The Art (and Science) of Cueing: How to Get Athletes Stronger and More Explosive with Fewer Words

Cueing is the coaching “remote control.” The right words can instantly clean up a squat, unlock speed in a sprint, or take a deadlift from “good” to “money.” The wrong words can create stiffness, overthinking, and that classic robot athlete look.

In the research world, cueing sits under motor learning, attentional focus, and feedback. In the real world, it’s the difference between:

• “He can do it in warm-ups but not under load,” vs.

• “He owns it—on game day, under fatigue, under pressure.”

Below is the modern, science-backed playbook for cueing: types of cues, why they work, when to use them, and a huge menu of top cues by movement pattern/body region.

What “cueing” actually is

A cue is a short instruction that directs attention toward what matters right now.

Great cues do 3 things:

1. Direct attention to the most important constraint (what will change the movement the fastest).

2. Reduce complexity (less thinking, more doing).

3. Create a clear “success target” (the athlete knows immediately if they did it).

The big 3 types of cueing (and what the science says)

1) External focus cues (EF): “Focus on the outcome”

Definition: Attention goes to the effect of the movement on the environment (floor, bar, ground, target, space).

Examples: “Push the floor away,” “Drive the bar to the ceiling,” “Snap the ground back.”

Why EF works (the constrained action idea):

When athletes focus internally (“move your knees, squeeze your glutes”), they often “grab the steering wheel” consciously and interfere with automatic coordination. External cues more often promote automatic, efficient control. This pattern is supported across a large body of attentional-focus research and reviews/meta-analyses.

Practical takeaway:

If you want better performance now (strength output, speed, jump, coordination), you’ll often start with external cues.

2) Internal focus cues (IF): “Focus on your body”

Definition: Attention goes to body parts/muscles/joint positions.

Examples: “Ribs down,” “Knees out,” “Feel hamstrings,” “Pack the shoulder.”

When IF helps:

• Rehab / pain-modification / re-patterning when a joint position truly needs attention

• Bodybuilding/hypertrophy when you’re trying to bias tension to a target muscle

• Early learning moments when an athlete literally doesn’t know what a position is

But: IF can sometimes reduce performance when the athlete starts over-controlling the movement.

Practical takeaway:

Use internal cues like a scalpel—one at a time, short-lived, then graduate back to external.

3) Analogy & imagery cues: “Move like this”

Definition: You give a metaphor that packages multiple joint actions into one image.

Examples: “Sit between your heels like you’re lowering into a chair elevator,” “Rip the ground like you’re wiping mud off your shoe.”

Analogies often help because they:

• reduce overthinking,

• bundle complexity into one picture,

• can hold up better under pressure/stress.

Recent reviews/meta-analyses on analogy instruction support meaningful benefits for performance/learning in many contexts (with typical caveats: task, age, skill level).

Practical takeaway:

If an athlete is “stuck,” analogies are often the fastest unlock.

Other cue “channels” great coaches use

These aren’t separate “types” as much as delivery formats:

• Tactile cues: light tap/hand target (hip hinge to wall, “press into my hand”).

• Auditory cues: clap cadence for tempo, “quiet feet,” “snap.”

• Visual cues: cones, lines, targets, banded direction.

• Feedback cues (KR vs KP):

  • Knowledge of Results (KR): “You jumped 2 inches higher.”

  • Knowledge of Performance (KP): “You cut under your hips.”

• Bandwidth cues: only correct errors when they pass a threshold (reduces over-coaching).

• Self-controlled cues: athlete asks when they want feedback—often improves learning and ownership in multiple populations.

Why cueing works: 6 coaching realities

1. Attention is limited. A cue is a spotlight.

2. Movement is self-organizing. Great cues don’t micromanage—they guide.

3. Under load, athletes revert. Short cues survive stress; long lectures die.

4. The best cue is individual. Same movement, different brain.

5. Cues are dosage-dependent. Too many cues = paralysis.

6. Your cue should match the goal. Performance, rehab, hypertrophy, or skill acquisition.

The cueing framework I use (simple, ruthless, effective)

Step 1: Pick ONE priority

Ask: What’s the one thing that would make this rep 20% better?

Step 2: Choose the “cleanest” cue type

• Need output/flow? → External

• Need a position fix or pain workaround? → Internal

• Athlete overthinking or not “getting it”? → Analogy

Step 3: Keep it under 5–7 words

If you can’t yell it during a rep, it’s too long.

Step 4: Watch the rep, then decide

• If it improves immediately → keep it.

• If it worsens or stiffens → swap it.

Step 5: Fade the cue

Goal is independence. Great coaching makes itself unnecessary.

Top cues by movement pattern (with “best bets” + quick fixes)

A) Squat patterns (back squat, front squat, goblet, split squat)

Best external cues

• “Push the floor apart.”

• “Stay tall—drive the ceiling up.”

• “Sit between your feet.”

• “Bar over mid-foot—straight up/down.”

Common problems → cue fixes

• Knees cave: “Rip the floor apart.” (external)

• Butt-wink/lose brace: “Exhale, ribs down—then lock it.” (brief internal, then back to external)

• Heels pop: “Heavy big toe + heel—tripod.” (internal, short term)

B) Hip hinge patterns (deadlift, RDL, good morning, KB hinge)

Best external cues

• “Push the floor away.”

• “Drag the bar up your legs.”

• “Show your logo to the wall.” (torso angle analogy)

• “Close the car door with your butt.” (classic, still elite)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Squatting the deadlift: “Hips back to the wall.”

• Yanking with arms: “Arms are chains—legs do the work.”

• Losing lats: “Squeeze oranges in your armpits.” (internal, quick)

C) Lunge / single-leg patterns (reverse lunge, RFESS, step-up)

Best external cues

• “Drop straight down—elevator.”

• “Push the ground away through the front foot.”

• “Shine your belt buckle forward.” (pelvis control analogy)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Wobble: “Stomp and stick.”

• Knee dives in: “Push the floor out.”

• Forward collapse: “Tall chest to the wall in front.” (external target)

D) Horizontal push (push-up, bench press)

Research continues to explore how wording and attentional focus affect pressing velocity/performance, with external-focus frequently favored in many motor tasks.

Best external cues

• “Punch the bar to the ceiling.”

• “Bend the bar.” (creates full-body tension)

• “Push yourself away from the floor.” (push-ups)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Shoulders cranky: “Elbows to the back pockets.” (gentle internal)

• Bar path messy: “Touch lower—drive back.” (external path cue)

E) Vertical push (overhead press, landmine press)

Best external cues

• “Press up and back—into the slot.”

• “Reach the ceiling, shrug at the top.”

• “Drive your body away from the weight.” (often cleans up rib flare)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Rib flare: “Zipper ribs to pelvis.” (internal, brief)

• Head forward: “Chin back—press past your face.” (simple)

F) Pulling (rows, pull-ups, pulldowns)

Best external cues

• “Pull elbows to your back pockets.”

• “Drive elbows through the wall behind you.”

• “Chest to the bar.” (pull-ups)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Biceps take over: “Hook hands—move elbows.”

• Upper traps dominate: “Long neck—shoulders down.” (internal, quick)

G) Carries (farmer, suitcase, front rack)

Best external cues

• “Walk tall—quiet feet.”

• “Crush the handles.”

• “Don’t spill the water.” (front rack/overhead stability analogy)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Side bend: “Zip up your ribs—tall zipper.”

• Short steps: “Long, smooth strides—own the space.”

H) Rotation / anti-rotation (chops, lifts, Pallof, throws)

Best external cues

• “Move the ribcage as one unit.” (holistic)

• “Throw the med ball through the wall.”

• “Lock the pelvis—turn the torso.” (task-dependent)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Lumbar twisty: “Belt buckle stays forward.”

• Arms doing everything: “Hands are hooks—torso does the work.”

I) Jumping / landing (CMJ, drop landings, bounds)

External focus often shines in jump tasks, though task complexity, athlete level, and cue choice matter.

Best external cues

• “Jump through the ceiling.”

• “Snap the ground.”

• “Land like a ninja.” (quiet feet)

• “Stick the landing—freeze.” (for decel)

Common problems → cue fixes

• Valgus on landing: “Knees track over laces.” (brief internal) → then “Rip the floor apart.”

• Slow off the floor: “Fast down, faster up.” (rhythm cue)

J) Sprinting (acceleration + max velocity)

Cueing and analogies can influence sprint and jump outcomes, with mixed findings depending on population and cue design—translation: you must test what works for your athlete.

Acceleration (0–20m) external cues

• “Push the ground back.”

• “Project—push, push, push.”

• “Drive the turf behind you.”

Max velocity external cues

• “Step down and away.”

• “Bounce off the ground—hot coals.”

• “Run tall—hips to the finish line.”

Common problems → cue fixes

• Overstriding: “Step down under you.”

• Too upright too soon: “Push longer—stay patient.”

A quick “best practices” checklist for coaches

• Start external, then go internal only if you must.

• One cue at a time. Two max.

• Use analogies when athletes are stuck or tense.

• Fade cues as skill improves—don’t create cue dependency.

• Re-cue under fatigue (that’s where technique really lives).

• If a cue doesn’t improve the rep in 1–3 tries, change it.

Bottom line

Cueing is not about having the coolest lines for Instagram (though yes—we’ll keep the spice). It’s about directing attention in a way that produces immediate performance gains and long-term learning. The best coaches build a “cue library,” but the best of the best build a cue selection process—because the athlete in front of you is the final judge.

References

Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines velocity-specific training response. Journal of Applied Physiology, 74(1), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1993.74.1.359

Benz, A., Winkelman, N., Porter, J. M., & Nimphius, S. (2016). Coaching instructions and cues for enhancing strength and power performance. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 38(6), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000259

Carpentier, J., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2012). Rethinking the role of goals in motor skill acquisition: The role of controlled and autonomous motivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 392–411. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.392

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction.Routledge.

Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224

Halperin, I., Wulf, G., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Behm, D. G. (2016). Autonomy: A missing ingredient of a successful program? Strength & Conditioning Journal, 38(3), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000219

Marchant, D. C. (2011). Attentional focusing instructions and force production. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00210

McKay, B., Lewthwaite, R., Wulf, G., & Nordin-Bates, S. M. (2022). Applying the OPTIMAL theory to sport skill learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 802560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.802560

Porter, J. M., Anton, P. M., Wu, W. F. W., & Miller, J. (2012). Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances standing long jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(9), 2389–2393. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f275f

Porter, J. M., Wu, W. F. W., & Partridge, J. A. (2010). Focus of attention and verbal instructions: Strategies of elite track and field coaches and athletes. Sport Science Review, 19(3–4), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10237-011-0028-7

Schücker, L., Hagemann, N., Strauss, B., & Völker, K. (2009). The effect of attentional focus on running economy.Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(12), 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903150467

Shea, C. H., & Wulf, G. (1999). Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback. Human Movement Science, 18(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(99)00031-7

Tonkinson, M. (2023). Analogy learning in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 53(2), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01754-0

Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728

Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382–1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9

Wulf, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4), 648–660. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196201