——————————————————————
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking…                —-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
——————————————————————-
 

I was on the phone with a friend last week when he called me out for speaking against the ‘3 sport athlete’ model he firmly believes in.

Despite my best effort, I could not convince him that I simply never said there was anything wrong with such a model.

It’s just not necessarily what’s best for your athletes…

Clearly the lack of clarity is coming from my end because several of you also wrote in to say that this ‘anti-3 sport athlete’ position (or pro sport specialization position) seems to contradict what I have said in countless articles and videos over the years.

For example, a long time subscriber wrote me and said:

“I got a little lost in your “specialized coaching” response. At first glance it appeared that you were arguing against the multisport athlete as a general rule. At least that’s what it appeared to be with your use of the “3 sport athlete” concept. I’ve never heard you argue for athlete specialization before, and I’ve been under your cyber-tutelage for several years now. In fact, I’ve heard support for the opposite, that sport specialization is harmful. If you were arguing that the multisport model is defective if there is crappy instruction in all three sports, then the problem lies with the coach, not the model. If the argument is that sound fundamental training principles must be applied throughout all athletic training, then I was just confused by the term “specialized coaching.” I just wouldn’t want any of your other protégés confused either.”

Fair points, Ken.

To avoid further confusion, it’s time for the full truth on the ‘multi-sport’ model vs ‘specialization’ model.

Fasten your seat belts, friends. Because some of you are going to be upset…

Before I begin, let me clarify two points:

1. Tradition frightens me. I’m uncomfortable with the prospect of doing something a certain way just because that’s the way it’s always been done. I can’t wrap my mind around this concept. Blindly following a set of rules or principles without questioning whether or not said philosophy is in line with contemporary practices or, in this instance, the athlete’s best interest, sets a disconcerting standard I want no part of.

There’s another term for such a line of logic. It’s called ‘Groupthink’. And it is Dangerous.

That’s why I’m a ‘reason why’ guy. I’ll sign up for your philosophy. And I’ll buy into it hook, line and sinker. As long as you have a critically evaluated and objectively analyzed ‘reason why’. But some combination or variation of ‘because I said so’, ‘because that’s the way we’ve always done it’ and/or ‘because that’s our Tradition’ doesn’t cut it for me.

And it shouldn’t cut it for you. Because that is Groupthink. And it is Dangerous.

2. Any time I embellish on the potential benefits of sport specialization, understand I’m talking about high school aged athletes. There are innumerable reasons why kids 13 and younger should engage in a varied athletic experience.

But the bottom line is this: If an 11 year old is so talented that sport specialization seems a reasonable option, four years of ‘specialized’ focus at the HS level will surely enable such an athlete to earn an athletic scholarship to a top school and be in a position to compete at the next level. If the athlete needs to specialize in 5^th grade to get there, they’re not really that good in the first place. Sorry, dads.

OK, let’s begin.

The 20^th Century Argument for the ‘Multisport model’ is based on the premise that playing 3 different sports is better for the development of the athlete than specializing in one sport for 12 months out of the year. 

All things being equal, I don’t disagree. I don’t necessarily agree, but I certainly don’t disagree. Many studies show that, generally speaking, an athlete who plays soccer, basketball and track during the school year will be less likely to burn out, over train, develop repetitive range of motion and/or overuse injuries, lose interest and/or reach a competitive plateau than an athlete who plays soccer all 12 months out of the year.

All things being equal, no arguments from Latif.

The problem with this scenario, however, is fundamental to our discussion. Here in the real world, all things are NOT equal.

And that’s where the ‘playing 3 different sports’ philosophy immediately breaks down and loses some, if not all, of its viability.

It’s also where psychological discomfort will set in for those of you unwilling to consider the possibility you may have an outdated belief system.

Here are the primary arguments I hear from Multisporters when defending their position.

1. It’s better for the overall development of the athlete. 3 different sports prevents athletes from the aforementioned drawbacks: repetitive range of motion injuries, burnout from lack of variety, plateaus, etc.

2. The 3 Sport Model keeps young athletes from being overtly or covertly coerced into specialization by selfish coaches. Because if a coach offers an athlete an alternative, the power over the athlete held by the coach makes it impossible for the athlete to make their own independent decision.

3. Playing 3 different sports is better for the athletic department as a whole because it prevents a coach in a particular sport from monopolizing the best athletes, which would hurt all the other sports. Because the athlete, again, is incapable of saying ‘No thanks Track Coach, I’m going to play softball this spring’. (See previous argument) 

Let’s take a deeper look at these 3 arguments to see if they really hold their own against the contemporary athletic environment.

1. The ‘better for overall development’ argument

This argument is based on the variety of studies that show athletes who engage in multiple sports at a young age perform at a higher level when they get older (and specialize). On the surface, this leads one to believe that multi-sport athletes peak higher and compete in their sport longer (as opposed to burning out and quitting) than those athletes who specialize (at an early age).

If that was the end of the story, it would be the end of this article. The 3 sport model would win outright. But it is not.

These studies come, almost exclusively, from countries where athletics are Nationalized. This means athletes begin multilateral, multisport training from a very young age under a ubiquitous, unified system of athletic development. Their coaches are National coaches whose job is coaching. These coaches teach essentially the same system of developing foundational athleticism regardless of sport (because ‘sport specific’ training is mostly BS for young athletes). They engage in ‘multilateral’ training, which means they don’t just play their sport as the totality of training (like in your high school), but they engage in a variety of activities and movement skills that prevent repetitive ranges of motion and overuse injury, i.e., training to be the greatest football player you can be involves, when you count up all the training hours, very little actual playing of football.

The point?

The multi sport theory only works if every coach in your school possesses comparable coaching knowledge. If athletes transition from fall sport to winter to spring and all their coaches are training them under a commonly accepted/promoted system of athletic development such that speed, strength, power, coordination, mobility and endurance are continuously being developed throughout the year based on the particular needs of the sport, then I have absolutely no problem fully endorsing the 3 sport model.

But that isn’t reality, is it? The reality is that coaching is not consistent across sports. In the last few programs I worked in, I coached track and field. Taking cross country, winter and spring track and subtracting myself, my mentor and the coaches I personally brought in to coach, I can count the number of coaches who had a USATF certification or athletic development certification of any type, for any sport, on one hand….if you cut 4 fingers off of that hand.

Outside of track and field, I can count the number of sports who safely used the weight room throughout the season on one hand. If I had no hands.

Speed development with technical feedback? Timed intervals? Teach specific movement skills? I don’t need hands or feet to count up those programs.

(You’re only offended right now if you’re guilty of the above. If you’re certified and educated, you’re nodding your head in agreement. Or laughing.)

To be considered a good coach and run a good program we have to address BOTH elements of coaching:

1. Sport Specific Skills (offensive/defensive schemes, ball handling, passing, catching, hitting, penultimate step, drive phase, etc.)

2. Athletic Development (biomotor skill development, movement skills, etc.)

The coaches at most high schools are, no doubt, quite excellent at #1…

But they ignore #2. So if I’m generous and give the average coach a 100% in Sport Specific Skills, they’re looking good. But they get a 30% in Athletic Development (and that’s being generous). So, when you consider what should be expected out of coaches in 2010, most coaches and programs get a generous D.

(There are no expectations out of coaches in 2010. Ditch diggers have a longer list of expectations if they want to get a job or keep one than high school coaches do. If you have a pulse and watched a sport once or attended a particular school in the last 30 years, you can get a job being in charge of 40 kids after school.)

In my opinion, any coach who has zero certifications from their sport’s governing body or zero athletic development certifications, has attended zero seminars covering the athletic development HALF of their sport in the past 6 months or has invested in zero DVD programs, etc. covering their sport in the past 6 months, has no right to claim they’re doing a commendable job coaching their athletes or program. Or that they have the best interest of the athletes at the forefront of their decision making.

(If you’re on the verge of a full blown, rage induced heart attack right now, take a deep breath and post your thoughts below. Just be sure to have some logic to support your argument.)

Let’s paint a specific, yet theoretical picture.

Let’s say I’m a high school athlete who comes into the typical high school planning to play football, basketball and track. During football season I play football. During basketball season I play lots of basketball. But during track season, something changes. I don’t just run workouts and practice long jump and throw the shot put. 

My coach has us do speed work where I have to actually run a very specific way and explain what I’m doing right and wrong. We’re in the weight room 3 days per week and the coach teaches me how to lift and corrects me when I’m doing things incorrectly (instead of sitting in the back talking to his friends). My coach lets me ask him questions about why we’re doing certain things. I have to set specific goals that my coach talks to me about and helps me work toward. We talk about nutrition and what I should be eating. My coach asks me how I felt about workouts and actually makes them harder or easier based on what I tell him. My coach believes I can achieve my goals, memorizes my times and gives me specific times to hit in all my workouts. He tells us why we’re running a certain workout at a certain pace and how it’s going to make me a better runner.

All of a sudden, running track has become a totally different experience than the other sports. Instead of it being something I did to get in shape for football, football and basketball have become something I do to kill time before track. In fact, track is so fun, I don’t want to play basketball anymore. I want to do indoor track because I’m getting better results and coaching. In fact, I don’t want to do football either. My coach says doing cross country will have me in midseason form by the time winter track starts.

That sounds pretty sweet. Where do I sign up? Because nothing succeeds like success.

So, now I have options. Which one would you choose? What would you suggest your son or daughter do?

More specifically, which is better for my ‘overall development’? 

1. 3 different sports where, in 2 of them, all I do is play that one sport for several hours a day, but do a negligible amount of athletic development.
2. Play the same sport year round – but engage in a variety of athletic and movement skills: speed work, mobility work, strength and power development, technical feedback, mentorship from my coach

Who benefits most from my playing 3 different sports? Me or those other coaches?

My point is this:

The 3 Sport Model is only better for the athlete if the coaches in all 3 sports have comparable coaching SKILL.

If the track coach is far superior in skill and trains the athlete properly, the track specialist will go through a greater variety of drills and exercises and develop far greater overall athletic ability, via developing biomotor skill through a critically evaluated and objectively analyzed athletic development program.

In this situation, playing 3 different sports is actually a detriment to the athlete’s overall athletic development. A system that ignores the disparity in knowledge, education and qualification between coaches does a far greater disservice to the athlete than a system that encourages the athlete to make their own choice based on the potential for maximizing fun and success.

If all the coaches in a school system are typical, then the 3 sport model is a lesser evil than specializing. Because specializing in a sport run by a typical coach *will result in all the horror stories we are afraid of. But if a coach in one sport is truly exceptional, specialization will provide a better athletic environment where kids will maximize their potential, develop greater levels of self esteem and work ethic, and, flat out have more fun.

Now, some coaches will attempt to dismiss their lack of certification and education by bringing up the amount of time they’ve been coaching. Patently irrelevant.

Let’s say you and I have been coaching for 15 years each. During that time, you’ve become certified and continued your education. You evolve your system of training each season by adding and subtracting certain training modalities based on your experience implementing such protocols and keep track of every workout and its results.

I just show up, point and yell.

You have 15 years of coaching experience.

I have one year of coaching experience, 15 times in a row.

Your athletes have achieved success because the combination of their commitment and your coaching knowledge and skill brought them to new levels of success.

Mine (may) have had some success…in spite of my lack of coaching knowledge and skill.

We all know that most coaching positions are handed out based not on skill, knowledge or education, but nepotism. It’s how they’re maintained. It’s how they’re handed down. And if we continue to accept the status quo, nothing will change.

But we don’t have to blindly follow the false premise that 3 sport model is magically better than specializing. In some cases it might be. In other cases, it isn’t. But to regurgitate such an ideology with no explanation beyond ‘because I said so’ is unprofessional. It’s Groupthink. And it’s dangerous.

Now, if all coaches are good at their jobs (which I have never seen before) which is better?

Remember, I’m talking about potential specialization starting in high school. But it has to be taken case by case. Sport by sport. Coach by coach.

But, if you want to get down to brass tacks, it really comes down to choice. If the athlete has an excellent soccer coach who runs an excellent soccer program and does both player development and athletic development, the athlete lives and breathes soccer and wants to focus on that sport once they get to high school, isn’t it their choice to decide what they want to play?

And that’s where I’ll end today and pick up next time. The second argument made by Multisporters in defending their honor: Choice. The 3 sport model in the typical program attempts to hijack the athlete’s choice under the guise of their ‘best interest’.

But I’d argue it’s not the best interest of the athlete that’s on the line here…

But more on that next time.

Feel free to post your comments and opinions. Take a deep breath and proof read your post before you send it. Have the courage to use your real name. I do.

Latif Thomas

P.S. Resources I recommend:

Complete Speed Training  (How to teach athletic development)

Complete Program Design for Sprinters (How to write more effective workouts)

Sports Nutrition Blueprint (How to maximize the results of your athletic development)

P.S.S. Don’t forget to check out the responses. There are some great posts that contain excellent questions and also a few clarifications on my end that I must not have been clear about in the above article.

Pass this on!

As promised, today I’m going to explain why having your athletes do ‘fly 40s’ during the first week of practice is a mistake (no matter which sport you coach or compete in) and what you should be doing instead.

To do a workout like this so early in the season shows a frightening lack of coaching knowledge and effort . But, fundamentally, it ignores the First Law of Speed Development.

The First Law of Speed Development: Speed is a Skill

The dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (if you believe in such concepts) coaches starts with understanding that running fast requires developing technical skill in your athletes, regardless of sport.

Ignore, neglect or dismiss this Law and your athletes have already lost.

Running fast requires significant degrees of coordination, consistency and deliberate repetition. Because most athletes have never been taught the specific qualities inherent in the fastest athletes, they need the skilled and watchful eye of a coach in order to make consistent improvements and/or experience consistent success.

Think about how many steps your athletes have taken in their lives during practice and competition. If they’ve never been taught the Skill of Running Fast, every step they’ve taken has further ingrained bad habits into their neuromuscular system. As coaches, our responsibility is to teach athletes to unlearn these bad habits and replace them with specific skill.

Acceleration is the most important component of running fast. If we can’t accelerate properly, we’ll never actually hit top speed. For sprinters, this would be the Kiss of Death. For field/court sport athletes, the problem is the same, it just manifests earlier in the competitive environment.

But for today’s purposes, let’s look at acceleration. Here are 8 specific skills athletes must be able to successfully and consistently execute before they reach top speed. For subcollegiate athletes, top speed will be reached somewhere between 20-30m. This means athletes must be able to coordinate the following within 3-4 seconds:

1. Drive the lead arm
2. Drive out at a 45 degree angle
3. Take a big first step
4. Triple extension before first contact
5. Drive the arms/hands down and back
6. Push the ground back and away (foot strike below or behind the hips)
7. Low heel recovery for the first 6-8 steps
8. Let the upper body unfold naturally

As coaches, the above list should be common knowledge to us. If we don’t already have a system for introducing, teaching, cueing, correcting and adding to this list, then we are not doing a sufficient job of coaching our athletes. It’s just that simple.

To make things a bit clearer, check out this video that breaks some of these steps down in greater detail.

 The Second Law of Speed Development: Run a ‘Short to Long’ Program

 This is where the inefficacy of ‘fly 40s’ during the first week of practice comes into full light. A ‘Fly 40’ (or any ‘fly’ run) is considered a top speed exercise. If you’re unfamiliar with what a ‘fly’ run is, here is a quick description.

 A cone is set up at the starting line (0m), 25m, 65m and 95m. The athlete sprints to the first cone using the skills they are learning under the umbrella of the First Law of Speed Development. Once the athlete reaches top speed (25m) they should be fully transitioned to top speed mechanics and effort (a topic for another day). They (attempt to) maintain top speed mechanics during the ‘fly’ portion of the run (25m – 65m) which is where the term ‘fly 40’ comes into play. At 65m they shut it down, coming to a full stop NOT before they reach the 95m cone.

Here’s the problem: The purpose of the ‘fly’ run is to focus on the 25m-65m portion of the repetition, i.e. teach/cue holding top speed and slowing the rate of deceleration that begins roughly one second after reaching top speed (25m).

If this type of workout is done during the first few weeks of the season, it becomes the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse. Because the coach has ignored the First Law, athletes have not developed the appropriate Skill of Acceleration. Therefore, their ability to accelerate is wildly inconsistent and inefficient. They’ll never reach their potential top speed at 25m, so having them try to maintain and develop the Skill of Maximum Velocity before acquiring the Skill of Acceleration is simply impossible.

Such a practice is the coaching equivalent of sending a kid to college before they start high school. It’s a recipe for disaster, or, at the very least, a recipe for a mediocre program.

A ‘fly 40’ with a 25m buildup is a run of 65m total. Your athletes can’t sprint for 65m, with an appropriate degree of Skill, before they’ve learned how to run properly for 55m. They can’t sprint for 55m before they’ve learned to correctly sprint for 45m. They can’t sprint for 45m before they’ve learned to correctly sprint for 35m. They can’t sprint for 45m before they’ve learned to correctly sprint for 25m.

To the educated coach, this is common sense. A student doesn’t have the knowledge base to complete their senior year of college if they never completed their junior year. They don’t have the knowledge base to complete their junior year of college if they never completed their sophomore year. And so on back to the beginning where fundamentals are taught. Generalization before specialization.

This is why the Second Law of Speed Development is the ‘short to long’ program.

My athletes start out running 20m accelerations. Once they show proficiency at 20m, we go to 30m. Display proficiency and we go to 40m. Now that we’re running reps at distances putting us at top speed, we introduce fly runs using the same principle as with acceleration development.

First we do ‘fly 10s’. Once athletes develop top speed proficiency doing a ‘fly 10’, we go to ‘fly 20s’. Once athletes develop top speed proficiency doing a ‘fly 20’, we go to ‘fly 30s’.

This is the structure of the ‘short to long’ program and it is the most effective method for teaching and developing the Skill of Sprinting.

The Third Law of Speed Development: Speed Work IS the Workout

You can’t get fast if you practice running slow just like you can’t get better at chess by playing checkers.

So, if the goal of training is to get faster, you have to look at your quality work/high intensity work as the workout. Most training is based on an endurance model which is why most coaches default method of training is distance work and submaximal interval work.

In terms of developing speed, submaximal (less than 90% intensity) training is designed to supplement and aid in recovering from full speed training so that you can…..

….do more full speed training!

So when designing training (especially for true speed/power sports like football and track sprinters) you must focus your intentions on your speed/power workouts and use submaximal training (aka ‘conditioning’) as a training modality whose purpose is to build the qualities which allow your athletes to do a higher volume of high intensity training.

The fatal flaw in most coaching/sports programs is that coaches do the exact opposite. They focus on running and increasing the volume of repeat 100s/150s/200s, etc. which only trains athletes to be good at running slow. Great news if you’re training athletes for a 5k, but otherwise not so much.

If you really want to develop faster athletes, spend your time addressing the speed, strength and power qualities which serve as the foundation of faster times and not the general training, low intensity work that is *indirectly responsible for getting results.

These are the 3 Laws of Speed Development. Make them the foundation of your speed training and you can’t go wrong.

To your success,

Latif Thomas CSCS, USATF Level II (Sprints, Hurdles, Relays)

P.S. If you’re looking for more detailed information on teaching/implementing the 3 Laws of  Speed Development, I recommend the following:

Complete Speed Training – Addresses all 3 Laws with a focus on the First Law: Speed is a Skill

Complete Program Design for Sprinters – Addresses all 3 Laws, but focuses specifically on the Second Law: ‘Short to Long’ programs and Third Law: Speed Work IS the Workout

Pass this on!

It’s the beginning of the HS spring sports season and that means my inbox is filling up with emails from parents and athletes already frustrated with the workouts their coaches are running.

 As I’ve watched the youth sports coaching industry (from a global standpoint) evolve over the past half decade, I’ve noticed parents and athletes are far less patient with bad coaching.

Today, sports are so competitive that athletes can’t afford to waste their time following the type of coaches who have their athletes do, for example, fly 40s, during the first week of practice.

Such coaches (and they are the majority) immediately lose any credibility they may have been trying to gain.

This just means our athletes suffer. And if we’re not interested in doing what is best for our athletes, we find ourselves in a morally ambiguous situation.

But, at the very least, we’re infecting our programs with the disease of reduced performance, injury, lack of commitment and general disinterest.

Kids simply don’t want to be a part of those types of programs or compete for these types of coaches.

Why? Beyond the obvious reasons (it’s not fun) parents and athletes have less patience with bad coaching because of:

 1. The Internet

In 2010, qualified coaches, parents and athletes can go online and find out what successful coaches are doing.

Once they acquire this new information, they’re going to compare it to what their coaches or their kids’ coaches are actually doing.

So when these athletes have to go to a practice run by a coach who hasn’t learned anything new since the 1990s, if ever, they find themselves in a situation where they are better coaches than the adults in charge.

 No athlete wants to be a part of a program like that.

 No parent wants their kid to be a part of a program like that.

So the kids lose interest in that sport, lose interest in the program being run at the high school level, specialize in one sport, flee to club/AAU programs or seek out…

2. Individualized coaching

Some outdated coaches and athletic departments still endorse the ‘3 sport athlete’ model and believe this is the most effective method for building a better overall athlete and athletic program.

This would be true if athletic departments were run like businesses following a ‘Capitalist’ or ‘Free Market’ model where success and results are rewarded.

But high school sports instead follow a ‘Socialist’ or ‘Forced Parity’ model where the prevailing philosophy is:

‘We can’t let a kid quit soccer to play volleyball. That might help the volleyball team but it hurts the soccer team.’

The athletic department is saying, in essence:

‘The soccer team is too big to fail. So we’ll bail the team out instead of letting it go out of business due to a bad business model.’

Such a philosophy is why the ‘3 sport athlete’ model only works on paper.

Just not in the real world.

Why?

Most coaches in most sports at the high school level aren’t doing any athletic development.

All they do is practice their sport.

If you’re not in the weight room all season, running a Short to Long speed development program, doing a fully dynamic warm up, engaging in technical feedback with all technical skills, running timed intervals based on event/position and doing athlete specific energy system development as part of your training above and beyond running plays and schemes, then you’re not developing athletes and the ‘3 sport athlete’ model is simply a regurgitation of the status quo long abandoned by progressive coaches and programs.

The world is a far bigger place than the town you live in.

This is why my athletes volunteer to quit their other sports to train with me another season. Because when they compare the type of training and results they’re getting with me against the…stuff… they’re doing in their other sports, well, they want to quit their other sports because it now feels like a waste of time.

But I’m not their only option.

Here in 2010, athletes don’t have to listen to us. And there are often other options than their high school sports.

Athletes know whether or not their coaches are competent.

If we’re not continually improving and, at the very least, keeping our training in line with the approaches easily found with a 10 second Google search, than our athletes are simply going to hire a personal trainer, go to a sports performance facility or specialize in the sport where they’re getting the best coaching.

Your local high school athletic program may run on a Socialist model, but out in the real world, people are competing for your athletes under the Free Market model. This means athletes are going to go where they are getting the best opportunities and coaching. If that’s not you, it’s going to be someone. Coaches who live in the fantasy world where athletes are just going to show up to our programs, en masse, out of town pride are, well, living in a fantasy world.

But they’re not living in 2010.

When athletes ask me ‘Why?’ they’re running a particular workout I have one of two options.

1. Give them a good ‘Reason Why’ so they have faith in my coaching and want to give me their best effort.

2. Say ‘Because I said so’ (or some variation) because I don’t actually know the answer (and athletes know you don’t know) then give them a dirty look for having the audacity to question my authority.

(Know any coaches like that????)

It’ll get me out of answering the question, but kids are going to hate playing for me. Or they’ll just hate me in general.

(If you’re OK with an average program, then keep doing the same things you’ve always done.)

But, as coaches, if we want run a successful program, provide a positive atmosphere for our athletes and keep them from defecting to a better coach running a better program (which may be outside of our school entirely), we have to put as much effort into our coaching knowledge as we expect our athletes to put into practicing and competing.

Otherwise, we may find ourselves immersed in a dying program.

And the only way to save a dying program is to cut out the disease.

Think about it.

To your success,

Latif Thomas CSCS, USATF II (Sprints, Hurdles, Relays)
2005 MA State Track Coaches Association – Coach of the Year

Resources I recommend:

Complete Speed Training

Complete Program Design for Sprinters

P.S. In my next email, I’ll explain why doing fly 40s the first week of practice is a terrible idea and what you should be doing instead.

Pass this on!

By now, I don’t need to explain to you that your athletes’ performance has a pretty low glass ceiling if nutrition isn’t a focus both in and out of practice and competition.

Or that they aren’t going to address this issue with any consistency without your help.

Because when you’re a teenager, fast food and ice cream seems like a pretty good idea.

And it tastes good.

You just can’t take it to the next level when the dollar menu is one of the staples of your diet.

Being a successful coach isn’t *only* about knowing which workouts to run and when, how much to lift or which offensive and defensive schemes best fit your current crop of talent.

(Though it’s not a bad place to start…)

You’ve got to add nutrition to the mix.

Last night I was at our indoor track banquet talking to a group of athletes and nutrition came up.

 My best hurdler, a New England Championships finalist last spring, said:

 ”I used to drink soda every day. Now look what you’ve done to me!”

 …as she holds out an empty bottle of water.

A member of my school record setting (by 2.51 seconds), runner up at All States 4×200m relay team said:

 “You’ve got me eating healthy now. I was eating an apple on the way here and I thought to myself, ‘What am I doing? Why am I eating this?’”

 What’s my point?

This stuff matters. And your athletes will buy into it if you give them easy answers and simple solutions to their nutritional questions.

Mine have. And the results are clear and undeniable.

Now, I’m no expert on sports nutrition.

But I’ve found a resource that allows me to give solid, factual options and ideas to my athletes without having to do a bunch of extra work that I don’t have time for.

 And that is Jeff Cavaliere’s Teen Sports Nutrition Blueprint.

 http://www.sportsnutritionblueprint.com

If I had to dream up a sports nutrition resource that would give me and my athletes everything we need to do and know without adding more than 10 minutes to my day, this would be it.

If you haven’t invested in a copy yet, I highly recommend you do.

Jeff’s launch ends tonight at 11:59pm Pacific time, so if you want to save over 33% on what is, in my opinion, the best sports nutrition resource on the market, you would be wise to grab your copy now.

http://www.sportsnutritionblueprint.com

 To your success,

 Latif Thomas

Pass this on!