Introducing PCM - Propulsive Coordination Method
The maximum velocities of the gazelle and cheetah are similar. Yet while the gazelle can maintain maximum velocity for far longer, the cheetah has dramatically superior acceleration ability - no contest.
Speed is Undoubtedly an Invaluable Performance Commodity
The word “speed” conjures up visions of 100m runners in flight, but in most sports[1][2][3][4], full speed running efforts are extremely short. Critical offensive and defensive tasks rely heavily on acceleration ability[5][6], and 10m speed has proven more relevant than 30m speed[7]. Most athletes and coaches in field sports do not doubt the value of explosive acceleration and agility; the all-important first few steps.
Strength vs. Performance: A Law of Diminishing Returns?
The things I obsess over as a performance coach are personal to me; they are the same problems I obsessed over as an athlete. Throughout my sports career, I committed myself to program after program, expert after expert, and despite my work ethic, suffered the same frustratingly subpar results. My ambition, unfortunately, far outweighed my ability, but it at least drove what became a lifelong obsession to solve the problems that today, so many years on, still inhibit performance, not to mention goals and dreams, for the vast majority of athletes.
As both a sprinter/jumper considering a move to decathlon, and a young scrawny rugby player, I needed to be bigger, stronger and faster. No matter the program, techniques or periodization, reasonable improvements in size and strength were always achievable, as was improving my maximum velocity. However, acceleration and agility ability barely improved program-to-program, and most often deteriorated. As a result, overall performance stagnated at best. To compound the problems, despite the “apparent” improvements in strength, my injury susceptibility increased despairingly. I was plagued by hamstring, knee and adductor (groin) problems. But, through years of constant analysis and different methods of research, I began to work a few things out towards the end of my athletic career.
Remarkably, sports science still does not have definitive solutions for the problems that hampered my sports career, and countless athletes continue to work tirelessly, only to watch their dreams unceremoniously perish. Scientific theory suggests strength training should enhance acceleration ability[8][9][10][11], but in practice studies often reveal otherwise[12][13]. In fact, improving speed performance in field sport athletes is so challenging, most teams don’t perform speed testing anymore.
“Scientific theory suggests strength training should enhance acceleration ability, but in practice studies often reveal otherwise.”
I visited one professional team that had cut pieces out of the unused $150,000 sprint track and glued them onto machines in the weight room to replace worn rubber. Professional football players have complained of zero improvements in speed over 10-year careers. Others refuse to lift weights, convinced it will make them slower.
Over the years, I have been commissioned by a long list of elite-level power-speed athletes from different sports who all reported getting stronger but slower, year after year. While consulting for an elite rugby team, the Director of Rugby said to me in desperation, “I see all these improvements recorded in the weight room, but my athletes can’t beat a player, can’t tackle, can’t break a tackle, can’t scrummage, can’t stay on their feet, and they’re getting worse.”
Public perception is such that with S&C intervention, all elements of performance improve; yet longitudinal studies show otherwise. Separate reviews of professional and national rugby teams showed that, despite continued improvements in strength and size throughout players’ careers, acceleration ability did not advance beyond the “academy years”[14][15]. Likewise, a study of NCAA Division 1 American football players over four years showed improvements in size and strength but zero improvement in acceleration ability[16].
Trevor Woodman | England Rugby, World Cup Winner
Coordination Science vs. Coordination in Training: Disconnected Worlds
Many years have passed since I ended my sports career, and yet sports science still does not appear to have the answers and practical application to solve acceleration problems. Academic literature regarding agility development is especially vague, usually summarized by “do more agility.”
Now, nearing the end of my doctorate research, combined with 30 years of practice as an athlete and coach, what did I discover about power and speed? Scientific theory is not wrong. Strength training and speed improvements should correlate, both in the short term and with time. However, in reality, while athletes often see marked improvements in strength year-over-year, they never see a comparable uptick in speed, and even the small improvements they do enjoy taper off over time. It’s also remarkable to me that sports coaches and commentators expect an athlete to start getting slower when he or she reaches 30. I have coached many athletes in different sports that hit lifetime best speeds well into their 30s; some have world and Olympic medals to show for it.
The crux of the problem is that sports science and, indeed, the strength and conditioning domain, have adopted much from power-lifters, Olympic-lifters and the sprint world. While there is clearly plenty to learn from the strongest and fastest competitive athletes, the needs of the field sport athlete are inherently more complex. Specifically, the coordinative strategies required for the first few steps of acceleration are not necessarily accounted for in other events. Training philosophy has not altered notably in these disciplines over the last 30 years, while scientific comprehension of coordination has advanced considerably in that same timeframe.
Scientific Explanation vs. Practical Application: Integration is Possible with PCM
Over the next few pieces of writing I will provide scientific explanation of the relationship between coordination and performance in sports, most specifically power and speed, including its role in every training intervention! We’ll discuss how many major injuries that continue to escalate in elite sport, despite advances in sports science, can be explained by coordination issues. Then, controversially, I’ll provide scientific argument as to why the majority of sprint drills, adopted into S&C from elite sprinting with scant examination, are actually detrimental to the field sport athlete, not just in terms of performance but also injury prevention. Before long, we will start to provide videos showing PCM (Propulsive Coordination Method) in practice, including training interventions; sprint drills, plyometrics, weight-training and coordination-specific exercises. The goal, after all, is to affect the domain and get better results for athletes.
“Many major injuries that continue to escalate in elite sport, despite advances in sports science, can be explained by coordination issues.”
With the use of more recent scientific literature we will explain how to:
Significantly improve speed over the first two or three steps.
Dramatically affect agility skills.
Correlate strength improvements with acceleration and agility performance.
Continue to improve speed with strength over time for long-term development.
Direct force more efficiently, both in magnitude and direction.
Maintain far stronger body positions in contact.
Explain some major injury issues still plaguing athletes despite advances in sports science; hamstrings, adductors, ACL andachilles.
[1] Cunniffe, Proctor, Baker, & Davies, 2009
[2] Dawson, Hopkinson, Appleby, Stewart, & Roberts, 2004
[3] Di Salvo et al., 2007
[4] Lythe & Kilding, 2011
[5] Faude, Koch, & Meyer, 2012
[6] Stolen, Chamari, Castagna, & Wisloff, 2005
[7] Cometti, Maffiuletti, Pousson, Chatard, & Maffuli, 2001
[8] Alexander, 1989
[9] Hennessy & Kilty, 2001
[10] Meckel, Atterbom, Grodjinksky, Ben-Sira, & Rotstein, 1995
[11] Young, McLean, & Ardagna, 1995
[12] Harris, Stone, O’Bryant, Proulx, & Johnson, 2000
[13] Wilson, Newton, Murphy, & Humphries, 1993
[14] Barr, Sheppard, Gabbett, & Newton, 2014
[15] Hansen, Cronin, Pickering, & Douglas, 2011
[16] Jacobson, Conchola, Glass, & Thompson, 2013