This morning, Part II of the interview I did with Jeff Angus went live. If you missed Part 1, you can check it out here: An Interview with Hockey Trainer Kevin Neeld
Part II digs into off-season programming for elite hockey players, what to expect in the future from performance enhancement specialists, differences between front and back squats, and my stance on the unilateral vs. bilateral training debate. Lots of interesting stuff in this one. Check it out here: An Interview with Hockey Trainer Kevin Neeld Part II
To your success,
Kevin Neeld
P.S. If you want to maximize the transfer of your off-ice training to on-ice performance, you’ll want to follow a specific hockey training system designed to do just that.
Please enter your first name and email below to sign up for my FREE Athletic Development and Hockey Training Newsletter!
post comments
Together We Rise: A Campaign for Everyone




Kevin, I just read the second part of your interview with angus certified, and I was just curious about a point that you raised about training intervals. You said it is a myth that hockey players should train for 30-60 intervals. What time frame would you suggest is better? Would you think that shorter more explosive intervals would serve the players better? Thanks
Bob-Everything needs a context. I think the mistake most people make is they just time the length of a player’s shift and assume that mimicking the same intervals off the ice, but with less rest, is the optimal conditioning strategy. I think it’s important for people to watch the player, not the game. If I’m a winger and my shift lasts 45s, there’s a stoppage, and I’m in the D-zone for 20s, I may be skating hard for 10-15s across the duration of that shift. In general, I think hockey players should spend more time training their energy systems at shorter intervals. The only time we really went beyond 15-20s throughout our entire off-season was in the final couple of weeks leading into camp, and to be honest, that was almost entirely because so many of our players had on- and/or off-ice tests that required longer duration efforts.