-->

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Perfect Plan

Champions come in many sizes, shapes, and backrounds. No such thing as "one size fits all".
I loved this article by Bill Sands. So often coaches are looking for the elusive perfect, foolproof plan that will work for everyone all of the time. No such plan exists, but a real coach understands the many variables and knows how to fashion an effective program for each athlete. Great article as Dr. Sands outlines an extensive list of possible variables. As he concludes, the only "perfect plan" is the the best plan for each circumstance and it will evolve over time. Nothing is effective forever. The elusive "perfect plan" will of necessity adapt and provide a continually appropriate stimulus.
When the Perfect Plan is NOT the Best Plan
Wm A Sands, PhD, FACSM, C-ARS, NREMT, WEMT, CSCS
NSCA Education Director
Numerous strong opinions exist regarding how one should select exercises, teach skills, establish training loads, and delineate what’s best regarding many other factors in strength training and conditioning. Disagreements are numerous, widespread, and passionate. These disagreements have led to distrust, harmful gossip, and slow-to-heal wounded egos and hard feelings. Using personal pronouns I will follow the reasoning of this article as if I had prepared a strength training and conditioning program and someone else prepared a different program. We find ourselves passionately defending our programs as ‘better’ than those just as passionately defended by others. But how do we know if our program is really better than any other program? There are bound to be contentions with predicting how each program will unfold and what effects it will have. Furthermore, there are certainly factors that neither party has considered that overrule all or some of their arguments. Let’s begin the problem of determining how ‘good’ our programs are.
Of course, I believe that my plan is the ‘perfect’ one; after all, I developed it. Thus, by definition, it has to be the perfect plan. My colleague also believes she has the perfect plan. She is confident and passionate about her program, because of course, she developed it. How do we, or does anyone, decide which program is better? It would be natural to start running the programs through a gauntlet of questions:
Which program fits the environment?
Which program fits the age group?
Which program fits the training age?
Which program fits the time allowed for training?
And so forth...
Exploring this gauntlet of questions, I made a list of the potential variables that might intrude on the construction and implementation of a strength training and conditioning program The list includes about 50 variables, some of which are clearly more important than others.
Training Variables
Periodization Model
Exercise selection
Tension type(s)
   concentric
   eccentric
   isometric
Stretch shortening cycle
   speed
   drop height
   rebound or not
   direction of rebound
   speed of rebound
   neuromuscular efficiency
Exercise order
Number of Sets
Number of Reps
Weight/resistance
Rest between sets
Single Joint or Multi-Joint
Rhythm
To Failure?
Repetition duration
Repetition speed
Repetition ROM
Plane
Axis
Variable
Volume
Intensity
Density
Amount of total load per unit time
number of training sessions per day
Frequency
   per day
   per week
   per month
   per year
   per career
Body part(s)/muscle group(s)
Time of day
Time relative to menstrual cycle, females
Period of year
Period of macrocycle
Period of mesocycle
Period of microcycle
Timing in training lesson
Age of athlete
Child/Adolescent
   sexual maturity
   developmental maturity
   skeletal maturity
   muscular maturity
   neuromuscular coordination maturity
   mental maturity
Adult
   young adult (15-30)
   middle adult (30-50)
   elderly adult (50-70)
   old age adult (>70)
Training age of athlete
Health status
Injury status
Handicap status
Mental status
Nutritional status
Supplementation
Hydration
Closed or Open Kinetic Chain
Environment
   group
   individual
   home
   alone
   partner
   school
   class
Altitude
Coach presence
Testing or training
Freshness/Rest/Recovery
Noise/music
Equipment
   free weights
   barbell
   dumb bells
   water
   medicine balls
   body weight
   machines
   isokinetic
   isoinertial
   isometric
   isotonic
   plyometric
   does the machine or device fit the athlete?
   tubing/bands
   body weight/device
   mirrors
   lighting
Audience?
Temperature
Humidity
Progression
Sex
Motivation
Nutrition timing
Indoors/outdoors
To compute the total number of combinations of 50 variables we use 50!, or “50 factorial.” This equation results in approximately 3.04 x 1064 different combinations of variables. Clearly this is a huge number, thus, it is exceedingly doubtful that anyone can know all of the possible combinations of variables that influence strength and conditioning. It should be obvious that determining the ‘best’ program for anyone is exceedingly difficult, and may indeed be impossible.
Strength and conditioning coaches might search for arguments to tout their program as the best because it prevents injuries and results in better transfer of athletic performance. With regard to safety, injuries that occur in strength training and conditioning are unusually rare (1,8,17-19,25). Frankly, sport training is almost always more likely to result in injury than the conditioning program (24). These facts make arguments about the likelihood of injuries for either program suspect. Studying and attributing injury incidence and severity when the incidences are so few is very difficult. A second argument is that a program is going to result in better performance transfer. However, the transfer of training programs to the gym, field of play, or court is staggeringly difficult to determine. Specifically in strength and conditioning, only a few studies have actually investigated whether specific exercises and programs actually transfer to performance (5). Usually, the approach is to involve easily measured laboratory or field assessments that mimic competitive performance. Laboratory or contrived measures are rarely a good substitute or simulation of real-world competition (3,4,22,26,27). Again, neither of these arguments makes one program more efficacious than another.
How well can we predict athlete performance? The answer of course, is not well. Talent identification programs serve as useful surrogates for this question (2,6,9,13,16,20,23). In a paper by Sands and McNeal, the ability to predict performance at the 1996 Olympic Games showed that even short-term predictions, such as the next day, were unlikely to be accurate (21). Predictions of athletic training effects are extremely difficult, and assertions that imply this type of perspective are fanciful (7,10-15). As such, our two program developers have little evidence upon which to build a coherent and valid foundation for their particular programs.
Do any of the previous arguments and evidence, or lack thereof, make any difference in the implementation of the different strength training and conditioning programs? The issue in program design and implementation often boils down to who is going to do the implementation. If the person implementing the program believes in the program, then he/she is likely to be careful, vigilant, and able to modify exercises at any instance because he/she understands the exercises and values the program’s objective. When someone tries to implement someone else’s program, the personal pride of authorship doesn’t exist. Thus, the implementation is likely to be poor. A less than perfect program implemented with enthusiasm, confidence, commitment, and responsibility will beat a perfect program implemented with skepticism, laziness, apathy, and lack of confidence—every time. Thus, a ‘perfect’ program is not necessarily the ‘best’ program. Rather, the ‘best’ program depends largely on who implements the program.
References:
1. Baechle TR, Earle RW, and Wathen D. Resistance training, in: Essentials of strength training and conditioning. TR Baechle, RW Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008, pp 381-412.
2. Baker J. Do genes predict potential?, in: Talent identification and development in sport international perspectives. J Baker, S Cobley, J Schorer, eds. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK, OX14 4RN: Routledge, 2011, pp 13-24.
3. Bishop D, Burnett A, Farrow D, Gabbett T, and Newton R. Sports-science roundtable: Does sports-science research influence practice? International journal of sports physiology and performance 1: 161-168, 2006.
4. Blazevich AJ, Newton RU, Sharman M, Bronks R, and Gill N. Specificity of strength training exercises to the sprint run and vertical jump tests, in: 5th IOC World Congress on Sport Sciences. Sydney, Australia: 5th IOC World Congress on Sport Sciences, 1999.
5. Bondarchuk AP, ed. Transfer of Training in Sports. Michigan, USA: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2007.
6. Geithner CA, Malina RM, Stager JM, Eisenmann JC, and Sands WA. Predicting future success in sport: Profiling and talent identification in young athletes. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 34: S88, 2002.
7. Henry RA and Stickland OJ. Performance self-predictions: The impact of expectancy strength and incentives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24: 1056-1069, 1994.
8. Jones CS, Cristensen C, and Young M. Weight training injury trends. The Physician and sportsmedicine 28, 2000.
9. Kemp M. Identification of talented young athletes in China. Modern athlete and coach 33(4): 19-22, 1995.
10. Loehr JE. The ideal performance state. Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport: 1-8, 1983.
11. Masood E. Bannister urges spreading the net. Nature 382: 13, 1996.
12. Masood E. Swifter, higher, stronger: pushing the envelope of performance. Nature 382: 12-13, 1996.
13. Matsudo VKR. Prediction of future athletic excellence, in: The child and adolescent athlete. O Bar-Or, ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Science, Ltd, 1996, pp 92-109.
14. Morgan WP. Prediction of performance in athletics, in: Coach, athlete, and the sport psychologist. P Klavara, JV Daniel, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1979, pp 173-186.
15. Noakes TD. Implications of exercise testing for prediction of athletic performance: A contemporary perspective. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 20: 319-330, 1988.
16. Nunn-Cearns G. Testing the talent pool. Modern Athlete & Coach 45: 5-8, 2007.
17. Raske A and Norlin R. Injury incidence and prevalence among elite weight and power lifters. American Journal of Sports Medicine 30: 248-256, 2002.
18. Reeves RK, Laskowski ER, and Smith J. Weight training injuries: Part 1: Diagnosing and managing acute conditions. The Physician and sportsmedicine 26: 67-71, 74-75, 79-80, 83, 96, 1998.
19. Reeves RK, Laskowski ER, and Smith J. Weight training injuries: Part 2: Diagnosing and managing chronic conditions. The Physician and sportsmedicine 26: 54-63,73, 1998.
20. Sands WA. Talent identification in women's artistic gymnastics, the talent opportunity program, in: Talent identification and development in sport. J Baker, S Cobley, J Schorer, eds. Abington, Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2011, pp 83-94.
21. Sands WA and McNeal JR. Predicting athlete preparation and performance: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Sport Behavior 23(2): 1-22, 2000.
22. Sands WA, McNeal JR, and Urbanek T. On the role of "Functional Training" in gymnastics and sports. Technique 23: 12-13, 2003.
23. Shanks DR. Outstanding performers: Created, not born. Science Spectra 18: 28-34, 1999.
24. Stone MH. Muscle conditioning and muscle injuries. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 22: 457-462, 1990.
25. Stratton G, Jones M, Fox KR, Tolfrey K, Harris J, Mafulli N, Lee M, and Frostick SP. BASES position statement on guidelines for resistance exercise in young people. Journal of sports sciences 22: 383-390, 2004.
26. Wrisberg CA. A field test of the effect of contextual variety during skill acquisition. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 11: 21-30, 1991.
27. Wughalter EH. Task complexity and contextual interference as factors in intratask transfer of motor skills. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 1977, p MS.

No comments:

Post a Comment