Washif, Jad AdrianJames, CarlPagaduan, JeffreyLim, JulianLum, DannyRaja Azidin, Raja Mohammed FirhadMujika, IñigoBeaven, Chistopher Martyn2025-07-172025-07-172025International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (2025) pp. 1-141555-0265https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12254/4231This 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.enAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 CL)AssessmentHigh performancePlanningResistance trainingTaperingUnloading trainingArticlehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8143-9132https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2025-0051