Individualize Training, Automate Admin Work

A practical walkthrough of using surveys, decision trees, and training automations to reduce latency and keep athletes in the right bucket all season long.

In high performance environments, the limiting factor often is not access to data. It’s time.

Coaches can collect more information than ever, from subjective wellness surveys to force plates, GPS, and velocity tracking. The challenge is turning those inputs into decisions quickly enough to matter, without getting pulled into an endless cycle of manual analysis.

In a recent conversation, Geoff Ebbs (FYTT) and Logan Ogden (Director of Athletic Performance, University of Iowa Men’s Basketball) broke down the practical systems they use to reduce decision time and increase consistency across a season. The throughline was simple: build a framework once, then deploy it automatically so coaching decisions happen faster, more frequently, and with less friction.

1) The real bottleneck is latency

Geoff described the most common breakdown in modern performance workflows:

You collect data today, but you might not have time to review it until days later. By the time you act, the moment has passed.

That delay is the “latent period.” It shows up everywhere:

The solution is not more data. It’s reducing the time between input and action.

“I can take my model and automate it so it’s done consistently. It decreases the latent period.” - Geoff Ebbs

2) Surveys work when you treat them like signals, not truth

Logan shared how he uses athlete surveys to build a better picture of readiness without becoming beholden to self-reported numbers.

He uses surveys as a daily snapshot, then compares those subjective inputs to objective signals like force plate metrics, game loads, and training exposures. The survey is not the decision. It helps explain the decision.

“The survey paints a framework of what the athlete is feeling. Then I compare it to force plates, games, and training to get a better idea of what’s going on." - Logan Ogden

He also emphasized the biggest constraint: athlete honesty. Some athletes will auto-fill “perfect” scores unless you coach the why behind the survey. “I don’t take surveys completely at face value. I do more digging after the fact.”

One practical takeaway from the conversation: surveys do not need to trigger binary outcomes. They can also trigger resources.

Geoff highlighted an approach used by Corey Peterson (St. Thomas) where survey responses can assign athletes extra “toolbox” work, check-ins, or support resources. This keeps the response proportional to the signal instead of forcing every athlete into an all-or-nothing training change.

3) Load management is easier when you bucket athletes by real stress

Logan walked through a simple in-season decision tree that automatically assigns athletes into training buckets using two inputs:

The buckets were labeled to avoid negative athlete perception:

He intentionally avoided labels like “no minute group.” “I name them that because I don’t need guys saying, ‘I’m in the no minute group.’”

The key outcome: Logan builds three programs ahead of time, then uses the decision tree to move athletes between them day-to-day. That keeps the workflow fast without removing the coaching eye. “I make three different programs, then the automation moves guys in and out daily. I’m not constantly evaluating and printing different workouts for each guy.”

Geoff summed up the value as a dynamic programming model where 90 percent of the work is done upfront, and the final 10 percent is small daily adjustments.

4) Automations do not replace coaching, they preserve coaching bandwidth

A consistent theme from both speakers: automation is not “hands-off” coaching. It’s a way to protect time for the parts of coaching that cannot be automated.

Logan put it clearly: “The coaching eye doesn’t go away. It just helps you be organized and increases the speed at which you can make decisions.”

He also shared how this improves the coach-staff relationship because information becomes instantly accessible. “The ability to give information instantly has significantly improved. I can give them a link and they can see everything right there.”

5) Beyond minutes, the same structure works for GPS, force plates, VBT, and dynamometry

Geoff and Logan walked through several examples of the same underlying concept: define the KPI, define the threshold, then automate the assignment.

Examples discussed:

One of Geoff’s most useful reminders was that you can use multiple KPIs in the same decision, using AND logic and OR logic depending on the goal.

A simple framework to build your own system

Geoff closed with a practical checklist for building a cohesive monitoring framework:

  1. Identify the principles that drive your model
  2. Define your KPIs the way you coach them, not the way the device labels them
  3. Analyze data streams concurrently, not in isolation
  4. Monitor frequently, change judiciously
  5. Value your experience as a coach

The goal is not complexity. The goal is consistency at speed.

Watch the full recording

What we covered

In this session, Geoff and Logan walked through a practical automation framework for high performance environments:

Communication and workflow: how fast access to clean dashboards improves staff alignment

Reducing “latency”: how to shorten the time between collecting data and making training decisions

Survey design that actually gets used: how to interpret subjective inputs alongside objective signals

Load bucket assignment in-season: minutes played + tactical priority to drive daily training emphasis

How conditional logic works: AND/OR rules, decision trees, and when to override with coaching judgment

Applying the same approach across data streams: GPS thresholds, force plates, VBT profiling, and dynamometry flags

Resistance Training for Endurance Athletes Who Want Peak Performance

Most endurance athletes believe that performance comes from more mileage. But strength coach Angelo Gingerelli, New Jersey State Director of the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), says the real key to peak performance lies in balancing stamina with strength. 

With extensive experience across collegiate athletics and strength and conditioning for adolescent, college, and professional athletes, Gingerelli specializes in training for cross country, swimming, physical education, and personal and athletic performance. He serves as an adjunct professor for multiple graduate and undergraduate programs at Seton Hall University and is the author of Finish Strong: Resistance Training for Endurance Athletes - available on Amazon.

In his presentation for FYTT, Resistance Training for Optimum Endurance, Angelo shares what makes a strong endurance athlete, clears up common misconceptions that hold coaches and athletes back, and outlines practical ways to integrate resistance training into busy training schedules. He also highlights his go-to exercises for runners, swimmers, and cyclists looking to build strength that transfers directly to performance.

When endurance athletes learn to train for strength (not just stamina) they maintain posture, preserve breathing mechanics, reduce overuse injuries, and ultimately compete at a higher level. This conversation breaks down how to integrate resistance training across an annual plan so athletes finish stronger, stay healthier, and perform at their peak.

“Use resistance training to maintain movement quality so athletes look the same at the finish as they did at the start.”

-Angelo Gingerelli

Portrait of Angelo Gingerelli alongside several black weight plates on a dark background, symbolizing strength and conditioning.

Why Strength Belongs in Endurance

Under fatigue, posture degrades, stride shortens, and breathing becomes inefficient. Resistance training gives athletes the capacity to hold posture, expand the ribcage, and maintain mechanics deep into endurance events. Performance improves when athletes focus on structural durability, developing the strength to hold posture and form deep into competition. 

That’s backed by integration strategies from strength science. When adding resistance work, coaches must sequence the training loads of both the resistance and endurance portions of the training plan. Refer to NSCA’s Integration of Endurance Resistance Training article.

And to see how performance capacity evolves across training phases, check FYTT’s Athletic Performance Curve. Pairing that insight with strength work helps manage stress and recovery intelligently.

Four Phases of Strength + Endurance Integration

Unlike team sports such as football, baseball, or basketball where athletes move through well-defined off-seasons, pre-seasons, competitive seasons, and recovery breaks, endurance sports rarely offer that built-in rhythm. Runners, triathletes, and swimmers often train continuously, jumping from one event to the next with little structured downtime. Without natural seasonality, strength work is either neglected or added haphazardly, which limits its long-term benefit.

To solve that, Angelo outlines a four-phase yearly model that applies the same logic used in team sports to the endurance calendar. His example assumes the athlete’s key event is the New York City Marathon in November, but the framework can fit any major race or competition date. The aim is to give athletes clear training priorities across the year, balancing strength, mileage, and recovery so each phase builds toward the next.

Offseason (e.g. Jan-May)

Base Building (June-August)

Peak Mileage (September-mid October)

Taper (Final 3-4 Weeks)

Gingerelli’s framework mirrors modular planning philosophies you’ll find in FYTT’s Decision Trees for High Performance and reflects why shared tools matter as explained in Athlete Management Systems Don’t Manage Anything.

Six Foundational Movement Patterns

Gingerelli builds resistance prescriptions around six core exercises that offer maximum transfer to endurance performance:

To dive deeper into movement anatomy and layering, see FYTT’s Anatomy of Strength and how to individualize progressions in Individualized Fitness: One Size Does Not Fit All.

Weekly Templates That Respect Time & Fatigue

Endurance athletes show up to the weight room already taxed. The programming must work around that reality.

Offseason Example:

During Base/Peak:

During Taper:

“Same movements. Smaller dose. Taper the weight room like you taper the mileage.”

Coaching Tips That Shift Outcomes

Q&A

FYTT: How long does it take before the benefits of resistance training actually show up in an endurance athlete’s performance? When can athletes expect to start noticing those results?

Angelo Gingerelli: Usually 2-3 months. Beginners often respond faster; experienced runners may take longer. 

FYTT: How should nutrition, hydration, and sleep change when adding lifting?

Angelo Gingerelli: Another stress is introduced. Athletes will typically need more calories, more hydration, and more rest. Expect some trial and error in those early weeks as they adapt.

FYTT: When is it appropriate to introduce resistance training for youth athletes?

Angelo Gingerelli: Bodyweight exercises are appropriate in middle school with adequate supervision. Transition to dumbbells/barbells typically occurs in high school when form mastery is solid.

FYTT: How should coaches track mixed training loads over time?

Angelo Gingerelli: Use integrated software tools to log both running and strength. That allows historical comparisons and individualization across seasons.

FYTT: For many coaches, bridging the gap between endurance and strength training can be a cultural challenge, especially when endurance athletes resist the weight room. What advice do you have for coaches trying to integrate resistance training into that environment?

Angelo Gingerelli: Make the weight room accessible. Keep the focus on movement quality, consistency, and incremental gains. Done right, resistance training lets endurance athletes compete at a higher level.

“Stronger endurance athletes keep posture, breathing, and mechanics longer. That’s free speed at the end of a race.”

Endurance athletes don’t need to lift like powerlifters. They need strength that supports their longevity and performance. The right resistance training helps preserve movement, ward off injury, and elevate competition-level output across seasons.


Athlete Monitoring in Elite Sport: Lessons from Applied Sport Science

In today’s elite sport environments, success depends on more than raw talent. Teams that thrive are those that effectively combine performance data with applied coaching strategies. Mathew Pell, Senior Applied Sports Scientist at Catapult Sports, shared how athlete monitoring can transform practice design, guide return-to-play processes, and create alignment between performance and medical staff.

He highlighted several themes that shape how practitioners can apply athlete monitoring in high-performance settings:

Applying Athlete Monitoring in Practice

Why Monitoring Matters

Athlete monitoring is not a luxury in elite sport.  Continuous play, frequent travel, and high game demands mean athletes are constantly at risk of overload. As Pell explained, Australian Rules Football provided one of his earliest laboratories for testing monitoring systems. Midfielders cover more than 14 kilometers in a game, often at 135 meters per minute. Without structured monitoring, recovery, readiness, and injury prevention would be left to guesswork.

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport research reinforces this: systematic monitoring is directly tied to injury reduction and performance stability across long seasons. Coaches can also see parallels with frameworks such as The Athletic Performance Curve, which show how adaptation follows structured loading and recovery.

From Data to Decisions

Technology like Catapult’s GPS and accelerometers can produce thousands of data points each session. But, as Pell stressed, the goal is not collecting data. The goal is applying it in ways that inform decisions.

“Athlete data is powerful only when it informs decisions in real time.”

This requires translation. Coaches need information framed in their language: high-speed running totals, sprint counts, or workload comparisons to typical game demands. Strength coaches may need force-velocity profiles or acceleration density charts. Medical staff may focus on return-to-play markers.

Frontiers in Sports and Active Living has shown that the most effective monitoring systems are those where practitioners adapt the same dataset into different “languages” for each audience. FYTT has also emphasized this in its guidance on decision trees in high-performance sport, where clarity of communication is as important as the numbers themselves.

Return-to-Play: A Critical Case

Injured athletes highlight the importance of prescription management. When returning, athletes are vulnerable both to overloading (risking re-injury) and underloading (failing to regain readiness). Clear role definition between performance staff and medical teams is critical.

Pell explained that terminology matters: he avoids “load management” in favor of “prescription management.” Load implies restriction; prescription implies purposeful planning. This subtle shift builds athlete trust and encourages adherence.

“It’s not about load management. It’s about prescription management.”

Research from the British Journal of Sports Medicine supports this communication-first approach, showing that return-to-play programs succeed when all stakeholders share common terminology and expectations. Coaches may find it helpful to compare these frameworks with FYTT’s article on baseline testing, which similarly uses measurable progressions to guide safe re-entry.

Building Buy-In

Even the best monitoring system fails if athletes or coaches don’t trust it. Pell emphasized communication: not just showing charts, but sitting with coaches to explain what sprint density means for today’s practice, or helping an athlete see how today’s prescription sets them up for success in Saturday’s game.

A recent editorial by Tim Gabbett (“Load Management: What It Is and What It Is Not!”) emphasizes that practitioner credibility plays a big role. Athletes respond best when guidance reflects measurable, meaningful preparation rather than just risk control. FYTT expands on this in its feature on leadership in strength and conditioning, where relationships and trust are as important as programming.

"The practitioner's job is to talk the coach's language, not overwhelm them with spreadsheets."

-Mathew Pell

Q&A with Mathew Pell

FYTT: Matt, what first drew you to athlete monitoring as a discipline?

Pell: I started in Australia, working across cricket, Australian Rules Football, and with referees. I realized quickly that games weren’t won just on skill. Conditioning and load prescription determined whether players could sustain performance over weeks and months. Monitoring provided the framework to keep players available and effective.

FYTT: What makes AFL such a demanding testing ground for monitoring systems?

Pell: The size of the field and nonstop play mean that the demands are enormous. Midfielders might run 14.5 kilometers in a game. That’s very different from American football or even soccer. It forced us to get serious about microcycle planning, monitoring outputs, and adjusting prescriptions week by week.

FYTT: How do these lessons translate into American sports?

Pell: Soccer is similar in terms of running demands. In football, positions are different — a wide receiver has unique sprint and acceleration needs. Monitoring allows us to tailor conditioning and practice design to each role, not just the team average.

FYTT: Catapult is known for its GPS and tracking tech. How do you avoid drowning in data?

Pell: It’s all about validation, application, and communication. First, validate that the data is reliable. Second, apply it in context. Compare today’s session to typical game outputs. Finally, communicate it in simple terms. Coaches don’t want spreadsheets; they want insight that helps them make a decision today.

FYTT: What’s one mistake you see practitioners make?

Pell: Thinking monitoring is just about avoiding injury. Yes, that’s part of it, but it’s also about optimizing readiness. Monitoring helps us know when to push harder, not just when to pull back.

FYTT: Where is innovation headed?

Pell: I’m excited about acceleration density metrics, force-velocity profiling, and integrating wearable and video data. These tools let us individualize preparation and sharpen prescriptions.

Watch Pell’s full presentation on YouTube.

Managing Load for Longevity: A Practitioners Guide

Practical Load Management Frameworks for Athletic Organizations of Any Size

If you work in elite sport, you do not control the calendar; the calendar controls you. The job is to keep athletes available and dangerous when games matter most. That takes clear monitoring frameworks, deep understanding of KPIs, ruthless consistency of assessment, and adaptable programming. During our recent roundtable on load management, four practitioners compared notes on how they navigate that tension every day:

1) Begin with the demands of the game, then build a shared language, framework, and response plan. 

Every programming decision is made in response to surveillance: What is the demand, how is the athlete executing, experiencing, and surviving that demand, and what does it cost them to do so? The practitioner’s role is to facilitate the mechanical, metabolic, and psychological capacity and resiliency to consistently excel, while understanding the finite nature of those qualities and the cost-rate of competition. This is the essence of load management.

“We start with the demands of the game and work backwards to our systems,” said Todd Kubacki. “When we know the positional demands and typical exposure, we can plan daily, weekly, monthly, then vary it based on what last night actually brought.”

A shared language comes next. Define your KPIs so clearly that anyone on staff can spot when a player is on trend, off trend, or in danger of over-reaching. Internal load assessment using heart rate sensors is a valuable way to monitor athlete response to both acute and chronic stimulus. KPIs such as average heart rate or training impulse provide needed insight for short term programming adjustments, while metrics like resting heart rate (RHR), heart rate variability (HRV), and cumulative training impulse will help avoid chronic low level fatigue and overtraining. Subjective surveillance such as session RPE or questionnaires can also be valuable tools for assessing acute and chronic athlete response. 

External load measures should align with sport, position and task. In field and court sports, Catapult’s PlayerLoad is a common, validated proxy for overall mechanical work; their explainer is a useful primer to standardize terminology with sport coaches and front office staff. While KPIs like distance and running velocity have been rightfully popularized, do not forget about more hidden but high-value KPIs such as jumps/collisions, changes in orientation, or accelerations. These can be great task and position specific markers that help guide how much game stimulus to include in your training. 

Coaching move: Write down important KPI definitions in a one-page glossary and use them in every staff touchpoint. Consistency reduces friction later when you need to act fast.

2) Monitor less, but better: ID the few signals that actually drive decisions

“Do not try to absorb everything all the time,” noted Geoff Ebbs. “Define what matters, then make it actionable inside your training context.”

For Ty’s high-tempo basketball environment, three buckets carry their load management strategy:

When you need one fatigue-sensitive summary for jump quality, Modified Reactive Strength Index (mRSI) from a CMJ is popular because it tracks jump height relative to time on the ground. 

Coaching move: pre-commit to how each KPI changes training. For example, if a CMJ mRSI drops below your in-season floor, do you adjust the training strategy, change the primary lift, or push to a recovery template?

3) The Value of Micro-Dosing In Season

Games stack up; your program must too. Brad Lawson put it plainly:

“We microdose in the weight room. Most sessions are fifteen to twenty minutes of actual work. One or two primary lifts, a simple accessory, stimulate without annihilating, and keep the trainable menu tight so the complex work can happen on the field.”

Microdosing can be a valuable scheduling solution during the chaos of the season. These short sessions allow performance teams to maintain consistent touch points with their athletes while working through high value, low fatigue protocols. It is critical to account for training residuals when building training sessions, understanding the outcome and recovery time of specific stimulus, and how they fit into the long-term plan. 

Coaching move: build three in-season templates you can swap quickly:

4) Constrain More, Cue Less

As loads climb, nuance beats novelty. Brad again:

“Most players need most of the same things; the nuance is in constraints. Front squat versus box squat, tempo versus ballistic intent, partial range versus full range, these are the details that fit the data and the athlete.”

That is where force-plate-informed decisions help. If an athlete’s braking strategy erodes, you can bias eccentric capacity with tempo squats, kettlebell catches, or snap-downs; if impulse is flat and depth is chronically restricted, you can dose range and intent differently until strategy trends back toward baseline. For coaches building their force-plate playbook, Hawkin Dynamics’ strategy-focused content is a pragmatic bridge between analytics and sets x reps. 

Coaching move: codify two or three constraint swaps for each core lift that map to the patterns you actually see in your monitoring. Put those into your programming tool so the change is one click, not a rewrite.

5) Individualize by rate-limiting factor, but protect the superpowers

“Ask what is the rate-limiting factor for performance?” said Geoff. “Then keep the main thing the main thing. Do not create your own interference to progress by losing sight of the goal.”

Todd noted:

“Do not steal what makes them great. We keep lifting the strengths while nudging the weaknesses up over time.”

That is where a simple decision tree helps you operationalize judgment at scale. If seven-day internal load approaches a ceiling, drop a player’s exposure band for the next practice; if CMJ flags twice in a week, auto-select a C-day template; if a thrower’s ER range slips below their individual floor, pivot to a mobility-biased lift selection for forty-eight hours. The logic is yours; FYTT makes it deployable to dozens of athletes without touching every single program.

Coaching move: pre-build automations that tie thresholds to the three in-season templates. When the flag trips, the day plan changes; you still coach, you just do not scramble.

6) Align the room and speak the sport’s language

This is the soft skill that makes the hard data useful. Ty Terrell was explicit:

“There is often a misconception that load monitoring is a constraint. We frame it as preparation. We ask: what does the coach value and how fast do we want to play? Then we translate data into game language. ‘That session was twelve game-equivalent minutes’ is easier to digest than a band four mechanical load.”

When buy-in is uneven, keep the conversation frequent and brief. Share one slide with the week’s exposure vs. plan, plus the two adjustments you will make. Use common language like TRIMP, PlayerLoad, and mRSI when you are aligning staff, being sure to define meaningfully; and translate to “pace segments,” “repeat sprint ability,” or “game-equivalent minutes” when you are aligning sport coaches. 

Coaching move: schedule a five-minute “look-ahead” huddle after practice. Show the plan for tomorrow, name the two athlete-specific tweaks, and stop talking.

7) Keep yearly plans, but let reality adjust the dials

Periodization still matters. The calendar is coming, and your team must be ready when it arrives.

“I still build my long-term plan,” said Brad. “It keeps us from driving the same adaptation forever. In season we keep the plan, then adjust volume and intent based on what the last week actually cost.”

That is the modern balance: a clear long-term arc with micro-adjustments driven by a few trustworthy signals.

Five things you can apply tomorrow

  1. Publish the glossary: TRIMP, PlayerLoad, mRSI, impulse, exposure bands. Get the staff on one page. Define KPIs with great depth and sport-specific context.
  2. Pre-wire thresholds to templates: A, B, and C days that auto-assign when flags trip.
  3. Shrink the trainable menu: two primary lifts with constraint variants, one accessory, done in twenty minutes.
  4. Audit the rate-limiters: for three key athletes, write the one limiter that blocks their ceiling and the one strength you refuse to blunt.

Create a five-minute look-ahead: show tomorrow’s exposure plan and two planned tweaks; speak in the language the sport coach uses.

Want to hear more? Check out the entire session in the video below.

Edited for clarity and brevity. Titles at time of recording:

Geoff Ebbs: I am Geoff from FYTT, formerly Northeastern and UMass Boston. I want to start with frameworks: shared language, KPIs, and a coherent philosophy. Todd, how did you build that with Brad and the Sox?

Todd Kubacki: We begin with the demands of the game: positional exposures and weekly rhythms. From there, we work back to training principles and systems. We align on running progressions and preparation standards, then use monitoring to adjust daily and weekly.

Geoff: Load is bigger than mechanics; there is psychological and contextual stress as well. How do you account for that?

Todd: We combine objective data with observation and conversation. Brad sees patterns on the field and in the weight room; we map that to loading prescriptions. The aim is nightly freshness and long-term availability.

Geoff: Ty, Oklahoma women’s basketball plays at pace. What do you monitor, and how do you balance output and health?

Ty Terrell: First, understand game demands: pace segments and peak windows. We monitor heart-rate strain and session-RPE for internal load; we jump CMJ three times a week for neuromuscular status with flags for deviations; we track external exposures in practice. Not everyone recovers the same, so our recovery tactics and day plans are individualized.

Geoff: Any single force-plate metric you lean on?

Ty: No single silver bullet. We look at impulse, depth, and strategy markers like mRSI. Breaking RFD is volatile, so we interpret it in context. The pattern across metrics drives the decision.

Geoff: Do you set hard seven-day ceilings?

Ty: I prefer principles over hard rules. Identify your high days, the spacing between them, and the run-up to games. The sport dictates reality; performance, medical, and nutrition become the flexible back end that adapts.

Geoff: Brad, you have to program inside a brutal schedule. How do you adjust quickly?

Brad Lawson: We microdose. Most sessions are fifteen to twenty minutes of work. If a player feels great, we hit a higher-intent A-day; if banged up, we pivot to a B or C template. The menu is simple, so we can stay agile.

Geoff: Do you shrink the exercise menu in season?

Brad: Yes. Keep it general and simple; give what the game does not. Constraints do the individualizing: exercise choice, tempo, range, or isometric emphasis. Todd’s data points us to the right constraint for the need.

Geoff: Todd, too much data can paralyze. How do you prevent that?

Todd: Decide when you want information, how you will use it, and what flags trigger which responses. Lean on history, keep the athlete’s goals central, and collaborate across S+C, AT, PT, and mental performance. Consistency wins.

Geoff: Ty, organizational buy-in is everything. How do you get it at the pro and college levels?

Ty: Start with the coach’s values and language. Frame load monitoring as preparation, not restriction. Translate metrics into game-relevant terms like game-equivalent minutes. Keep communicating; influence compounds over time.

Geoff: Brad, communicating data to athletes can be tricky. Your approach?

Brad: Tell them the truth, often. Flag declines and celebrate strengths. When players understand the why, they want to co-plan the change.

Audience Q&A — Highlights