Thread by @Heckelr_

Here is a thread of the process I go through when putting together a strength and conditioning program for a team. In my opinion, having an entire team do the same workouts doesn’t meet the individual needs of our athletes (By far my longest thread ever 👀hope this helps someone)

Step 1: I screen all of the athletes. This starts with a Functional Movement Screening. Yes, I am aware the FMS is begginning to be outdated.. I add on specific tests to the FMS that allow me to get a better idea of joint-by-joint movement patterns ( I will go into this heavily)

Step 2: Upon completing the screening process I lay out all of the results and start to break them down.

Step 2/3: As previously stated I use a joint-by-joint approach. In an individual setting I would analyze all of the joints, however for the team setting I focus on 4 of them: Hips, Knees, Ankles and Shoudlers (these are baseball players).

Step 3: I color code the aforementioned joints in order based on their function from the screening results.

Step 4: Try and make sense of the joint-by-joint information.

Fun facts from these analyses That support my belief that we need to individualize programming for athletic teams:
-32 athletes
- 4 that were ‘good’ at all joints (3 that are year 2 with me)
- 17! Different combinations of joint function
- 5 GLARING false readings

By ‘false reading’ I am talking about my interpretation of the results. This is the large problem with FMS testing. Most don’t know how to accurately read and program based on results.

For example: this athlete showed good hip mobility, moderate shoulder mobility, poor knee stability, good ankle mobility. I call this a false reading because if the athlete has ‘good’ hip and ankle mobility they shouldn’t have poor knee stability.

For knee stability issues I like to implement reactive neuromuscular training ‘RNT’ into the knee dominant exercises. Example: split squat with band on knee pulling towards valgus so they have to actively keep stable knee through motion.

The ‘false reading’ can be attributed to different factors, but is likely due to passive mobility in the hips and ankle not applying in active movement.. this is kind of another issue in its own and another FMS flaw I won’t go into.

Another example of what I consider a ‘false reading’: athlete shows ‘poor’ core stability and hip mobility, but shows ‘good’ hamstring mobility. Likely indicating the athlete is stuck in a chronically extended position (immobile hips, un-engaged core, lengthened hamstrings).

Step 5: Combine similar joint patterns and sort them into groups for programming. Does every different pattern NEED their own strength program? No. The base of each program should be similar- the mobility work is most important from here.

Step 6: After the cat got off my papers and they were sorted into groups I started the programming process.

Step 7: For the actual strength programming portion we lift 4 days a week and I am currently using @mboyle1959 4 day approach. Example Day:
A1) Explosive
A2) Antiextension Core
B1) Hip Dominant
B2) Vertical Pull
C1) Knee Dominant
C2) Horizontal Pull
C3) Antirotation Core

Step 8: This is where the variance of joint abilities comes into play. Not everyone can properly do a deep squat (likely lack of hip and/or ankle mobility). Therefore, variations such as goblet squats need to be implemented on a group-by-group basis.

Step 9: ‘correcting’ the movement pattern deficiencies or joint deficiencies are the most important part of this process. We need our athletes to move well before we load those movements with weight... also our #1 job is keeping athletes HEALTHY!

That’s a decent 👀 at how I go about programming for a team. I’m not saying this process is perfect because it’s not. However, I do feel this process significantly ⬆️ the effectiveness of strength programs for a team on the INDIVIDUAL level, which is what coaches & athletes want!