Current Periodization, Testing, and Monitoring Practices of Strength and Conditioning Coaches
Fecha
2025
Profe guía
Perfil ORCID
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Human Kinetics, Inc.
ISBN
ISSN
1555-0265
ISSNe
Resumen
This study investigated the periodization, testing, and monitoring practices of strength and conditioning practitioners across different levels of coaching experience and sports. Methods: An online survey was completed by 58 practitioners (25 sports/events) from 9 Southeast and East Asian countries. The survey focused on periodization models, programming frameworks, unloading strategies, fitness assessments, and pretraining readiness monitoring. Frequency analysis and chi-square tests were used to assess data distribution and differences. Results: Hybrid (multiple) periodization was favored over a single model for different training objectives (39%–45%), including very short-term training (≤4 wk). Emerging approaches, including flexible programming, were similarly adopted (43%). Program adjustment was primarily driven by athlete feedback (90%), self-observation (78%), and technical execution (74%). Major programming challenges identified were managing fatigue (72%), optimizing training stimuli (53%), specificity (50%), and adherence (47%). Deloading practices (95%) and tapering applications (91%) were common. Physical performance changes were primarily identified from testing (90%) but also athlete/coach feedback (76%), monitoring (71%), training data (67%), and performance data/statistics (62%). Strength assessments were conducted 2 to 4 times yearly (67%) using 1 to 4 exercises (76%). Pretraining readiness was monitored via conversations (71%), wellness tools (46%), and performance devices (31%). Practitioners also utilized monitoring technology, force plates (21%), and velocity-tracking devices (23%). Training load was commonly quantified using volume load (81%) and session RPE (72%). None of the comparisons differed across experience levels and sports types (P > .05). Conclusion: Practitioners adopted multiple periodization models, incorporating flexible approaches. Unloading strategies were commonly applied alongside various assessment methods. Technologies were used for monitoring, but conversational/subjective methods remained more widespread.
Descripción
Lugar de Publicación
Sponsorship
Citación
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (2025) pp. 1-14
Palabras clave
Assessment, High performance, Planning, Resistance training, Tapering, Unloading training
Licencia
Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 CL)