff. Special attention should be paid to this phase because it is here that the steering process occurs and adjustments are made to stride lengths in order to hit the target. We consider these final steps as a separate phase, because it is here that jumpers frequently err by altering their runs in anticipation of preparation and takeoff.

Approach Management. Approach management is a complex task for the coach.

The approach contains many variables that must be controlled to guarantee optimal velocity, body positions and accuracy. Approach management considerations are listed below.

Stride Length/Frequency Relationships.

In acceleration, stride length and frequency increase simultaneously, but are inversely proportional. When frequency increases too rapidly, stride length 18

techniques AUGUST 2014

decreases and the approach falls short of the target. When frequency increases too slowly, stride length increases and the approach lengthens.

Frequency Development. Frequency development must occur at some optimal rate. When frequency increases too rapidly, Momentum development and elastic energy production during the run suffer.

When insufficient frequency is developed, vertical velocity development and vertical pushing at maximal velocity suffer.

Drive Phase Management. Controlling the drive phase is a crucial part of approach management. Besides stride frequency/ stride length factors, failure to devote enough of the approach to the drive phase results in insufficient momentum development and a variety of resultant problems at takeoff. An excessively long drive phase makes attainment of maximal velocity mechanics difficult.

Transition Phase Management. The displacement achieved in the jump is proportional to displacement achieved in the final strides, due to the undulatory factors previously discussed. It is a common error to decrease stride length in the transition phase. Displacement should remain great and stride length should be conserved in these final strides (within the context of good mechanics).

Commonalities of Preparation Purposes of Preparation. Preparation Phase of any jumping event has two primary purposes.

Preservation. Preparation should permit preservation of key mechanical parameters established in the approach. These include horizontal velocity, elastic energy generation, stability and posture.

Lowering. Lowering of the body’s center of mass to provide a vertical path of accel-

kirby lee photo

common ground eration at takeoff.

The Penultimate Step. This preparation takes place primarily on the penultimate (second to last) step. The penultimate step serves as a tool to lower the body’s center of mass, while preserving horizontal velocity, elastic energy generation, stability and posture. The penultimate step shows marked mechanical changes when compared to the steps prior to it, and we find these changes whenever creating vertical velocities at takeoff is a concern.

Prepreparation and the Penultimate Step.

Transition from the run to the penultimate should be smooth. The fourth to last step should not be compromised in anticipation of preparation. A complete push off of the fourth to last step and elastic release of the hip flexor group should result in an elastic recovery into the penultimate step. Faults here result in excessively advanced foot contact locations at penultimate touchdown.

Lowering in Support. A significant portion the lowering associated with preparation should occur during the support phase of the penultimate step, rather than the flight phase prior to it.

Amortization Patterns. Lowering should be accomplished by equal amortization at the hip, knee and ankle joints.

Path of the Body’s Center of Mass.

Horizontal movement should continue during lowering, so that the lowering occurs in a forward, and downward direction. Late in the support phase, this lowering diminishes and the jumper’s center of mass travels in a level, but lowered path.

long jump and pole vault, 11-15 degrees in the triple jump, and 35-45 degrees in the high jump.

Force Production at of Takeoff. During the short time it takes a jumper to leave the ground, the muscles of the takeoff leg move through three distinct phases. It is important to understand that all of these phases participate in determining the effectiveness of the jump.

Stabilization. The muscles of the takeoff leg are stabilized isometrically prior to impact.

Amortization. Upon contact with the surface, the leg flexes a bit, eccentrically stretching the extensor muscles of the takeoff leg. This sets up an elastic response which contributes to takeoff forces. The amortization production agent is the horizontal velocity generated in the approach.

Extension. Finally, the takeoff leg concentrically extends forcefully, propelling the jumper into flight. This concentric work contributes to takeoff forces.

Impact/Contact Patterns

Displacement Characteristics

Mechanics of the Takeoff Leg

Precruitment. Prerecruitment should be developed in the leg prior to touchdown of the penultimate step to enable better management of impact. This prerecruitment should take the form of some isometric preparation in the quadriceps group, and the ankle stabilized in a dorsiflexed position. Isometric (not concentric) activity should be seen prior to impact. Rotation control needs and prerecruitment in the leg sometimes result in a lower recovery height of the penultimate step.

The Heel Lead. The heel should lead the movement of the foot to the ground prior to contact.

Contact Location. The penultimate step should ground only slightly in front of the body’s center of mass, in order to best manage the tradeoff between lowering needs and velocity preservation. The shin should display an angle of 90 degrees to the surface at penultimate touchdown, and the slight frontside distance present results from slight inclination of the thigh.

Contact. The foot’s contact with the surface should be flat. In support, a rolling action of the foot should occur, using the entire surface of the foot to absorb impact forces.

Bridging of the Foot. The ankle should bridge late in the support phase. This bridging consists of flexion at the ball of

Maintaining Displacement. Effective stride length should be conserved as the athlete moves through the penultimate, since the displacement of the jump is proportional to displacement in the final strides.

Displacement and the Swing Leg. The body should show much horizontal displacement during the support phase of the penultimate step, moving significantly past the penultimate step before the support phase ends. This displacement should result in release of the hip flexor muscle group. This creates an elastic recovery of the swing leg upon takeoff and allows the swing leg to operate through a longer arc. Faulty swing leg mechanics are always related to penultimate mechanics

Prepreparation and the Takeoff Step.

Transition from the run to the takeoff should be smooth. The third to last step should not be compromised in anticipation of preparation. A complete push off of the third to last step and elastic release of the hip flexor group should result in an elastic recovery into the takeoff step.

Faults here result in excessively advanced foot contact locations at takeoff.

Penultimate Mechanics

20

techniques AUGUST 2014

the foot, with the ankle remaining stable at a 90-degree angle. This bridging is associated with good ankle stability while in the support phase of the penultimate step. The presence of this bridged position serves as a landmark, indicating adequate displacement has been achieved.

Lowering the Center of Mass

Commonalities of Takeoff Purposes of Takeoff. The Takeoff Phase of any jumping event has two primary purposes.

Preservation. Takeoff should permit preservation of key mechanical parameters established in the approach. These include horizontal velocity, elastic energy generation, stability, and posture.

Creating Vertical Forces. Takeoff should involve the creation of vertical forces and velocities, so that the jumper leaves the ground at an angle that allows maximal performances in the event. Appropriate takeoff angles are 18-21 degrees in the

Impact/Contact Patterns Prerecruitment. Prerecruitment should be developed in the leg prior to grounding of the takeoff step to facilitate the elastic response, and to enable better management of impact. This prerecruitment should take the form of isometric preparation in the quadriceps group, and the ankle stabilized in a dorsiflexed position. The quality of this preparation will greatly determine the efficiency of the elastic response of the takeoff leg. The timely development of this preparation in the quadriceps usually results in a lower recovery of the takeoff step.

The Heel Lead. The heel should lead the movement of the foot to the ground prior to contact.

Contact Location. In events where conservation of horizontal velocity is important, the takeoff step should be grounded only slightly in front of the body’s center

common ground

of mass. Shin angles at touchdown vary from event to event, and are the primary determinant of the takeoff angle. Slight inclination of the thigh at touchdown is present in all cases.

Foot Contact Patterns. The foot’s contact with the surface should be flat. In support, a rolling action of the foot should occur, using the entire surface of the foot to absorb impact forces.

Takeoff Leg Mechanics in Support Rotation of the Shin. During the support phase of takeoff, the shin should rotate to a position that enables it to best establish the takeoff angle, transmit forces generated in the hip, and permit elastic operation of the Achilles unit. This final angle varies from event to event.

Translation. During the initial stages of the support phase, the body should continue to move forward, so that the thigh and upper body maintain their same rela-

22

techniques AUGUST 2014

tive positions. This translation, coupled with the rotation of the shin, produces the eccentric loading of the takeoff leg needed at takeoff.

Extension. In the final stages of the support phase of takeoff, when the rotation of the shin has stopped, the hip extends violently, applying force through and along the long axis of the prealigned shin.

This extension produces the concentric work component of the forces generated at takeoff. This arrangement best permits efficient joint firing orders and coordination of the elastic and concentric components of takeoff.

Lower Leg Contributions. The forces transmitted through the shin also act eccentrically on the Achilles unit, resulting in enhanced elastic force production at takeoff.

Bridging of the Foot. When takeoff angles permit, the ankle should bridge late in the support phase. This bridging consists

of flexion at the ball of the foot, with the ankle remaining stable at 90 degrees.

Mechanics of Swinging Segment Usage Preservation of Elastic Energy.

Conservation of elastic energy should be evident in the swinging segments. The swinging movements at takeoff should show amplified versions of the same processes involved in the approach, and an elastic response should be present in the forward component of the swing.

Free Leg Movements. Free leg movements should display large amplitudes of movement. Also, the free leg action should not be purely angular. The hip should advance while the free leg swings.

This enables preservation of pelvic alignment, and is consistent with the philosophy of pelvic origination Arm Movements. Arm movements should display some extension and large ranges

kirby lee photo

common ground of motion at the shoulder.

Arm Styles The Single Arm Style. In the single arm style, the arms alternate powerfully at takeoff. Some flexion is present at the completion of the forward movement.

Double Arm Style. In the double arm style, the arms move in unison. At takeoff, the arms move forward in an extended position, flexing slightly near the swing’s end. The swing begins with the arms positioned well behind and outside the jumper’s body, and finishes with the elbows flexed, forearms perpendicular to the ground, and the hands at forehead height. Upon completion of the swing, the arms are allowed to fall back into the starting position in anticipation of the next takeoff.

Blocking. Swinging movements should be stopped at the instant of liftoff. This blocking enhances takeoff forces by imparting momentum to the body’s center of mass.

Displacement Characteristics Maintaining Displacement. Effective stride length should be conserved as the athlete moves through the takeoff, since the displacement of the jump is proportional to displacement in the final strides.

Path of the Body’s Center of Mass. The path of the body’s center of mass should be examined. Generally speaking, proper translation and eccentric loading mandate some continued horizontal travel before vertical travel occurs. Factors to examine that vary from event to event include the amount of vertical lift created, and the point at which this lift occurs.

Commonalities of Flight Predetermined Flight Path. Except in aerodynamic situations, the fight path of the center of mass of a body projected into flight is some unique parabola. The human body is no exception. The flight path of the center of mass is predetermined, and cannot be changed during flight. While the body is in flight, we can position body parts to prepare for more effective landings and clearances, but the flight path of the center of mass may not be altered.

Predetermined Flight Rotations. Any rotations present (as measured by their angular momentum values) are predetermined as well. These rotations may take place 24

techniques AUGUST 2014

in the sagittal, frontal, and/or transverse planes. Angular momentum values are unique to each plane. Depending upon the nature of the event, these rotations may be desired or undesired. In flight, we may use the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and the use of secondary axes to slow or speed rotation, but the values of rotation cannot be changed.

Coaching Implications. For these reasons, the majority of coaching time should be spent on the approach, preparation, and takeoff. Nearly all coaching of the flight phases of the jumping events is concerned with the acceleration or deceleration of rotations.

Affecting Rotations. There are several strategies used to affect rotations of the human body in flight. All of these take advantage of the body’s tendency to conserve angular momentum.

Lengthening the Body. Limbs may be extended to lengthen the effective length of the body, slowing rotations.

Shortening the Body. Limbs may be flexed or brought close to the body’s center to shorten the effective length of the body, speeding rotations.

Limb Rotations. Rotating the limbs in the direction of the rotation absorbs and temporarily stops the body’s rotations.

Newton’s Third Law. While in flight, because of the multiple degrees of movement available, the body is particularly subject to Newton’s Third Law, and action-reaction relationships become quite visible. Coaching practices in the flight phases of jumps involve proper identification of actions and reactions.

Commonalities of Landing Landing Mechanics. The mechanics of landing are more important in the horizontal jumps than the vertical jumps, because of their relation to performance.

The factor most important in determining the location of landing is the flight path of the body’s center of mass. Since this path is predetermined, efforts to improve landing efficiency are limited to changes of body position.

Landing Positions. The ability to attain efficient landing positions is determined by rotation values experienced during flight. Since these rotations are predetermined, efforts to improve landing positions are related to takeoff mechanics.

Landing Strategies. Efficient landing positions place the feet to be as far as

possible in front of the body’s center of mass as possible at the instant of landing. Because the body’s axis of rotation in flight passes through its center of mass, this requires positioning as much body mass backwards, away from the feet as possible at landing. While the need to produce efficient landing marks is a limiting factor, the need to slow the forward rotation dictates the use of extended body positions just prior to landing to whenever extent is possible.

Commonalities of Clearance Mechanics of Clearance. In the vertical jumps, bar clearance is the ultimate goal.

The peak height of the parabolic path of the body’s center of mass is the most important factor to performance. This peak height, like the entire flight path, is established at takeoff and is predetermined after takeoff.

Parabolic Placement. Placement of the peak of the parabolic path of the body’s center of mass with respect to the crossbar is another important variable. The peak of flight should be reached directly over the crossbar to optimize performance. This factor is also established at takeoff and is predetermined after takeoff.

Body Movements and Positions. Body movements in flight can improve performance by placing the body in more efficient clearance positions. In the vertical jumps we often see arched or piked positions that may effectively locate the body’s center of mass outside of the body itself to facilitate bar clearance. These movements may be volitionally performed while in flight, but ability to perform them successfully may be helped or hindered by the efficiency of takeoff.

Flight Rotations. Rotations can be established that assist clearance by making the attainment of certain body positions easier. These rotations are established at takeoff and are predetermined after takeoff. These rotations must be integrated into bar clearance, so parabolic placement is a prerequisite to the effective use of these rotations.

This article is taken from the USTFCCCA Track and Field Academy Jumps Specialist Certification Course (SCC) text. Boo Schexnayder is the Director of the Track and Field Academy and is primarily responsible for the content of the curriculum.

30

techniques AUGUST 2014

Ray McCoy, DenMar Photo Services photo

Discobolus

A New and an Old Twist in Discus Technique D Scott Irving

O

ld may not be quite the right word in the above title. Ancient may be the better word to describe twist in the context of this article. The most accurate Roman copy of the Greek original, Myron’s Discobolus circa 450-460 BC, “….is today considered a rather inefficient way to throw the discus.” While the reference in Wikipedia was clearly intended to underscore the limited rotation of the body in throwing the discus at the ancient games compared to modern discus technique, I beg to differ with the use of the word ‘inefficient’ and hope the words that follow will act as devil’s advocate to get coaches thinking differently about the event technically, to give them a greater appreciation of the artistic essence of discus throwing, maybe even expand their technical creativity or, at the very least, open up discus throwing to more concerted biomechanical analysis.

Why it took me nearly 40 years to figure out that the Greeks were pretty close technically regarding the discus throw is beyond me, especially considering that much of my undergraduate and graduate work was in art and art history. It also surprises me that others have not pushed discus technique in this direction, given the wealth of technological resources at our disposal, including biomechanics and computer graphics. Most of what I have to support my argument is based on empirical evidence. However, that evidence and experience over the past 40 years and more specifically the past three years, has thoroughly convinced me that not only were the Greeks on the right path technically, but that they helped put me on the right path.

To understand what the Greeks were attempting to do technically with the discus throw, one must first understand that the ancient implement while similar in shape to the modern discus was typically larger photo courtesy of wikipedia

and heavier and made of metal or stone in a variety of weights – 1.3kg-6.6kg. 6.6kg is over 14 pounds. Now that’s heavy! It is difficult to even conceive a full throw, let alone a standing throw, using a 6.6kg discus, unless the thrower wishes to rip his shoulder out of its socket.

The longest mark on record in the ancient games is about 30 meters (95 feet).

If any coaches have ever had their athletes throw over-weighted implements in early season training they can attest that their throwers struggled at lofting the heavier implements great distances. The best women throwers that I have coached could throw the five pound (over 2kg) plate similar distances to the best men throwing a 7.5 pound (slightly less than 3.5kg) plate.

These are ‘standard’ plate weights with the barbell hole welded shut or duct tape placed over the hole. (If a coach does not take these precautions they risk having their throwers cut their throwing hands. It will most definitely be a quick learning experience if you do not cover the hole - so please be forewarned.) In my experience, those measured distances for the better throwers using five pound (women) and seven and one-half pound (men) plates was somewhere between 120-130 feet. Once again you are reminded that the Greek men threw implements that were often even bigger and heavier, up to 6.6kg, than the over-weighted implements we threw in intra-squad ‘testFigure 1

ing’ mini-competition sessions. One of the benefits for my athletes throwing overweighted implements was that they did not make comparisons to distances thrown with standard weight implements, almost like running an off distance race, e.g., 800m runner competing in a 1500m race.

Nonetheless, it did give me, over time, a statistical means by which to project future competition marks with the standard one and two kilogram implements.

Besides implement size, another difference between my throwers and the ancients was that the method of throwing the Greeks were using was little more than a standing throw. They were likely not establishing the same momentum that we hopefully should be getting beyond a standing throw. Although some research does suggest that the Greeks may have spun, my impression of Discobolus is that of a standing throw, mostly because of the extreme left foot turn in the statue. I believe it would be difficult to execute a full throw as we understand it today using the same mechanics.

So suffice it to say that the basis of my technical argument lies within the context of the Greeks primarily executing standing throws.

For the purposes of testing throwers using over-weight implements, I would allow AUGUST 2014 techniques

31

DISCOBOLUS

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4 32

techniques AUGUST 2014

my athletes to use whatever starting position felt the most comfortable or natural. For the younger throwers that might well be a standing throw with the heavy plate, so they had no real advantage over the Greeks, except that our heavy plates are likely closer to the size of the modern men’s and women’s implements. For more accomplished throwers either a step through/mirror throw or a Powell/South African movement through the ring might be used. The most technically proficient throwers normally use a full throw for testing purposes. (A word to the wise coach, if you experiment with over-weighted implements in training and have your athletes throw multiple repetitions, I would strongly advise not throwing more than 5lbs plates for women and 7.5lbs plates for men, especially in a semi-competitive setting and particularly with full throws - unless, of course, you really do wish to blow out a shoulder joint.

You would also be wise to progressively build up on the number of throws you take with heavier implements. If you do throw heavier discs/plates you can risk injury, particularly in the region of the shoulder, deltoid and biceps tendon, and the chest, pectoralis major and minor. Please trust my experience here and be cautious.)Warm up properly beginning with standing throws, progressing up to mirrors/Powells - if you prefer South Africans and eventually full throws.

So, empirically at least, I have found that the Greeks threw similar distances out of their standing throws when compared to what the modern throwers of today (at least the ones I have coached) are capable of achieving with heavier implements. Throwers at other institutions may well throw farther with heavier implements, particularly from standing throws, than throwers I coached at the United States Air Force Academy, mostly owing to the mass of their throwers when compared to the lesser mass of the throwers at the Academy. In fact, most Academy throwers are much closer to the combined event body types of the ancient Games, keeping in mind that the discus throw was merely one of five events in the Greek pentathlon. The 2011 NCAA All-American and AFA discus record holder James Cole (183’9” 2kg college implement – 177’ 1.6kg high school implement) stood 6’2” tall and a mere 195-200lbs at his peak, admittedly not your average size for a thrower in the NCAA Division I, and likely the reason I nicknamed him ‘My Skinny.’ He was probably closer in musculature, stature and symmetry to the ancient discus throwers of Greece, as expressed in Discobolus, when compared to his more massive counterparts in the NCAA. Yet, even though his competitors might have taken Cole for a decathlete he was able to compete against them quite well at the 2011 Drake Relays and in qualifying for the NCAA Championships.

How was he able to do so?

In my professional opinion, he was techniScott Irving top photo, kirby lee middle & bottom photos

cally superior to his competition. Simply stated, he threw much more like the ancient Greeks and it merely required an additional twist. What is it that the Greeks did so differently and so well with their discus throwing technique? And throwing naked is not the answer. Although, it should be noted that the artistic nature of the throw was valued by the Greeks, even if the winner, as is the custom today, was determined by best marks. Greeks understood proportion, symmetry (symmetria) and rhythm (rhythmos).

Pythagorus had established his theorem circa 540-530 BC, so one would also suspect that there was a scientific-mathematicalgeometric basis to their concept of throwing, well before the time of Myron. Even the word technique is derived from the Greek word technikos which literally means artistic-skillful. Both the science and the art were indeed integral to the ancient Greeks.

The Greek method of throwing might be deemed ‘rather inefficient’ only because it was a standing throw. It is my belief the Greeks understood the basics of throwing the discus quite well. The throwing arm (typically the right arm) on nearly every Dicobolus copy is at an approximate and appropriate ninety-degree angle in relation to the torso (Figure 1). Throwers strive for a very similar position today (Figure 2).

In both ancient and modern throwers a technical effort is made to correctly keep the discus the greatest distance from the body. Geometrically speaking, the Greeks embraced this notion in Discobolus. The Discobolus torso is well balanced over the right leg and is slightly bent as it should be, as well as maintaining a nice parallel line with the lower left leg. Above all, the left arm is kept low, wrapped (back/closed) and in relative line with the throwing arm.

Along with the turned head looking at the discus (not in agreement with looking at the discus – clarification later), these qualities combine to enhance the sense of being wound up and twisted back as far as possible. Additionally, Discobolus has established a stable and solid base. No doubt there are those coaches who will argue that the ancient Greek throwers, as expressed in Discobolus, bent over too much, created too much tension, had too narrow a base, etc.

One comic misrepresentation of Discobolus found online even seems to skew Myron’s classical intention. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying Dicobolus is technically perfect by any means, but I do strongly believe that we can learn from Myron’s interpretation of ancient technique.

It is important to be mindful that the discus in the day of the ancient Olympic

Games was not only heavier than today’s discus, but also typically bigger. As a result, it could not have been easy technically to elevate the discus on the wind up. Yet, it appears that the Greeks did not let the discus drop to their side which could well have been the more natural inclination for them given the weight and the size of the ancient implement. The Greeks were correct in not only attempting to elevate the implement to an acceptable angle; they also rightly bent or loaded their legs. They appeared to understand the basics of summation of forces the legs needing to be activated first in order to apply efficient power to the implement.

So, they were far from being ‘inefficient’ with their technique. In so many ways, they were right on technically. And, Cole was able to quickly assimilate this technically superior style into his full throws.

Noted art historian Kenneth Clark observed in his book, The Nude, that, “….to the modern eye, it may seem Myron’s desire for perfection has made him suppress too rigorously the sense of strain in the individual muscles.” While I fully realize that the esteemed art historian was not a coach, I prefer to agree with Myron’s interpretation in Discobolus. Up to this point, whether in a standing throw or other movement, it is my fervent belief that today’s thrower should strive not to strain his muscles, but deliberately keep his emotions in check, be relaxed and composed.

In fact, I do observe some unnecessary, albeit minimal, strain in Discobolus which is considered the most accurate Roman copy of the Greek original, the one in which Discobolus looks back at the discus. In order for a thrower to look back this far he would need to unnecessarily (again in my opinion) flex his sternocleidomastoid muscle in the left side of his neck. I totally agree with the full wind of the body. While Myron does an exceptional job sculpturally of conveying a good wrap of the torso, including the resultant tension of the abdominals, I feel that Discobolus’ head should be relaxed and in line with the chest at this point, much like a sprinter. And, it is precisely this position where the torso is twisted and the head is in line with the chest that I feel every modern thrower should be striving to achieve; even as close as is reasonably possible in full throws when left foot touchdown has been achieved in the front of the ring. If I convey nothing else in this article, it would be this point and to some it may seem too extreme, but in my humble opinion it needs to be achieved in all aspects of throwing the discus, whether standing throw, mirror, Powell, or full throw.

I have had a few throwers tell me that while it sounds like a great concept, it is one they cannot achieve. They argue that they either do not possess the requisite flexibility or the patience to make it work. To me, that is very much like a sprinter saying he cannot keep his head down when he drives out of the starting blocks. In order to be an exceptional, world-class sprinter, one must keep his head down out of the blocks for a few strides (Figure 3). This technical concept should be just as fundamental for the discus thrower as it is for the sprinter. Once a sprinter lifts his head up, he naturally stands up and misdirects the power he could have established in a more effective drive phase.

A sprinter stands up if he looks up, because his eyes dictate where the cervical spine goes and the cervical spine dictates where the lumbar spine will go. The same is true for the discus thrower. Any coach who puts a discus in the hand of a novice thrower and asks him to execute a full throw for the very first time will normally find the young thrower looking first into the direction of the throw throughout the movement.

This is only natural for the novice, but it is also horribly wrong. Sadly, even the most accomplished throwers of today throw this way, leading with their eyes and, as a result, their cervical spines and therefore their upper body throughout the throw (Figure 4).

The Greeks realized this over two thousand years ago when they tried to maximize a full range of motion over which to apply force. Since theirs was primarily a standing throw they needed an extreme wind up, as well as a slightly exaggerated bend in the torso. Most throwers today do twist their torsos clockwise for right handed throwers similar to the Discobolus on standing throws, but they usually do not bother keeping the head in line with the chest. I encourage those who have a Mac Wilkins video/DVD, ‘Gold Medal Discus Throwing,’ to pause one of the standing throw demos at complete wind up. Where is his chest?

Wilkins torques/winds his torso back beautifully like Discobolus, but unlike Discobolus he looks straight back and does not move his head in line with his chest. Most throwers today, like Wilkins, do at least try to look straight back when setting up the standing throw, and that may be easier and less awkward than turning their heads farther, but in my estimation it is not the most efficient approach to throwing the discus technically correct. It is also the reason that most young throwers often struggle in distance thrown when comparing their standing throws to full throws. The comment is often made in frustration that, “My standing throws go as AUGUST 2014 techniques

33

DISCOBOLUS

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7 34

techniques AUGUST 2014

far or farther than my full throws.” It is my contention that even the best throwers in the world would do well if they could bring more of their standing throws into their full throws. And please know that I am not talking about loading up to throw when I mention bringing the standing throw position into the full throw. Nothing could be further from the truth. How can throwers bring the natural standing throw position into their full throws and in so doing maximize power in their full throws?

It is actually pretty simple on paper to explain, much more difficult to put into practice. Please consider the following closely.

When the left foot touches down in the front of the ring following the drive across the ring in the full throw, it is absolutely imperative that the upper body still be in a ‘twisted’ Discobolus position. It is my sincere contention that at the point of left foot touchdown nearly all competent, even today’s world-class, discus throwers already have their shoulders squared to the back of the ring.

Their focal point back may be excellent, but it is my belief that they have squandered a significant amount of range of motion in their torso and, therefore, pulling potential.

They have also deliberately stalled their torsos when they focus back, waiting for the hips to lead the throw. This stall also seriously impedes the application of force by the legs while in the double support phase. You can call it staying closed longer, wrapping like the javelin. It really makes no difference to me what you choose to call it, but I am absolutely convinced that it is a key element in the world returning to greater consistency of 70+ meter throwers for men and for women.

There may be a few skeptics out there who are set in their technical ways and feel this technical shift is way too extreme and too big a departure from conventional throwing. And that is fine. You will not offend me. I merely say, try it dogmatically and see if you do not experience a longer pull - a bigger sweep of the discus. In Cole, this is exactly what he and I sensed almost immediately (he physically and I visually) – a much greater sweep of the implement. He was not only My Skinny, he became my guinea pig, but with such a quick learning curve it did not take much to convince him or me that we were on to something big. From that point in his junior year at the Academy on we worked toward integrating that position into every drill, every facet and aspect of the throw.

Wished he had one more year to compete. Sorry to say, no fifth year at an Academy. Still, it might be difficult for coaches to wrap their minds around throwing so wrapped, because it does so fly in the face of conventional wisdom – two focal points – front and back of the ring.

East Germany’s 1976 Olympic silver medalist Wolfgang Schmidt was very close to achieving this concept in his throws. His countryman, Martina Hellman, is the one world class thrower I have witnessed (European Championships – Stuttgart – 1986) who came the closest to achieving this head-torso relationship, near Discobolus position, on occasion. What I am asking coaches and throwers to consider is maximizing their full range of motion. And, by increasing this range, they are increasing their ability to more fully use their hips as well as more Scott Irving photos

completely activating their core. Think of it simply as loading a spring by twisting the spring as tight as possible before you let it go. Then twist the spring about only half way around compared to the first trial and then let it go. Between those two which twist of the spring generates the highest resultant velocity? No question – the first. Obviously, we are talking in purely mechanical terms and the human anatomy is much more forgiving than a mechanical spring. With humans we have a much more complex system of summation of forces, i.e., foot to knee – knee to leg – leg to hip – hip to core – core to chest – chest to shoulder and finally the force is imparted to the implement. But it is my contention that nearly every thrower in the world today unwinds his anatomical spring (tension beginning with the core) too early throughout their movement across the ring and particularly with a significant loss of tension at left foot touchdown in the front of the ring. Basically, they lose the standing throw in their full throw. And, if they do, why even practice standing throws in the first place with the chest turned so far back when the thrower fails to do the same with their full throws? Some throwers tend to unwind horrendously, especially when they allow their left foot to open into the direction of the throw prior to left foot touchdown. One female 200’+ thrower I have coached did so, so egregiously in fact that her left foot would hover off the ground and turn in the air prior to touching down straight into the throw.

What was the result? Not only did her upper body open up as the left foot was working to touch down, but she was also slowing down which made her technique all the more deficient. It not only took her longer to get into her doublesupport phase, it also made her unable to apply force on the implement from a maximal length of pull.

And she still threw 200’+. Maybe the wait for the left foot was only a split second, but I can only imagine how much farther she could have been throwing had her anatomical spring been fully loaded like Discobolus.

To more completely understandt his point, I would invite the readers to place themselves in a standing throw position – no discus required. Once in this position turn your left foot totally into the direction of the throw.

Unless you are an anatomic freak, you should find that you cannot wind your chest back fully, like Discobolus, with the left foot pointed straight into the throwing direction.

Most will also find that the position of the left foot restricts their ability to turn their torso back into the standing throw position.

In fact, if a thrower touches down in this

manner with the left foot turned totally into the throwing direction, it forces the thrower to open his torso into the throwing direction prematurely. This should be evidence enough to demonstrate that the anatomical spring has been prematurely unwound and, therefore, the length of pull seriously compromised. So, how does a thrower incorporate the standing position into the full throw? The same way James Cole did in practice and competition. He incorporated the standing throw into every drill and aspect of his practice and competition routine with repetition – repetition – repetition.

One point of clarification needs to be made here in my meaning and in Discobolus’ intent. When speaking of left foot touchdown in the front of the ring, please do not confuse this with left heel touchdown in the front of the ring.

When a thrower takes their big wind up with their torso for a standing throw they, like Discobolus, must pivot their left foot and the bottom of their left foot inevitably points in the direction of the throw (again Figure 1 & 2). In his excellent six part YouTube video Wolfgang Schmidt rightly speaks of getting his left foot through the center of the ring and down quickly in the front of the ring. This is a key element of being able to wait on the upper body, a la Martina Hellman, and not so unlike Schmidt, who I believe would agree that on his better throws he was still looking to the back of the ring as he began the pivot on his right foot in the center of the ring following left foot touchdown. This is also the main reason I use the technical cue of pivot - focus back rather than focus - pivot.

It may seem like semantics, but it is effective and it works. We drill this concept of focal points, as well as the additional twist relentlessly. So please understand that our throwers are attempting to touch down with the toes of their left foot. The left foot does very slightly rotate in the air prior to contact with the ring, but slightly sidewise – not totally rotated into the throwing direction.

Upon contact the left foot pivots quickly to left heel touchdown. At the same time the torso moves in concert with the left foot the right foot begins a quick pivot in the center of the ring. These are all obviously very synchronized movements in concert with one another, but they are all elemental and fundamental to establishing not only double support, but also the momentum and timing necessary to maximize angular velocity at release.

Recommend the following progressions and concentration. Standing throw (Figure 5 – prefer right arm up slightly higher than

shown in figure – in line with left arm) – normal wind with head in line with the chest, striving to focus between zero degrees (back of the ring) and 270 degrees.

Consider the position of the left foot at this set up point and try to recreate the same sensation and position throughout the throwing progressions. Done correctly, the path of the discus becomes a much bigger J shape and the thrower should begin to sense this sweep throughout the following throwing progressions.

Mirror/step through throw – As the name implies, set up as though you have already moved across the ring with the right foot touched down in the center, the left foot still straight on as if pushing through the ring and the eyes focused out into the field (Figure 6). Many throwers will set this up by already turning their head to the side, wishing to look to the back of the ring prematurely with both feet turned sideways (Figure 7). Some throwers turn even farther than the figure shows. In my opinion this is a very big mistake, because the thrower is encouraging leading with the upper body into the throw and this negates nearly all tension of the anatomical spring. In order to maximize the spring, I would encourage the thrower to set the starting position in as strict a manner as possible. Let the throwing arm and discus relax, then begin the movement of shooting the left leg past the right, but at the same time allowing the upper body torso to remain relaxed. Initiate the movement with the legs and the right hip pressing up into the throwing direction. This will allow the discus to follow a natural path and plane in line with where it began, low and behind the hip – some may say much like walking a dog. The position the thrower is striving for is exactly that same position the thrower established in the standing throw. Above all, do not forget the bigger elliptical path, loop or J that the discus is now following. The thrower needs to practice this over and over in order to ultimately incorporate it into the full throw.

Powell or Wilkins across the ring – depending on the thrower. Whether you are trying to work a more linear or rotational (Figure 8 next page) path across the ring, really matters little to me. What I am trying to convey in this article is that you need to incorporate the exact sensation as the mirror into this movement. However, it is important no matter which method you choose that the thrower’s left foot is close to the right foot and passing it at right foot touchdown in the center of the ring. As in the mirror throw, when the left foot passes the right in the center of the ring, the focal AUGUST 2014 techniques

35

DISCOBOLUS be safely out of the way and out of range of any misguided throws.)

The coach and thrower may even wonder if it is possible to pull the discus around from such an extended and protracted point. The answer is yes.

With considerable practice your thrower can achieve what I call an exaggerated J- Sweep. It is the very reason we observed such an increased length of pull for Cole. Some of my coaching peers commented at meets that James looked so calm in the center of the ring and wished their throwers could do the same. I would observe that it was merely an extended focal point with an additional twist of the torso, not so unlike Discobolus or a standing throw. And even if you cannot achieve the exaggerated length of pull Cole managed to achieve, any additional twist, even if it is only a couple inches, will move the discus significantly farther back. When your thrower succeeds in capturing this position, a commensurate increase in angular velocity and speed of release will follow.

The throwers who do not acquire this position will, in my estimation, be leading with their heads and their upper bodies in their full throw and unfortunately have many missed opportunities. I have often been asked why I made such a dramatic career change from art/art history to coaching. To me the two disciplines have always been and will always remain inextricably tied together. Whether coaches realize it or not they, like Myron, are sculptors in their own right; shaping, and molding the thrower – technically adding a little here and taking away a little there as they search for the perfect throw. In the final analysis it is a search, so eloquently represented in Myron’s Discobolus, that requires, much like the Greeks, both a scientific and an artistic awareness.

Figure 8

references

Figure 9 point should be still somewhat forward with the head in line with the thrower’s chest. At this moment, most throwers tense up in preparation to throw, preferring to lead with their head rather than their legs (Figure 9). Much like the mirror it is paramount that the same standing throw position be achieved prior to completing the throw.

Fulls – same as above with the exception of the complete movement out of the back of the ring in a full throw. If the thrower still struggles to establish the standing throw position suggested here and still looks into the throw, I would advise the following drill – continuous cross steps in Powell or Wilkins movement. After a few cross steps, turn and hold the 36

techniques AUGUST 2014

standing throw position, with the additional twist, gripping the implement or another object and not throwing.

Indeed, it takes discipline to achieve this position, the same kind of discipline it takes to set the body correctly over the left leg out of the back of the ring. However, if a thrower can manage that discipline to properly execute this fundamental I am convinced that the return will be of immense proportions. And once a solid command of this position is achieved then the thrower can also throw out of this drill, either off a road into a field or off the javelin runway.

(Be mindful that the thrower is therefore not throwing out of a ring, and coaches and other athletes need to

Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discobolus Remijsen, Sofie and Clarysse, Willy (2012 – KU Lueven) Ancient Olympics – Discus throwing. http://ancientolympics.arts.kuleuven.belenglTC004EN.html Swaddling, Judith (1999 – 2nd Edition) The Ancient Olympic Games. University of Texas Press, p. 66.

Miller, Stephen G. (2004) Ancient Greek Athletics.

New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 61.

Clark, Kenneth (2010) The Nude: A study in ideal form. New edition. London: The Folio Society, pp.

134-135.

Special thanks to Russ Winger for assisting in the photo process.

D Scott Irving is the recently retired Men’s and Women’s Track & Field field event coach at the United States Air Force Academy. He can be reached for discussion or comments at dscottirving@gmail.com Scott Irving top photo, kirby lee bottom photo

38

techniques AUGUST 2014

UCCS Sports Information photo

Functional Movement Screening A TOOL FOR IDENTIFYING FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS AND ASYMMETRIES IN FEMALE DISTANCE RUNNERS.

By David Harmer and Sara Kettelkamp

F

unctional movement; described as fundamental aspects of human movements with athleticism in mind, and functional ability; the ability to perform basic locomotor, manipulative and stabilizing movements, can to be vitally important when it comes to repetitive, weight bearing exercise, such as training for middle and long distance running. Having a reduced ability to execute coordinated functional movement can lead to asymmetry issues (strength discrepancies between different sides of the body) which have been found to be a leading factor in a majority of injuries in long distance runners (LugoLarcheveque et al 2006).

Endurance focused runners are particularly prone to injuries in the lower back, the hips, and the lower extremities (Brumitt, 2009). It is suggested that running frequency, poor training and conditioning, previous history and biomechanical misalignment could all play a part in this. When analyzing runners in the wider scope, misalignment has a huge impact on injuries sustained throughout long-term training cycles, (Lugo-Larcheveque et al 2006). Strength discrepancies such as eccentric strength among hip extensors, external rotators, and abductors were greater with a current injury, showing that if these weaknesses are detected earlier, injury could

be prevented, (Boling et al 2009).

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a tool that is used to identify functional limitations and asymmetries through a series of seven functional movement tests. The extreme positions of these exercises make weaknesses and imbalances quite noticeable if appropriate stability and mobility is not present (Cook et al, 2006). The seven exercises are scored on a range of 0 to 3. A score of 0 is given if the exercise cannot be performed or if any pain is noted; a score of 3 is given if the exercise is performed perfectly without error. Scores of 1 or 2 are given if the exercise is performed with multiple errors or if the exercise is less than exact.

The movements performed are used to determine functional ability by using the following exercises: Deep squat Hurdle step In-line lunge Shoulder mobility Active straight-leg raise Trunk stability push-up Rotary stability After all exercises are scored, the final score is calculated and used to determine if the subject is at increased risk of injury.

For additional information and illustrations of these exercises, go to http:// teamchirodm.com/functional-movement-screen .

Although there is minimal research done on FMS testing with runners, some normative data has been collected. In regards to female athletes, Chorba et al (2010) performed functional movement screening on 38 Division I female collegiate athletes. After compiling the data it was discovered that of those who scored less than, or equal to 14 on the FMS Test, 68.57 percent of them sustained an injury during their playing season. Of those who scored lower than a 13, 81.82 percent of them sustained an injury. Using the cut off score of 14, those who scored less than or equal to this number were significantly more likely to become injured throughout the season. An individual scoring within the range of 14-18 on the FMS is considered within the optimal functional range, whereas below 14 is considered a heightened risk for injury. Similarly, scores above 18 represent hyper-mobility, which is encouraged in sports requiring extreme ranges of motion such as diving and gymnastics; but not advised for distance running.

If asymmetries are discovered early in an athlete’s long term training cycle it may be possible to prevent future injuries via an individualized core strength training intervention aimed at reducing these differences. With this in mind this article will look at how you can incorporate the FMS screening into your training plan, AUGUST 2014 techniques

39

Functional Movement Screening and using the results, develop a strength based intervention program to help prevent injury in your runners.

Testing your athletes In terms of when you would incorporate this functional movement screening in a high school or college setting, I would suggest the start of any general preparation phase (start of summer training or after winter break) is a good time to assess functional abilities. While training volumes are more moderate, and before higher intensity workouts are introduced, this is an ideal time to incorporate new strength training intervention programs into your training cycle and reduce the impact of any issues identified by the FMS score.

When testing our women’s cross country team at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) after the winter break, we found a theme across all female athletes tested. While the group generally scored well on mobility (shoulder and straight leg raise), 10 of the 15 athletes scored low (1) on the trunk stability push up, and rotary stability tests. After consultation with other coaches this is common among female distance runners. For these reasons we focused our group core strengthening program on these areas.

However, if an individual athlete presents with an asymmetry issue (different score from left to right), this is very important to address with the individual athlete before progressing any running or strengthening program. Joe McConkey of the Boston Running Center suggests the following plan of action if you discover an athlete that presents with an asymmetry issue; 1. Gain equal, right vs left, relaxation of the soft-tissue system through mostly pressure treatments - self-massage, sports massage, foam-rolling, etc.

2. Gain equal range of motion and ease of motion.

3. Equal firing of the muscles involved.

4. Equal strength (if you strengthen unequal tensions - i.e. skip step 1 - the problem will still exist, you will now be ‘masking’ the imbalance).

To provide further analysis with any athlete that has had a recurrent, or severe injury history, I would suggest videoing the exercise tests from the coronal and sagittal planes as a secondary reference when analyzing results, and this can then be used to help consulting physical therapists or trainer’s help further diagnose problems.

40

techniques AUGUST 2014

Developing a strength intervention program based on the results of the FMS Fredericson and Moore (2005) state that when developing a core stabilization training program, specific exercises for the runner should progress from mobility to stability, to reflexive motor patterning, to acquiring the skills of fundamental movement patterns, and finally, to progressive strengthening. The purpose of basic core stabilization exercises in not only to increase stability, but more importantly – it is to develop proper activation and co-ordination/timing of the abdominal-wall and surrounding musculature.

Many female runners will present a deficiency in hip abductor and extensor strength when examined. Exercises that act on the gluteus maximus and medius could decrease this deficit if performed properly. It is also displayed that it is important to address a weakened core, and to implement exercises to strengthen it as a part of the athlete’s routine (Brummit, 2009).

In consultation with Dr. Jay Dawes (Director of the Graduate Strength and Conditioning Program at UCCS), we decided that the core strength intervention program we used with our women’s team at UCCS was to be included three days per week on, Monday, Thursday and Sunday. His suggestion was that the program included 6-8 exercises performed for two sets during each session initially.

This is consistent with other studies and periodicals that advised three sessions a week of two sets of 15-20 repetitions for each exercise during this period with varying number of exercises included. We introduced this strength program over the spring semester to examine whether the intervention had a positive effect on their functional abilities scores, retested the FMS at the conclusion of the competitive season, and used the results to determine the validity of its inclusion within her overall long term training program, and the areas of focus for future training plans.

The three days selected are recovery days, and are lower in volume and intensity for running specific workouts and therefore the quality of these conditioning sessions will not be adversely impacted by the main running prescribed that day.

The strength intervention program will be performed after running workouts.

Monday is more focused on mobility where we used hurdle drills, technical running drills, speed ladder exercises

and circuit training exercises. Whereas Thursday and Sunday are more focused on the core stabilization weaknesses we identified on the FMS testing.

There were two different routines focusing on core stabilization exercises to address the low and unbalanced trunk and rotational stability scores assessed in our FMS results. The two core stabilization routines are outlined below with a description for each exercise. All exercises can easily be found on YouTube for a video demonstration.

Routine 1 – Thursday’s 1. Supine Pelvic Tilts: 2x20 contractions -Lie down with head and back flat on the ground.

-Knees bent at 90° with feet flat on the ground -Arms out to the side with palms up “making a T” -Arch lower back increasing space between lower back and the floor – pause – bring lower back towards the ground decreasing space as much as possible (as if pushing belly button to the ground.

2. Hip Bridge: 2x5 holds • Arms out to the side with palms up “making a T” • Ankles Dorsiflexed • Heels in contact with ground • Knees bent at 90° -Bring lower back towards ground like previous exercise, lift hips up and off the ground till body is straight and in-line from shoulders to knees. Hold for 5 sec.

3. Prone Lying Progressions -Lie on stomach with arms out in front (like superman) -Bring toes towards shins -Brace your torso and squeeze your butt and lift both arms off the ground keeping your face down looking at the ground. Hold for 3 sec. 2x5 -Repeat but just lift legs off the ground.

Hold for 3 sec. 2x5 -Repeat but lift opposite arm and opposite leg. Hold for 3 sec. 2x3 each -Repeat but lift both arms and legs off the ground. Hold for 3 sec. 2x5 4. Walking Clocks: 2x4 circles -Position self in an extended plank position with arms extended and hands place under shoulders -Brace your torso and squeeze your butt -Keep body in a straight line

Functional Movement Screening is impossible to do this lower your knees to the ground before performing the pushup. 2x8 -Good form is most important -Repeat with hands wider than shoulder width apart. 2x8 -Repeat with hands together forming a diamond with your pointer fingers and thumbs. 2x8 4. Squat Progression 10x each exercise -Progress from quarter to half to full squats using a chair or fixed bar to support your range of motion without falling -Focus on good form (have someone watch you) -Do each to the best of your ability, place a book under your heels if you are struggling with some of these movements

-Keeping feet in place imagine your hands are the hands of a clock and walk your hands moving your body in one circle clockwise and then 1 circle counterclockwise -Right after the second circle keep your hands in place and walk your feet around the clock one clockwise and then one circle counter-clockwise 5. Multi-Directional Lunges: 2x5(forward, side (front), side (90 degrees), side (back), behind) each leg -Stand with feet shoulder width apart -Brace torso and lunge forward moving opposite arm with the leg -Don’t bring knee down all the way to the ground but just above it -Find balance before bringing leg back, it is not a speed drill 6. Side Planks: 2x 45 sec each side -Lie down on your side and prop yourself onto your elbow, raise opposite arm into the air -Stack feet and point toes towards your shins -Lift self-up and raise your hip up to the sky, keep body straight -(If comfortable raise upper leg as high as possible)

Routine 2 – Sunday’s 1. Dead Bug Progression -Lie down with head and back flat on the ground.

42

techniques AUGUST 2014

-Knees bent at 90° with feet flat on the ground -Push your belly button towards the ground. Brace your torso and squeeze your butt -Point your toes towards your shins and lift both legs off the ground keeping your core contracted -Follow the progression on the video.

2x8 each side on everything -Take your time 2. Quadruped Progression -Position yourself on all fours with arms extended directly under your shoulders and knees directly under your hips with toes pointed towards your shins -Brace your torso like we have been doing in previous exercises -Slowly raise on leg towards the sky, hold for 3 sec then lower it. 2x5 each -Place yourself back in starting position then slowly raise one arm towards the sky and hold for 3 sec then lower it. 2x5 each -Back into starting position raise one leg and opposite arm towards the sky, hold for 3 sec. then lower it. 2x5 each 3. Pushup Progression -In pushup position place hands directly under your shoulders and toes pointed towards your shins -Brace your torso and squeeze your butt making a straight line with your body -Lower yourself down as far as possible while maintaining good form. If it

5. Plank Knee to Elbow -In pushup position with hands directly under your shoulders -Feet hip width apart -Brace torso and bring one knee towards the elbow on the same side -Repeat with bringing one knee towards opposite elbow -2x8 each leg each exercise 6. Reverse Plank -Push body up facing the sky with hands under your shoulders and fingers pointed towards your feet. Toes pointed towards your shins -Brace torso and squeeze your butt keeping your body in line. Do not let hips dip down -Bend one knee and bring that knee towards your chest, alternate. 2x10 -Back to starting position keep legs straight and lift one leg towards the sky.

2x10

Conclusion Although there are many different factors contributing towards the onset of an injury in runners, testing functional ability could be beneficial when attempting to prevent certain injuries.

The core strengthening program we introduced with our women’s team at UCCS had a significant positive effect on their functional movement abilities. With an adapted program to be included in the team’s summer training program we are confident these scores will continue to improve and further reduce our risk of injury throughout the season.

After speaking with several coaches Kyle Terwillegar photo

Functional Movement Screening and programs, many use some form core stabilization exercise during their warm up, pre-running workouts rather than post (as we did in our spring training). As mentioned earlier, the purpose of basic core stabilization exercises in not only to increase stability, but more importantly – it is to develop proper activation and coordination/timing of the abdominal-wall and surrounding musculature. It would therefore make sense to incorporate some of these exercises prior to running, to ‘reeducate’ the muscles of those athletes that present reduced functional ability scores.

FMS screening is a useful, easy to use, assessment tool that coaches can incorporate regardless of their access to facilities or resources. While it has no direct correlation to performance, and should not replace the expertise of an experienced biomechanist and physical therapy team, the use of FMS in runners is highly beneficial in the creation of a more individualized strength-based intervention program, that when added into everyday training, has been shown to reduce the risk of injury over long term training periods.

44

techniques AUGUST 2014

REFERENCES Brummit, (2009). Injury Prevention for High School Female Cross-Country Athletes.

Athletic Therapy Today. 14(4): 8-12.

Chorba, R., Chorba, D., Bouillon, L., Overmyer, C., Landis, J. (2010). Use of a Functional Movement Screening Tool To Determine Injury Risk in Female Collegiate Athletes. North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 5 (2), 47.

Cook, G., Burton, L., Hoogenboom, B. (2006). Pre-Participation Screening: The Use of the Fundamental Movements as an Assessment of Function – Part 1. N Am J Sports Physical Therapy. 1(2): 62-72.

Dawes, J. PhD, CSCS,*D, NSCA-CPT,*D. Fredericson, M., Moore, T. (2005). Core Stabalisation training for middle and long-distance runners. New Studies in Athletics. IAAF. 20:1; 25-37.

Loudon, J.K., Parkerson-Mitchell, A. J., Hildebrand, L.D., Teague, C. (2014). Functional Movement Screen Scores in a Group of Running Athletes.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 28(4):909-13. 10.1097/ JSC.0000000000000233

Lugo-Larcheveque, N., Pescatello, L., Dugdale, T., Veltri, D., Roberts, W. (2006). Management of Lower Extremity Malalignment During Running with Neuromuscular Retraining of the Proximal Stabilizers. Current Sports Medicine Reports. 5:137-140.

McConkey, J. MSc, Level 2 USATF Coach, Level 5 IAAF Elite Coach Candidate.

David Harmer is the Head Women’s Cross Country and Co-Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS). He holds a master’s degree in Sports Medicine, is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist with the NSCA, and is a 2014 candidate for his Level 5 IAAF Elite Coach certification in Endurance Events.

Sara Kettelkamp is an Assistant Coach with the UCCS Women’s Cross Country team and is currently studying the use of functional movement screening in specialized populations for her master’s degree in health promotion.

ustfccca supporters

Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Associaton, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country.

The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters.

mondoworldwide.com

hokaoneone.com

rekortanspurtanadvpolytech.com

dataathletics.com

garmin.com

46

techniques AUGUST 2014

ucsspirit.com

beynonsports.com

balfour.com

stockmeier-urethanes.com

directathletics.com

ucsspirit.com

mfathletic.com

coachesdirectory.com

vsathletics.com

athleticsuniverse.com

tomtom.com

trainingpeaks.com

maxmedals.com

elliptigo.com

AUGUST 2014 techniques

47

2014 ustfccca national OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year division i

Pat Henry Texas A&M Women’s Head COY

Robert Johnson Tonja Buford-Bailey Andy Powell Oregon Texas Oregon Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Courtney Okolo Texas Women’s Track AOY

Deon Lendore Texas A&M Men’s Track AOY

Kendell Williams Georgia Women’s Field AOY

Ryan Crouser Texas Men’s Field AOY

division iI

Victor Thomas Lincoln Women’s Head COY

George Williams Brett Suckstorf Brian Mantooth Saint Augustine’s Wayne State Pittsburg State Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Danielle Williams Johnson C. Smith Women’s Track AOY

Tabor Stevens Adams State Men’s Track AOY

Salcia Slack Jeron Robinson New Mexico Highlands Texas A&M-Kingsville Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY

division iII

Marcus Newsom Wartburg Women’s Head COY

Kevin Lucas Mount Union Men’s Head COY

Katie Wagner Jordan Hill UW-La Crosse Baldwin Wallace Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Christy Cazzola UW-Oshkosh Women’s Track AOY

Kevin Johnson Baldwin Wallace Men’s Track AOY

Amelia Campbell Carleton Women’s Field AOY

Sean Donnelly Mount Union Men’s Field AOY

AUGUST 2014 techniques

49

division i 2014 ustfccca regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year great lakes region

Bill Lawson Kent State Women’s Head COY

Lonnie Greene Purdue Men’s Head COY

Alan Turner Notre Dame Women’s Assistant COY

Sterling Roberts Eastern Michigan Men’s Assistant COY

Erin Finn Michigan Women’s Track AOY

Raheem Mostert Purdue Men’s Track AOY

Brooke Pleger Bowling Green Women’s Field AOY

Matthias Tayala Kent State Men’s Field AOY

Marcus O’Sullivan Randy Bungard Kevin Kelly Villanova Penn State Penn State Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Emily Lipari Villanova Women’s Track AOY

Brycen Spratling Pittsburgh Men’s Track AOY

Julia Ratcliffe Princeton Women’s Field AOY

Corey Crawford Rutgers Men’s Field AOY

Mike Turk Carrie Lane Billy Maxwell Illinois Nebraska Nebraska Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Katie Moen Iowa State Women’s Track AOY

Michael Stigler Kansas Men’s Track AOY

Sami Spenner Omaha Women’s Field AOY

Nick Miller Oklahoma State Men’s Field AOY

Anthony Rotich UTEP Men’s Track AOY

Kayla Kovar Southern Utah Women’s Field AOY

Kole Weldon Texas Tech Men’s Field AOY

mid atlantic region

Beth Alford-Sullivan Penn State Women’s Head COY

midwest region

Ryun Godfrey North Dakota State Women’s Head COY

mountain region

Lacena GoldingWes Kittley James Thomas Clarke Texas Tech Texas Tech UTEP Women’s Head COY Men’s Assistant COY Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY 50

techniques AUGUST 2014

Shalaya Kipp Colorado Women’s Track AOY

NORTHEAST region

Jason Saretsky Harvard Women’s Head COY

Nathan Taylor Cornell Men’s Head COY

Mark Coogan Megan Johnson Dartmouth Cornell Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Abbey D’Agostino Dartmouth Women’s Track AOY

John Prizzi New Hampshire Men’s Track AOY

Allison Barwise Boston University Women’s Field AOY

Stephen Mozia Cornell Men’s Field AOY

SOUTH region

Wayne Norton Georgia Women’s Head COY

Petros Kyprianou Mike Holloway Doug Reynolds Georgia Florida Alabama Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Elinor Kirk UAB Women’s Track AOY

Dedric Dukes Florida Men’s Track AOY

Kendell Williams Georgia Women’s Field AOY

Ricky Robertson Mississippi Men’s Field AOY

SOUTH CENTRAL region

Mario Sategna Texas Women’s Head COY

Curtis Kraft East Carolina Women’s Head COY

Lance Harter Arkansas Women’s Head COY

Pat Henry Texas A&M Men’s Head COY

Tonja BufordBailey Texas Women’s Assistant COY

Ryan Crouser Michael Ford Sharika Nelvis Deon Lendore Shelbi Vaughan Texas Baylor Arkansas State Texas A&M Texas A&M Men’s Assistant Women’s Track AOY Men’s Track AOY Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY COY

Erik Jenkins Ashley Duncan Andrew Ninow Western Kentucky Western Kentucky Kentucky Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

SOUTHEAST region

Kendra Harrison Kentucky Women’s Track AOY

Elvyonn Bailey Western Kentucky Men’s Track AOY

Jessica Ramsey Western Kentucky Women’s Field AOY

Andrew Evans Kentucky Men’s Field AOY

WEST region

Caryl Smith Gilbert Southern California Women’s Head COY

Robert Johnson Curtis Taylor Andy Powell Oregon Oregon Oregon Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Jenna Prandini Oregon Women’s Track AOY

Aleec Harris Southern California Men’s Track AOY

Shanieka Thomas San Diego State Women’s Field AOY

Nick Ross Arizona Men’s Field AOY

AUGUST 2014 techniques

51

division iI 2014 ustfccca regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region

Lennox Graham Johnson C. Smith Women’s Head COY

George Williams Larry Moore Doug Knol Saint Augustine’s Johnson C. Smith Shippensburg Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Danielle Williams Johnson C. Smith Women’s Track AOY

Roxroy Cato Saint Augustine’s Men’s Track AOY

Tabitha Bemis Edinboro Women’s Field AOY

DeJon Wilkinson Saint Augustine’s Men’s Field AOY

Russ Jewett Brett Suckstorf Brian Mantooth Pittsburg State Wayne State Pittsburg State Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Samantha Rivard Minnesota Duluth Women’s Track AOY

William Shell Southwest Baptist Men’s Track AOY

Sara Wells Wayne State Women’s Field AOY

Christopher Reed Minnesota State Men’s Field AOY

central region

Mike Thorson University of Mary Women’s Head COY

east region

Karen Boen John Wallin Joe Van Gilder Bill Sutherland Stonehill Southern Connecticut Southern Connecticut Southern Connecticut Women’s Head COY Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Ada Udaya Logan Sharpe New Haven Southern Connecticut Women’s Track AOY Men’s Track AOY

Briana Conyers Nick Lebron New Haven Southern Connecticut Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY

midwest region

Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s Head COY Men’s Head COY 52

Nick Polk Grand Valley State Women’s Assistant COY

techniques AUGUST 2014

Dave Smalley Ashland Men’s Assistant COY

Kalena Franklin Grand Valley State Women’s Track AOY

Drew Windle Ashland Men’s Track AOY

Kristen Hixson Grand Valley State Women’s Field AOY

Justin Welch Findlay Men’s Field AOY

2014 ustfccca regional division iI OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year south region Not Pictured

Frank Hyland Benedict Women’s Head COY

Kenneth Taylor Albany State Men’s Head COY

Not Pictured

Soyini Thompson Alabama-Huntsville Women’s Assistant COY

Fatimah Shabazz Kentucky State Men’s Assistant COY

Chamekea Davis Benedict Women’s Track AOY

Kyran Stewart Albany State Men’s Track AOY

Euphemia Edem Stillman Women’s Field AOY

Alex May Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Field AOY

south central region

Bob DeVries Ryan Dall Yuriy Litvinski New Mexico High- Texas A&M-Kingsville Angelo State lands Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant Women’s Head COY COY

Matt Gersick Adams State Men’s Assistant COY

Kayon Robinson Adams State Women’s Track AOY

Tabor Stevens Adams State Men’s Track AOY

Salcia Slack Jeron Robinson New Mexico Highlands Texas A&M-Kingsville Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY

southeast region

Jim Vahrenkamp Queens Women’s Head COY

Matt van Lierop Mount Olive Men’s Head COY

Tsehaye Baney Queens Women’s Assistant COY

Travis LeFlore Wingate Men’s Assistant COY

Andrea Guerra Queens Women’s Track AOY

Dylan Lafond Mount Olive Men’s Track AOY

Shelby Kennard Queens Women’s Field AOY

Bryce Rauhof Clayton State Men’s Field AOY

west region

Diljeet Taylor Cal State Stanislaus Women’s Head COY

Oliver Hanf Manny Trevino David Burnett Chico State Chico State Western Washington Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY

Courtney Anderson Cal State Stanislaus Women’s Track AOY

Jordan Edwards Academy of Art Men’s Track AOY

Bethany Drake Western Washington Women’s Field AOY

J. Patrick Smith Chico State Men’s Field AOY

AUGUST 2014 techniques

53

division iII 2014 ustfccca regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region

Kate Curran St. Lawrence Women’s Head COY

Angelo Posillico SUNY Oneonta Men’s Head COY

John Hudson RPI Women’s Assistant COY

Joe Reed SUNY Oneonta Men’s Assistant COY

Amy Cymerman St. Lawrence Women’s Track AOY

Joe Carr SUNY Oneonta Men’s Track AOY

Divya Biswal St. Lawrence Women’s Field AOY

Pat Weinert SUNY Oneonta Men’s Field AOY

Marcus Newsom Wartburg Men’s Head COY

Derek Frese Nebraska Wesleyan Women’s Assistant COY

Melissa Norton Wartburg Men’s Assistant COY

Tashina McAllister Wartburg Women’s Track AOY

Eli Horton Central Men’s Track AOY

Amelia Campbell Carleton Women’s Field AOY

Colt Feltes Wartburg Men’s Field AOY

Kevin Lucas Mount Union Men’s Head COY

Matt Wackerly Ohio Wesleyan Women’s Assistant COY

Jordan Hill Baldwin Wallace Men’s Assistant COY

Cara DeAngelis Ohio Wesleyan Women’s Track AOY

Kevin Johnson Baldwin Wallace Men’s Track AOY

Melanie Winters Baldwin Wallace Women’s Field AOY

Sean Donnelly Mount Union Men’s Field AOY

Vince Touey Widener Men’s Head COY

Brian Falk Elizabethtown Women’s Assistant COY

Nick Price Widener Men’s Assistant COY

Maggie Shelton Johns Hopkins Women’s Track AOY

Chris Stadler Haverford Men’s Track AOY

Ashlee Ward Misericordia Women’s Field AOY

Tyler Williams Widener Men’s Field AOY

central region

Donna Ricks Carleton Women’s Head COY

GREAT LAKES region

Kris Boey Ohio Wesleyan Women’s Head COY

MIDEAST region

Bobby VanAllen Johns Hopkins Women’s Head COY

54

techniques AUGUST 2014

2014 ustfccca regional division IiI OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year MIDWEST region

Pat Healy UW-La Crosse Women’s Head COY

Josh Buchholtz UW-La Crosse Men’s Head COY

Katie Wagner UW-La Crosse Women’s Assistant COY

Lane Lohr Washington Men’s Assistant COY

Christy Cazzola UW-Oshkosh Women’s Track AOY

John Crain North Central Men’s Track AOY

Breanna Strupp UW-Oshkosh Women’s Field AOY

Trevor James Carthage Men’s Field AOY

NEW ENGLAND region

Halston Taylor MIT Women’s Head COY Men’s Head COY

Elaina Zizza Amherst Women’s Assistant COY

Jim Butler Connecticut College Men’s Assistant COY

Ashante Little Michael LeDuc Wheaton Connecticut College Women’s Track AOY Men’s Track AOY

Naomi Bates Amherst Women’s Field AOY

Sean Enos Bates Men’s Field AOY

SOUTH/southeast region

Robert Shankman Rhodes Women’s Head COY

Tyler Wingard Christopher Newport Men’s Head COY

Carl Blickle Roanoke Women’s Assistant COY

Brian Flynn Bridgewater Men’s Assistant COY

Sadie Yanckello Alexander Tallman Rhodes Washington and Lee Women’s Track AOY Men’s Track AOY

Elizabeth Krug Hendrix Women’s Field AOY

Buck Thompson UT Tyler Men’s Field AOY

west region

Matt Lea Cal Lutheran Women’s Head COY

Toby Schwarz Whitworth Men’s Head COY

Eugene Sullivan Cal Lutheran Women’s Assistant COY

Gary Rudin La Verne Men’s Assistant COY

Lenore Moreno La Verne Women’s Track AOY

Chancise Watkins La Verne Men’s Track AOY

Kerry Wright Whitworth Women’s Field AOY

Darron Usher Redlands Men’s Field AOY

AUGUST 2014 techniques

55

updates from the ncaa eligibility center

T

his spring and summer, you may have seen a new character online and in schools. It’s a talking bench, set on pushing high school students to learn more about new academic standards for Division I sports.

Starting in 2016, high school seniors will need a 2.3 GPA instead of a 2.0 to compete in Division I sports. The bench is talking up the new standards in social media, videos, stickers, posters, a public service announcement and even a school bus that visited schools in Atlanta and South Florida. The bench is a tough-loving coach for the game of life with some pointed yet thoughtful motivational messages for the athletes he meets.

As coaches, you are an integral part in helping spread the word about these rule changes. We need your help in emphasizing academics and the fact that, from the beginning of ninth grade, courses and grades are more important than ever.

56

techniques AUGUST 2014

Share this information – including the available downloads at 2point3.org – with players, fellow coaches, parents and high school administrators. Together we can make sure students have the information they need to be successful both on and off the track.

NCAA Division I requires 16 core courses. But students starting college after August 1, 2016, prospects will need to complete 10 of those courses before their seventh high school semester. For most students, that’s the start of their senior year. Seven of the 10 core courses need to be completed in the disciplines of English, math or science.

Also, beginning August 1, 2016, students planning to compete in Division I must graduate high school with a minimum 2.3 GPA in those core courses.

Academic achievement has always been important, but now more than ever, students must pay attention to their high

school courses and grades. This starts in the ninth grade. Because of the changes in rules, students will no longer be able to make up for early academic missteps by loading up on courses late in their high school careers.

Tell students who plan to compete in Division I to visit 2point3.org for the full list of eligibility requirements.

If your athletes want to play NCAA Division I or II sports, they need to be certified by the NCAA Eligibility Center. And that means they need to be more than a good enough athlete.

They need to be a good enough student, too.

leigh ann kennedy Leigh Ann Kennedy is the Assistant Director of Amateurism Certification at the NCAA Eligibility Center. She can be reached at lkennedy@ncaa.org.