by ptfadmin | Feb 4, 2026 | Health Tips
Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
Matt Crawley’s session underscores a simple idea with big consequences: in high‑performance sport, sleep is a trainable, coachable performance variable, not just a passive recovery state. He frames the talk around three practical pillars—education, screening, and measurement—so coaches can systematize sleep the same way they do strength, conditioning, and skill work. The session also walks through case studies of sleep tracking in elite programs and closes with travel and circadian tactics athletes can implement immediately. ([NSCA TV][1])
Why sleep matters in performance. Crawley reviews the broad effects of insufficient sleep on athlete health and output. In elite and tactical populations alike, short or poor sleep is associated with metabolic dysfunction (e.g., shifts in leptin, ghrelin, testosterone, cortisol), greater illness/injury risk, impaired motor function, and reduced cognitive performance (attention, reaction time, decision‑making). These effects are relevant at both the short‑term (after a few late nights) and long‑term (chronic restriction) timescales and manifest as performance decrements rather than benefits. In other words, sleep loss does not enhance mood or performance—quite the opposite. ([NSCA][2])
How much is enough? For the general adult population, 7–9 hours nightly is recommended, but elite athletes commonly require ~9–10 hours to fully recover and adapt to training and competition. Observational data show many athletes don’t reach that threshold, averaging ~6.5–6.8 h per night—well below their self‑assessed need—highlighting a persistent, fixable recovery gap. Crawley positions this “sleep deficit” as low‑hanging fruit coaches can address to improve readiness and robustness. ([NSCA][2])
A shared vocabulary for coaches and athletes. The talk defines the fundamental sleep metrics that should anchor conversations:
- Total Sleep Time (TST): the total minutes asleep across light, REM, and deep stages—this is the primary quantity target.
- Sleep Latency: time to fall asleep; very short latencies (e.g., < 5 minutes) can be a flag for overtiredness/sleep debt.
- Sleep Efficiency: percent of time in bed actually spent asleep.
Using consistent language demystifies reports from wearables and makes goal‑setting concrete across the staff. ([NSCA][3])
Measuring sleep: what to look for in tools. Crawley stresses a pragmatic stance toward technology. Wearables can be useful for trend‑tracking, coach–athlete dialogue, and decision‑support, but products should have independent validation and reliability data. He notes that some devices estimate TST and efficiency reasonably well, while sleep staging (light/REM/deep) remains less accurate outside the lab. The takeaway is to select validated tools, use them consistently, and interpret stage data cautiously; most programming decisions should hinge on robust, higher‑level measures like TST and latency. ([NSCA][2])
A coach’s ‘sleep toolkit’. Crawley organizes implementation into a three‑part toolkit:
- Education—normalize talking about sleep, teach ‘why’ (health, performance), and the ‘how’ (sleep hygiene basics) so athletes can self‑manage;
- Screening—use simple, validated questionnaires (e.g., ASSQ/ASBQ, PSQI) and daily check‑ins to identify issues early and refer when needed;
- Measurement—choose validated devices (or diaries) that fit the context and budget, then review trends with athletes and staff to drive behavior change. This structure gives coaches an operational path from intent to execution. ([NSCA][2])
Sleep hygiene the talk emphasizes. Several actionable behaviors are highlighted:
- Blue‑light management: limit bright/blue light exposure in the ~2 hours before bedtime to help the circadian system wind down. Software filters are helpful, but behavior (screens down) is better. ([NSCA][3])
- Light timing: seek early‑morning natural light exposure to anchor circadian rhythms and shift the clock appropriately after travel or schedule changes. ([NSCA][3])
- Sleep extension: in heavy phases or when athletes are underslept, consciously increasing TST (e.g., earlier lights‑out, strategic naps) is encouraged; this is “sleep extension.” ([NSCA][3])
Travel and jet‑lag strategies. Competition calendars make travel inevitable, so Crawley includes tactics to minimize sleep disruption:
- Movement dose: after travel or on arrival days, a ~20‑minute low‑intensity shakeout is recommended to help the body settle without spiking arousal or load.
- Light timing: get morning sunlight in the destination time zone; avoid bright light late evening.
- Routine: stabilize meal times, caffeine timing, and pre‑bed rituals to help the clock re‑ ([NSCA][3])
Case studies and applied decision‑making. The session references high‑performance case studies where sleep tracking was integrated with training load, wellness, and performance metrics. The point is not gadgetry—it’s using sleep data to inform day‑to‑day coaching decisions (e.g., adjusting the intensity of a session after red‑eye travel, moving a technical session earlier for an ‘early‑type’ athlete, or deploying sleep extension in congested schedules). Coaches are encouraged to use small, high‑yield changes—like blue‑light curfews, morning light, and earlier bedtimes—rather than relying solely on advanced devices to “fix” recovery. ([NSCA TV][4])
Bottom line. Crawley reframes sleep as a strategic lever. By educating athletes, screening systematically, measuring with validated tools, and applying circadian‑savvy behaviors (even simple ones), coaches can meaningfully improve readiness, reduce risk, and support long‑term development—no all‑nighters required. ([NSCA][2])
- Which of the following is not an expected effect of short‑ or long‑term sleep loss?
Enhanced mood (Metabolic dysfunction and performance decrements are expected with sleep loss.)
- Minimum daily sleep recommended for elite athletes?
9 hours (elite needs exceed the general population.)
- How long before bedtime should athletes limit blue‑light exposure?
About 2 hours.
- Post‑travel, what exercise dose helps minimize sleep disruption?
~20‑minute low‑intensity “shakeout” session.
- Key requirement when choosing a wearable to track sleep?
Independent validation and reliability evidence.
- What does ‘total sleep’ quantify?
The minutes spent asleep across light, REM, and deep stages (i.e., summed stage time).
- Which sleep latency value can indicate overtiredness/sleep debt?
< 5 minutes to fall asleep.
- Compared with the general public, how much sleep do athletes need for recovery?
A greater amount.
- What is “sleep extension”?
Deliberately increasing total sleep time (e.g., earlier lights‑out, planned naps).
- When is sunlight exposure most helpful for circadian alignment?
Early morning (destination local time when traveling).
References:
Crawley M. Sleep in Elite Athletes. NSCA TV. Coaches Conference 2022. `https://www.nsca.tv/videos/matt-crawley-coaches-2022-sleep-in-elite-athletes` ([NSCA TV][1])
Crawley M, Melton BAF. Sleep Health in High Performance Populations—Considerations to Optimize Athletic Potential. TSAC Report. 2022;64(1). https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/tsac-report/sleep-health-in-high-performance-populationsconsiderations-to-optimize-athletic-potential/` ([NSCA][2])
by ptfadmin | Jan 22, 2026 | Health Tips
Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
This narrative review explains how the 3‑minute all‑out exercise test (3MT) operationalizes the critical speed (CS) and critical power (CP) framework so coaches can prescribe precisely targeted high‑intensity interval training (HIIT) from a single test session. In brief, CS/CP represents the highest intensity at which a metabolic steady state can be sustained during continuous exercise; above CS/CP, time to task failure becomes predictable. The 3MT exploits this relationship by letting an athlete go “all‑out” for three minutes and deriving CS/CP and the finite work/distance capacity above that threshold—W′ (cycling/rowing) or D′ (running/swimming)—from the speed/power trace. That makes it possible to individualize intervals using exact fractions of W′/D′ rather than crude percentages of maximums or reserves.
Conceptual basis and what the 3MT estimates.
In running, the classic approach regresses multiple time‑trial distances to obtain a linear distance–time slope (CS) and an intercept (D′). The 3MT replaces those multiple visits: early in the test, the athlete uses up D′ while running above CS; as D′ nears depletion, speed falls to a plateau that reflects CS. Thus, the average speed over the final 30 seconds equals CS, whereas the mean speed above CS earlier in the test quantifies D′. Figure 2 in the article illustrates this with an example where CS = 4.0 m·s⁻¹ and D′ = 180 m. The review frames CS/CP as the organizing metric of sustainable vs. non‑sustainable intensities and argues it offers more physiological specificity for interval work than percent max schemes.
Procedures and measurement quality.
For the running 3MT, the athlete runs all‑out for three minutes while speed or distance is monitored (e.g., GPS, timing splits); pace cues are concealed to discourage conscious pacing. Quality checks include reaching near‑max speed in ≈10 s, attaining ≈90% of 40‑m sprint speed at peak, and expending ≈90% of D′ in the first 90 s. The test shows strong reliability and validity (CS and D′ intraclass correlations ≈0.92–0.96). The cycling 3MT uses a fixed flywheel load (typically ~2–5% of body mass), originally requiring two visits but now supported by validated single‑visit load‑setting approaches. Rowing and swimming versions exist with acceptable agreement, although they are less studied than running/cycling.
Prescribing HIIT from CS/CP.
The 3MT enables interval design by specifying how much W′/D′ to deplete per bout and allowing precise rest for reconstitution. For cycling, power for a given interval duration can be set with
Power = (W′% / time) + CP, with rest (e.g., 5 min) chosen to standardize metabolic responses across sets (e.g., 60% vs. 80% W′ depletion). The review cites work where a mere 7‑W difference separated protocols that allowed completion of 3 vs. 4 five‑minute intervals, underscoring the fine control this method provides. For running, coaches can fix distance and compute target time that expends a specified D′ fraction, or fix time and compute the necessary speed above CS; both approaches produced similar physiological outcomes and robust improvements after 6 weeks.
Load carriage applications.
Tactical and occupational settings often require running with extra load. The review shows how the CS derived from an unloaded 3MT can be adjusted downward by a simple regression tied to load as % of body mass, accurately predicting the decline in performance under load and allowing interval prescriptions that match the new (loaded) CS. Example calculations in Table 1 show how CS of 4.0 m·s⁻¹ would fall to ≈3.74 m·s⁻¹ with 15% and ≈3.10 m·s⁻¹ with 25% body mass added.
Shuttle running and field sports. For team sports where changes of direction are intrinsic, a shuttle 3MT (25–70 m switch‑backs) is preferable for prescription to account for the energetic cost of accelerations, decelerations, and turning. The shuttle‑based CS derived from a shuttle 3MT predicts performance, aligns better with VO₂‑related measures than common field tests (e.g., CS–VO₂max r ≈ 0.90 vs. Yo‑Yo IR1 r ≈ 0.55), and avoids the overestimation of CS/D′ that occurs if a linear 3MT is used to set shuttle training.
Training effects, frequency, and caution.
Across studies using CS/CP‑guided HIIT, meaningful improvements in VO₂max, speed at VO₂max, gas‑exchange threshold, CS, and fatigue tolerance are typically achieved in 4–6 weeks with 2–3 sessions per week. However, placing too much training above CS/CP without adequate relief can promote progressive metabolic strain, elevating the risk for overreaching/overtraining, so monitoring of internal and external load remains essential.
Safety and contraindications.
The test is self‑moderating (athletes can’t exceed their capacity by definition), but caution is warranted. The cycling 3MT likely carries a lower musculoskeletal risk because it relies predominantly on concentric contractions; athletes should remain seated to avoid forceful accessory motions. The running 3MT should be avoided during musculoskeletal recovery; if an athlete isn’t cleared to sprint 40 m, they shouldn’t perform the test. The high ventilatory demand can trigger symptoms in athletes with asthma or vocal‑cord dysfunction, and the test is contraindicated with sickle‑cell trait.
Future directions.
The authors anticipate closer integration of CS/CP, D′/W′ and wearable technologies for “live” energetic modeling in sport and tactical environments, including potential match‑play applications and periodized modulation of severe‑intensity work to optimize adaptation while minimizing risk. Figure 1 in the paper also shows the rapid growth in CS/CP literature since the early 2000s, coinciding with the rise of the 3MT.
Bottom line:
The 3MT–CS/CP approach compresses testing into one efficient session, yields individualized, physiologically anchored interval prescriptions across running, cycling, swimming, rowing, and shuttle running, and now includes load‑carriage corrections for tactical use—all with strong measurement properties and practical guardrails for safe implementation.
- What is the primary reason the 3-minute all-out test was developed?
Answer: b. To estimate the time for onset of momentary fatigue at a given intensity.
Rationale: The 3MT was designed to estimate when momentary fatigue occurs for speeds/powers exceeding CS/CP.
- Which of the following best describes critical speed and critical power?
Answer: a. They indicate an exercise intensity associated with a maximal steady state for continuous exercise.
Rationale: CS/CP correspond to the maximal metabolic steady state for continuous work.
- What is a key advantage of using the 3-minute all-out test over other traditional exercise testing methods?
Answer: a. It provides an efficient way to assess and prescribe high-intensity exercise without multiple laboratory visits.
Rationale: The 3MT replaced multi‑trial protocols by yielding CS/D′ or CP/W′ from a single session.
- How is critical speed (CS) derived from the 3-minute all-out running test?
Answer: c. By analyzing the average speed during the last 30 seconds in the test.
Rationale: The final 30‑s mean speed plateaus at CS as D′ is effectively exhausted.
- The cycling version of the 3-minute all-out test requires the athlete to pedal against a fixed load on a flywheel, typically between _______________ body mass.
Answer: b. 2 and 5%.
Rationale: Fixed flywheel loads of about 2–5% body mass are indicated.
- Why does the CS/CP concept make an effective method for prescribing individualized HIIT?
Answer: a. It represents the metabolic rate that determines exercise sustainability, allowing for precise interval training.
Rationale: Intervals can target exact W′/D′ depletion above CS/CP.
- Why is the shuttle 3-minute all-out test preferred for prescribing HIIT in shuttle-based training rather than relying on a linear 3MT?
Answer: a. It accounts for the added energy expenditure with acceleration, deceleration, and turning.
Rationale: Linear CS/D′ overestimates sustainable shuttle work; shuttle 3MT corrects for stop‑and‑go costs.
- Research consistently demonstrates training improvements from HIIT using the CP/CS concept within _______________ with a frequency of __________________.
Answer: a. 4–6 weeks, 2–3 times per week.
Rationale: The review recommends cautious application, noting typical gains over 4–6 weeks at 2–3 sessions weekly.
- There is a lower risk of musculoskeletal injuries when performing the ______________3-minute all-out test due to its reliance on concentric muscular contractions.
Answer: b. Cycling.
Rationale: Cycling emphasizes concentric actions and is recommended to minimize MSK risk.
- What is a key concern when implementing HIIT within the severe intensity domain (exceeding CP/CS) too frequently?
Answer: a. It can lead to progressive metabolic strain, increasing the risk of overreaching/overtraining.
Rationale: The article cautions against excessive severe‑domain loading without adequate monitoring and relief.
References:
Pettitt RW, Dicks ND, Kramer M. Applications of the 3‑Min All‑Out Exercise Test for Prescribing High‑Intensity Interval Training: A Narrative Review on a Decade of Research Progress. Strength Cond J. 2025;47(1):45‑55.
by ptfadmin | Jan 19, 2026 | Health Tips
Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
This article examines whether cooling the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet between sets (“interset distal cooling”) enhances resistance‑training (RT) performance. The authors focus on both mechanistic rationales and experimental evidence, ultimately finding mixed results and notable methodological limitations across the literature.
Proposed mechanisms
Two broad mechanism families are discussed. First are neural/perceptual mechanisms: several experiments report greater EMG amplitude, lower ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and/or higher perceived arousal with interset cooling; these outcomes have led to the hypothesis that cooling may augment central nervous system (CNS) drive, increase motor‑unit recruitment, reduce sensations of distress, and thereby permit more work to be performed in subsequent sets.
Second are temperature‑related mechanisms, grounded in the high density of arteriovenous anastomoses in glabrous skin (palms/soles) that promote heat exchange. Distal cooling can reduce core temperature during endurance work and might also lower blood temperature delivered to working muscles, benefiting temperature‑sensitive enzymes (e.g., pyruvate kinase) and limiting lactate accumulation, which could help sustain contractile function. The authors note, however, that short, high‑intensity RT bouts (e.g., heavy bench press) in thermoneutral settings rarely produce large core‑temperature rises, making temperature‑centric explanations for RT less clear.
Evidence for palm cooling
Early bench‑press studies by Kwon et al. used 2.5‑min interset palm treatments at 10 °C (cooling), 45 °C (heating), or 22 °C (thermoneutral), finding higher total volume, lower RPE during one set, and greater EMG activation in synergists (e.g., triceps) with cooling (pectoralis major EMG showed no difference). Collectively, these findings suggest interset palm cooling may acutely increase volume capacity and some muscle activation.
In contrast, McMahon et al. used shorter applications—1 minute of 10–15 °C cooling within a 3‑min interset rest—and reported no differences in volume, EMG, or other outcomes versus thermoneutral control. The review highlights duration (1 min vs 2.5 min) as a key methodological difference and notes that despite different application strategies, the mean palm temperatures during rest were similar (~22 °C), muddying the interpretation of why results diverged.
The review also synthesizes physiological indices across five studies (Caruso; Kwon; McMahon & Kennedy): heart rate showed no between‑condition differences with palm cooling. Blood lactate responses are inconsistent—some work showed lower lactate with cooling in a concentric‑only flywheel leg press (Caruso), while others found no differences. These inconsistencies weaken simple global physiological explanations for improved reps to failure.
Longer‑term evidence is scarce but notable. Grahn et al. reported faster pull‑up improvements in both trained and untrained subjects and a 22% bench‑press 1RM increase in plateaued lifters after switching to interset palm cooling. Yet the review flags serious limitations: no random allocation to starting conditions, unclear control of outside training, absent washout periods, and an uncontrolled pre/post 1RM comparison during a multi‑phase design. These concerns limit causal inference.
Evidence for sole (foot) cooling
Cai et al. used 2.5‑min 10 °C foot immersion between sets of heavy leg press and found more repetitions across the final three sets and higher vastus lateralis EMG with cooling, suggesting improved lower‑body volume capacity under these conditions.
Similarly, Wu et al. reported ~7% higher 1RM leg‑press load with interset foot cooling and higher perceived arousal and EMG in final sets. However, the review notes a key limitation: strength testing was built around a predicted 1RM and only three attempts, raising issues about whether a true 1RM was reached and opening the door to day‑to‑day learning effects across separate sessions.
In contrast, Garg & Batra used ice packs (∼10.8 °C) on the soles between sets of back squats and found no differences in total volume or quadriceps EMG vs control, despite ~18% lower RPE with cooling. The article points out that the very low average RPEs cast doubt on whether sets were actually to failure, and that ice packs introduce temperature‑control problems compared with circulating‑water devices or ice‑maintained buckets.
Methodological issues and EMG normalization
A major theme is heterogeneity in cooling modalities (glove devices, water baths, buckets, ice packs), application durations (1–3 min), and EMG normalization strategies. Most studies normalized EMG differently; the review notes MVICs are generally considered superior to DMVCs for normalization because they are more likely to maximally activate the involved musculature, though a recent review found slightly better reliability for DMVCs in weighted tasks. Only McMahon et al. reported reliability statistics and used MVICs; Kwon’s approach—comparing a single early rep vs a single late rep—also raises concerns given high EMG variability under fatigue.
The authors also caution that many trials did not blind participants; with water baths or glove devices, placebo effects are possible unless a sham temperature (e.g., thermoneutral) is used in a blinded fashion for both participants and investigators. Some recent work did blind both groups; the review encourages this approach going forward.
Practical takeaways
Across studies summarized in Table 1 (pp. 719–722), interset distal cooling at 10–15 °C for about 2–3 minutes sometimes improved acute volume capacity and, in limited longitudinal data, maximal strength; however, contradictory findings and design limitations warrant skepticism about consistent ergogenic effects. The authors advise that coaches and athletes may experiment with distal cooling because it appears safe and does not impair dexterity, but they should temper expectations and prioritize well‑designed future research that uses standardized devices, application durations, proper EMG methods, and blinded conditions.
- What has been found in studies that employed interset cooling?
Answer: A. Greater electromyography amplitude. Several studies observed higher EMG amplitude, lower RPE, and/or higher arousal with cooling vs noncooling.
- What is theorized to occur as a result of interset cooling?
Answer: B. Restricted lactate accumulation during resistance exercises. Distal cooling may limit lactate buildup, helping sustain contractile function (though findings are mixed).
- What was the primary difference in methodology between Kwon et al. and McMahon et al.?
Answer: B. McMahon et al. used a shorter duration for the palm cooling group. Kwon: 2.5 min at 10 °C; McMahon: 1 min within a 3‑min rest.
- What effect on heart rate was found between palm cooling and nonpalm cooling across five previous studies?
Answer: A. No difference was found between conditions. Across studies by Caruso, Kwon, and McMahon & Kennedy, HR did not differ between conditions.
- What methodological concern was found in the Grahn et al. pull‑up studies?
Answer: C. There was no random assignment to starting conditions. Additional concerns include absent washout and unclear control of external training.
- What was the effect of sole cooling on leg‑press performance?
Answer: A. More reps were performed across the final three sets in the cooling condition. Cai et al. reported more repetitions and higher VL EMG with foot cooling.
- What cooling method did the Garg and Batra study use?
Answer: C. Ice packs. The study applied ice packs to the soles, which may have introduced temperature‑control issues.
- What limitation was present in the Wu et al. study?
Answer: B. Maximal strength testing was based on predicted 1RM. The design allowed only three attempts, potentially missing a true 1RM and inviting learning effects across days.
- Why are MVICs more generally accepted as superior to DMVCs for EMG normalization?
Answer: A. Greater likelihood of maximally activating the involved musculature. (While some reliability data favor DMVCs, MVICs are broadly accepted in this context.)
- What recommendation is given for future research to rule out placebo confounding?
Answer: B. Blinding of conditions. Use sham/thermoneutral temperatures and blind both participants and investigators when possible.
References:
Burke R, McMahon G, Schoenfeld BJ. Cooling Down to Level Up: Does Interset Palm or Sole Cooling Enhance Resistance Training Performance? Strength Cond J. 2024;46(6):714‑724.
by ptfadmin | Jan 12, 2026 | Health Tips
Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
Why train the breathing muscles?
The authors argue that conventional sport training does not sufficiently stress the respiratory musculature to drive meaningful adaptation. In elite endurance athletes, the respiratory system—particularly the muscles of breathing—can become a relative limiter because the ventilatory work and oxygen cost rise steeply at race intensities. At V̇O₂max, respiratory muscles may demand ~15–20% of total oxygen consumption and cardiac output in trained athletes (vs ~8–10% in untrained), making fatigue of these muscles a plausible constraint on whole‑body performance. A key mechanism is the respiratory metaboreflex: metabolite accumulation and fatigue in the inspiratory muscles evoke sympathetic vasoconstriction in the locomotor limbs, reducing their blood flow and hastening peripheral fatigue. Improving the efficiency and fatigue resistance of respiratory muscles can therefore blunt this reflex and support better endurance performance.
What improves with respiratory muscle training (RMT)?
Synthesizing recent reviews and trials, the paper concludes that RMT can (1) improve time‑trial and constant‑load performance, (2) increase respiratory muscle strength and endurance, and (3) lower perceived exertion or dyspnea. Benefits extend to hypoxic exercise where RMT reduces respiratory fatigue and helps maintain oxygen saturation.
How to train the breathing muscles—methods and devices.
Three methods have robust support in sport settings:
– Inspiratory Pressure Threshold Loading (IPTL): breaths against a constant pressure load (often 50–80% of maximal inspiratory pressure), typically 30 forceful inspirations, twice daily.
– Tapered Flow Resistive Loading (TFRL): resistance decreases during the inspiratory phase to allow full vital‑capacity inspirations while maintaining substantial load.
Voluntary Isocapnic Hyperpnea (VIH): sustained hyperventilation (≈60–90% of maximal voluntary ventilation) for 15–40 minutes with a rebreathing circuit to keep CO₂ constant; this primarily targets endurance of the respiratory muscles.
Key visuals.
Table 1 (p. 6) catalogs commonly used devices and price points, from basic mechanical trainers (e.g., Philips Threshold IMT ≈$26; POWERbreathe Plus ≈$65) to electronic systems (e.g., POWERbreathe K4 ≈$675; Airofit PRO 2.0 ≈$349) and hyperpnea devices (e.g., Idiag/SpiroTiger P100 ≈$1,639). This table also lists inspiratory/expiratory resistance ranges, useful when matching device capability to athlete needs.
Table 2 (p. 6) summarizes protocols that improved performance across sports: e.g., rowing with IPTL (30 inspirations, twice daily, 4–11 wks); cycling with VIH (30 min, 5×/wk, 4–6 wks) or IPTL (30 inspirations, twice daily, 6 wks); swimming with IPTL (various 4–8‑wk protocols); and running with VIH (30 min, 5×/wk, 4 wks) or TFRL (36 inspirations, 3×/wk, 6 wks).
Figures 1–2 (p. 5) illustrate IPTL with a POWERbreathe device and VIH with an Isocapnic BWB system; Figure 3 (p. 10) shows real‑time S‑Index testing output for inspiratory strength.
Programming principles.
Respiratory muscles adapt like other striated muscles, so apply progressive overload, specificity, periodization, and reversibility. Many athletes plateau in RMT gains at ~6–9 weeks, after which altering method or loading is advised (e.g., switch from VIH to IPTL every ~8 weeks or alternate high‑resistance/low‑repetition and lower‑resistance/higher‑repetition phases). Detraining over 2–4 weeks produces minimal loss, but more substantial decline appears by 8–12 weeks—yet values may remain above pre‑training baselines. Practical “classic” protocols include 30 fast forceful inspiratory efforts twice per day, 5–6 days per week (resistance devices) or 3–5 VIH sessions of 15–40 minutes per week.
Sport‑specific applications.
Rowing. Extreme ventilatory demands, constrained body positions, and entrainment between stroke and breathing load the inspiratory muscles heavily. Trials show inspiratory training improves inspiratory strength (e.g., ~34–45% over 11 weeks) and produces small but decisive gains: ~3.5% greater distance in a 6‑min test and ~3.1% faster 5000 m vs placebo. The literature favors inspiratory‑only training for performance gains; adding expiratory work may improve pulmonary function but not race outcomes. An IPTL‑based respiratory warm‑up can also acutely improve maximal rowing performance.
Cycling. Both IPTL and VIH can raise ventilatory capacity (~12–16%) and improve time‑trial outcomes by ~2.1–4.75% over 4–6 weeks (not always statistically significant). Benefits appear larger as event duration increases, suggesting particular utility for longer time trials or stage racing. RMT may also help riders sustain aero positions by improving comfort and the efficiency of locomotor‑respiratory coupling.
Swimming. Among studied sports, swimmers exhibit the greatest inspiratory fatigue after single race‑pace efforts (≈17–21% drop in inspiratory strength), likely due to breath timing constraints, resisting hydrostatic pressure, and potential co‑contraction patterns. RMT has produced performance gains of ~1.2–7.3% over 50–200 m in several studies; even when inspiratory strength does not rise in highly trained swimmers (whose base programs already strengthen respiratory muscles), performance may still improve via reduced fatigue and a delayed metaboreflex. Divers and finswimmers also benefit; disabled swimmers show marked improvements in pulmonary function and ventilation disorders resolution.
Triathlon. Wetsuits increase chest/abdominal resistance to breathing, and bike‑to‑run transitions elevate respiratory fatigue relative to running alone; fatigue can persist >24 h post‑race. RMT can be particularly helpful in multi‑race formats where recovery windows are short.
Hypoxia. In 4–8‑week pre‑exposure protocols, RMT reduces respiratory fatigue, delays metaboreflex activation, improves buffering/clearance of anaerobic metabolites, and helps preserve oxygenation and limb blood flow during hypoxic exercise. Use caution layering RMT on top of altitude/cold training loads due to heightened systemic stress and infection risk.
Assessment and technique.
Before RMT, assess respiratory muscle strength/endurance and (where regulations permit) pulmonary function. In practice, many coaches use device‑embedded tests such as the POWERbreathe S‑Index—8 dynamic inspirations from residual volume to full capacity after a brief warm‑up—to quantify inspiratory strength and to track pre‑ vs post‑session decrements as a field estimate of fatigue (a 10–15% drop is often used as a working threshold). As with any strength work, emphasize movement quality first: teach an efficient breathing pattern and thoracic mobility. Evidence does not conclusively favor a particular breathing technique (e.g., nasal vs diaphragmatic) during exercise, though diaphragmatic breathing may reduce psychological/physiological stress; still, technique instruction is a sensible foundation before loading. RMT is generally safe, with occasional transient headache or dizziness reported. It integrates easily into warm‑ups, recoveries, or brief standalone sessions.
- The back extensors. (The three groups are diaphragm, rib‑cage muscles, abdominal muscles; back extensors are not one of them; see p. 4.)
- Inspiratory muscles. (They expand the lungs during inhalation; primary muscle is the diaphragm; p. 4.)
- Hypertrophied inspiratory muscles. (Benefits stem from enhanced mechanical efficiency and fatigue resistance—not hypertrophy per se; p. 4.)
- Flow volume loop tracing. (Proven training methods are IPTL, TFRL, and VIH; p. 4–5.)
- 6–9 weeks. (Benefits tend to plateau after about 6–9 weeks, prompting periodization; p. 5.)
- Inspiratory training. (Preferred for rowing performance; expiratory or combined approaches improve lung function but not rowing results; p. 7.)
- Swimming. (Shows the most substantial respiratory muscle fatigue among studied sports; p. 8.)
- Women. (The respiratory system may limit performance to a greater extent in women; p. 9.)
- 10–15%. (No universal consensus, but thresholds of ~10–15% decline are commonly used to mark inspiratory fatigue; p. 10.)
- Scientific evidence is inconclusive. (No clear advantage for specific techniques like nasal or diaphragmatic breathing during exercise; p. 10–11.)
References:
Kowalski T, Granda D, Klusiewicz A. Practical Application of Respiratory Muscle Training in Endurance Sports. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(6):686‑695.
by ptfadmin | Jan 5, 2026 | Health Tips
Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
What the session is about.
Ashley Hodge’s talk (part of the 2023 NSCA Personal Trainers Virtual Conference) aims to replace “random glute work” with a repeatable framework that coaches can plug into any program. The session highlights common programming mistakes and then builds a system around anatomy, biomechanics, and progressive overload so you can choose the right exercise type, organize weekly frequency and volume, and progress loading over time. ([NSCA TV][1])
Why systematize glute training?
The gluteal complex (gluteus maximus, medius, and minimus) is central to hip extension, external rotation, abduction, and pelvic control. In practice, athletes and clients often either (1) over‑rely on banded accessory drills or (2) only do sagittal‑plane “big lifts,” leaving key vectors and ranges undertrained. A system improves carryover to performance and aesthetics while managing fatigue so the work is sustainable across the week or season. The session explicitly promises to cover “program design considerations for optimally building the glutes” and “the biggest mistakes in glute training and how to avoid them.” ([NSCA TV][1])
Three exercise buckets to cover all functions.
Hodge organizes glute training around three complementary exercise types/vectors so that all fiber orientations and movement roles are addressed across the week:
- Vertical hip‑extension exercises – Squats, deadlifts, and their variations. These impose higher axial loading and tend to bias the lower subdivision of the gluteus maximus due to the hip‑extension demand through larger ranges under load. They are excellent for high mechanical tension but are also more systemically fatiguing; you’ll program them heavier and a bit less often. ([nsca.com][2])
- Horizontal hip‑extension exercises – Hip thrusts, glute bridges, and similar thrusting/bridge variations. These provide strong peak tension in more flexed hip positions and are friendlier for frequent exposures with lower spinal load, making them ideal for accumulating quality work and practicing progressive overload without as much soreness. ([nsca.com][2])
- Lateral/rotary glute exercises – Abduction/external‑rotation and frontal/transverse‑plane patterns (e.g., cable abduction, lateral step‑downs, Cossack/lateral lunges, banded walks when used with intent). These bias the upper fibers of gluteus maximus plus gluteus medius/minimus and round out pelvic control and change‑of‑direction capacities that vertical/horizontal drills may miss. ([nsca.com][2])
Force–length positioning and setup.
A central coaching point is training the glutes where they can produce the most active force—slightly stretched (not maximally lengthened). In the gym that means using ranges and joint angles that load the glutes in modest hip flexion, maintaining pelvic neutrality and a solid ribcage‑over‑pelvis stack so the target muscle carries the work rather than lumbar extension or hamstrings taking over. Getting these angles right improves both performance and sensation of the muscle working (“feel”). ([nsca.com][2])
Primary driver of hypertrophy.
Hodge underscores that while “mind–muscle connection” can help technique and intent, mechanical tension is the non‑negotiable stimulus for growth. The system therefore anchors all programming to progressive overload—adding reps, load, or density at a given rep target—while using mind–muscle strategies to support good reps, not replace overload. As the quiz phrases it: progressive overload > mind–muscle connection for hypertrophy. ([nsca.com][2])
Secondary drivers and how to use them.
Metabolic stress can augment hypertrophy, but it’s most influenced by short rest periods and continuous time‑under‑tension sets (e.g., finishers, higher‑rep hip thrusts, or pump‑style abduction work). Muscle damage is not the goal and is counterproductive if it limits weekly quality work. The system uses short‑rest “pump” sets strategically—often with horizontal and lateral/rotary drills that recover quickly—while letting vertical lifts focus on heavier, lower‑rep tension. ([nsca.com][2])
Weekly frequency and recoverability.
Beginners are guided toward ~2 focused glute sessions per week, each touching the three vectors to some extent. As experience rises, frequency can move to 3–4 exposures by micro‑dosing thrust/bridge or abduction/ER work because those patterns recover faster. Many trainees tolerate fairly high glute volume simply because they haven’t yet learned to take work sets close to task‑appropriate proximity to failure; when effort is still developing, volume can be used to accumulate practice without excessive fatigue. Horizontal loading (thrust/bridge) is especially repeatable across the week. ([nsca.com][2])
Common mistakes Hodge warns against (and fixes). ([NSCA TV][1])
- Chasing novelty over progression. Bands and variety aren’t a substitute for getting stronger within a progression model (e.g., same load for more reps, or more load for the same reps).
- Ignoring vectors or planes. Only doing squats/deadlifts or only doing band work leaves results on the table; program all three buckets.
- Poor setup/ROM. Over‑arching the low back in thrusts, under‑loading the bottom of squats, or using excessive anterior pelvic tilt all blunt glute contribution.
- Fatigue mismanagement. Putting all heavy vertical work on the same day or taking every accessory set to failure compromises total weekly quality.
- Vague intent. Use mind–muscle strategies to maintain deliberate, target‑muscle contraction and clean reps—but remember that intent is there to support progressive overload, not replace it.
A sample “systematized” week (beginner template).
Day 1 (Heavy vertical emphasis): Back squat or trap‑bar deadlift (mechanical tension focus); thrust/bridge for moderate reps; lateral/rotary finisher (controlled tempo).
Day 2 (Horizontal emphasis): Barbell hip thrust (progressive overload driver); single‑leg hinge or split squat (moderate load); abduction/ER cable or machine series with shorter rests (metabolic stress accessory).
Across the two days, you’ve hit vertical, horizontal, and lateral/rotary functions, applied both high‑tension and moderate‑stress stimuli, and left recoverability to keep progressing in the next microcycle. Frequency and volume scale up from here as the lifter’s effort, technique, and tolerance improve. ([nsca.com][2])
Key takeaways.
- Organize by vector (vertical, horizontal, lateral/rotary) to cover fiber orientation and function. 2) Train in slightly stretched positions with good pelvic control. 3) Use mechanical tension as the pillar and progress it deliberately; let mind–muscle cues polish execution. 4) Leverage metabolic stress with short‑rest accessories, not at the expense of your tension work. 5) Program 2 sessions/week for beginners and increase exposures with recoverable horizontal work as experience grows. ([nsca.com][2])
- At what position do the glutes produce the most active force?
Answer: A. Slightly stretched.
- What is one reason most individuals can handle a high volume of glute training?
Answer: B. They have not learned to push their work sets very hard.
- What is the recommended amount of glute training sessions per week for beginners?
Answer: B. 2.
- What exercise type targets the lower subdivision of the gluteus maximus?
Answer: C. Horizontal hip extension exercises.
- What is the most important mechanism for muscular hypertrophy?
Answer: C. Mechanical tension.
- What contributes to metabolic stress?
Answer: A. Short rest periods.
- Which is an example of progressive overload?
Answer: C. Lifting the same load for a greater number of repetitions.
- What is more important for muscular hypertrophy: progressive overload or the mind–muscle connection?
Answer: A. Progressive overload is more important.
- What is the mind–muscle connection?
Answer: A. Conscious and deliberate muscle contraction.
- Which exercise type can be performed more frequently?
Answer: C. Horizontal loading exercises.
Reference:
Systematizing glute training: NSCA Personal Trainers Virtual Conference session Hodge A. Systematizing glute training NSCA TV; 2023.
by ptfadmin | Dec 31, 2025 | Health Tips
Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
This systematic review asks a practical game‑day question: which short, exercise‑based “priming” activities meaningfully sharpen performance for track‑and‑field athletes? The authors searched PubMed and Scopus (to May 26, 2023) using PRISMA methods, screened 182 papers, and ultimately included 15 randomized, pre–post studies in athletes with ≥1 year of track‑and‑field training where an exercise intervention was implemented within ~3 hours of the measured performance. Interventions clustered into four buckets: (1) resistance training, (2) plyometric/ballistic exercise, (3) resisted sprints, and (4) modified warm‑ups. Methodological quality, scored with the TESTEX tool, averaged “good” (mean 10.9/15), with most studies reporting clear between‑group statistics but lacking blinding and allocation concealment. The PRISMA flow diagram on page 4 and the TESTEX table on page 9 (Table 2) visualize these processes and quality judgements.
Key takeaways by modality
Resistance training (RT). Heavy, low‑volume isotonic squats (e.g., 3–5 reps at 85–90% 1RM) acutely improved sprint performance when athletes rested 4–10 minutes before their run. Across studies, improvements ranged ~1–3% over 20–40 m, with the >85% 1RM back squat consistently producing the largest sprint gains versus lighter loading. Isometric “push” variants are logistically simpler (e.g., 3×3 s knee extension or squat against an immovable bar) and can elicit post‑activation performance enhancement (PAPE) with less fatigue than dynamic lifts; notably, a 6‑s isometric push‑up improved shot‑put distance by ~4.5% with only a 2‑minute recovery. The authors emphasize that, while older guidance suggested only “strong” athletes benefit, one included study showed no clear difference in PAPE response between stronger and weaker sprinters under the tested conditions.
Plyometric and ballistic exercise. Plyometrics were the most common and competition‑friendly priming choice because they require little equipment and can be performed track‑side. Drop jumps (e.g., 2×5 from ~70 cm) and loaded/unloaded jump squats often enhanced subsequent sprinting—e.g., ~2.4–2.7% faster 50‑m after 10–15 minutes of rest, and faster 20‑ and 40‑m splits after 5 minutes. Effects are not uniform; some cohorts showed non‑significant changes at 10–30 m, highlighting typical “responder/non‑responder” variability. A nuanced finding is that “faster male” sprinters (<~4.09 s 30‑m) benefitted most from loaded jump squats during warm‑ups, suggesting an interaction between training status and exercise selection. On the field‑event side, three maximal countermovement jumps (CMJs) performed before the second, fourth, and sixth throws improved mean distances across shot, hammer, discus, and javelin—with larger gains in lighter implements (discus, javelin)—and plyometric push‑ups boosted shot‑put performance by ~3.6% after a 10‑minute rest. The study summary table on pages 6–7 (Table 1) lays out these protocols and intervals at a glance.
Jumping events. In a simulated competition, a brief CMJ protocol improved long‑jump results from the third attempt onward (~3–5%): analysis attributed the enhancement to progressively higher vertical take‑off velocity from jumps 3–6, with run‑up speed unchanged—meaning the priming likely improved rate‑of‑force development at the board rather than approach mechanics.
Resisted sprints. One trial contrasted 20‑yard sled pulls at 10–30% bodyweight as a priming stimulus before a 40‑yard sprint. Sprint times improved regardless of sled load, but technique can degrade more as sled load increases (e.g., greater forward lean and altered hip/shoulder mechanics), a practical caution for coaches trying to balance stimulus with technical fidelity.
Modified warm‑ups. Two “race‑like” tweaks stood out. First, a single 200‑m run at 800‑m race pace before an 800‑m time trial yielded a modest but significant performance gain versus a lower‑intensity striding warm‑up after 20 minutes of rest. Second, a high‑intensity sequence (e.g., 3×250 m at 100% of modelled pace) improved 5,000‑m time‑trial outcomes after 10 minutes rest and increased early‑race speed. For throws, using heavier‑than‑competition implements during warm‑ups yielded meaningful acute distance gains—but coaches should match overweight implements to athlete competence to avoid timing/rhythm disruption.
Timing, recovery, and durability of the effect
Across studies, effective recovery windows between the priming stimulus and the event ranged from immediate (field events) to ~4–15 minutes for sprints and ~10–20 minutes for middle‑ and long‑distance efforts. Stronger athletes may realize their PAPE “sweet spot” earlier (≈5–7 minutes), whereas weaker athletes may need ≥8 minutes, reflecting differences in fatigue resistance. Importantly, although this review targeted same‑day strategies, the broader literature indicates that some acute exercise effects persist for 24–48 hours, opening the door to pre‑competition‑day priming when call‑room logistics or long staging delays make same‑day application impractical.
Mechanisms and magnitude
Across modalities, benefits are attributed to PAPE—greater myofibrillar calcium sensitivity and motor‑unit recruitment leading to transient increases in peak force and rate of force development. In pooled reports, resistance‑based priming produced ~0.9–3.3% performance improvements (estimated PAPE effect size ≈0.41), while plyometric/ballistic approaches showed similar or slightly larger effects (effect size ≈0.47) with typically lower fatigue—one reason they are attractive in call‑room settings.
Limitations and practice points
The evidence base is small (15 studies), heterogenous in protocols, and only three trials were conducted in actual competition, limiting ecological certainty. Individual responses vary by exercise, loading, rest interval, athlete strength/training age, sex, and the performance metric tested. Still, the “practical applications” section argues convincingly for high‑intensity, low‑volume priming paired with adequate recovery (e.g., 3×3–5 heavy squats or 2–3 short sets of drop jumps, then 5–15 minutes of rest) as a workable default. Coaches should anticipate longer in‑stadia delays and consider less fatiguing options (e.g., isometrics or plyometrics), or deploy priming 24–48 hours earlier when race‑day logistics are prohibitive.
- A. 48 hr. Benefits can manifest within 24–48 hours post‑intervention.
- C. >85% 1RM. High‑intensity back squats (>85% 1RM) produced greater sprint enhancement.
- B. 6‑second isometric push‑ups improved shot‑put distance significantly.
- C. Countermovement jump priming significantly improved mean hammer‑throw performance (and other throws).
- A. Gradual increase in take‑off velocity from the third to the sixth long jumps explained the improvement pattern.
- C. Improved sprint times regardless of sled load in 40‑yd sprints; technique is more disrupted with heavier loads.
- B. Elicit PAPE with less fatigue than dynamic protocols, and they’re easier to set up.
- C. Equivocal. No clear difference in PAPE effects between stronger and weaker athletes in the included work.
- A. Loaded jump squats are recommended for faster male sprinters as an effective PAPE stimulus.
10. B. Heavier loads disrupt sprint technique more than lighter loads in resisted‑sprint priming
References:
Tan K, Kakehata G, Lim J. The Use of Acute Exercise Interventions as Priming Strategies to Improve Physical Performance During Track‑and‑Field Competitions: A Systematic Review. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2024;46(5):587‑597.
Page 1 of 4512345...102030...»Last »
