Current Periodization, Testing, and Monitoring Practices of Strength and Conditioning Coaches

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorWashif, Jad Adrian
dc.contributor.authorJames, Carl
dc.contributor.authorPagaduan, Jeffrey
dc.contributor.authorLim, Julian
dc.contributor.authorLum, Danny
dc.contributor.authorRaja Azidin, Raja Mohammed Firhad
dc.contributor.authorMujika, Iñigo
dc.contributor.authorBeaven, Chistopher Martyn
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-17T20:32:28Z
dc.date.available2025-07-17T20:32:28Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (2025) pp. 1-14
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2025-0051
dc.identifier.issn1555-0265
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8143-9132
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12254/4231
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherHuman Kinetics, Inc.
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 CL)
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/cl/
dc.subjectAssessment
dc.subjectHigh performance
dc.subjectPlanning
dc.subjectResistance training
dc.subjectTapering
dc.subjectUnloading training
dc.titleCurrent Periodization, Testing, and Monitoring Practices of Strength and Conditioning Coaches
dc.typeArticle
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
current periodization.pdf
Tamaño:
165.55 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Texto referencial
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
347 B
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar
Colecciones
Artículos de Revistas