Many coaches tend to view strength and conditioning as two separate entities – “We strength train and then we condition”.

Oftentimes, this sort of thought process leads to a rigid compartmentalization of qualities as the coach is trying to develop too many different and/or competing qualities at one time.  This sort of separation ends up creating an antagonistic environment within the training program and can have a dampening effect on the end result as the individual does not have the opportunity to really develop one thing, but rather, becomes a jack of all trades and master of none.

Perhaps it may be more beneficial to look at both strength and conditioning as a singular entity working together to enhance the physiological state of the athlete.  In doing so, we can efficiently establish training phases that prioritize whatever fitness quality we are looking to enhance.

For example, if the athlete is just starting their training program (perhaps coming back from an injury, the start of offseason training after taking time off, or a total beginner with a training age of zero) your initial goal would be to develop general fitness in order to set them up for more intense training and higher volumes of training in later phases.  Therefore, your training program in this phase should reflect that goal and the methods you choose – whether it be lifting weights or performing conditioning on the field – should work together and not compete with one another.  In this example, the resistance portion of the program should be of a lower intensity (65-75%) for a moderate number of reps and the methods selected for your field work should be lower intensity also (tempo runs, aerobic plyometric activities, cardiac output work, etc).  This does not mean that you cannot work at a little higher intensity/lower reps in resistance training, it does not mean that you cannot work on a low volume of plyometrics, and it does not mean that you cannot work on a more intense method at the field; HOWEVER, these sorts of things are not the priority at this time!  A greater amount of your training should be spent focusing on the goal of the training phase, keeping strength and conditioning as one singular entity, and only a very small percentage of the time should be spent with the other qualities.  This allows you to prioritize your training – give the athlete what they need – without making things too cluttered and having a program that it schizophrenic.  I know block periodization is very popular these days and there seems to be a ton of semantics surrounding that stuff depending on which book you read and which coach you listen to.  I really don’t think it has to be any more complicated than: Train everything but have only one emphasis at a time and rotate that emphasis as the training program progresses on. 

The way that I do it is I set up a spread sheet and put down each phase and the length of time I am looking to spend in each phase (obviously this is flexible depending on how the athlete is progressing) across the top of the page.  On the left side of the page I write down the various qualities and from there, I fill in the boxes determining how much frequency each quality will be trained in a given phase, again, always keeping the goal in mind and the idea that strength and conditioning are not separate and need to work together.

What about hypertrophy training and general fitness?

A young strength coach asked me a question recently about setting up training phases and was concerned that doing more hypertrophy type of training in the first phase (a quality that some of his rugby athletes needed) would interfere with their development of cardiac output in the conditioning portion of the workout because the hypertrophy work would be more “anaerobic” in nature.

I think it can be easy to get swept away in all of this stuff and writing a training program can be a daunting task as there seems to be so much stuff to consider.  In this instance, however, I don’t see too much of a problem.  First, it is important to remember that most people who are unfit and in need of cardiac output type training are going to make some anaerobic adaptations first.  What I mean by this is that anything they do with any little bit of intensity will push them up into an anaerobic state to meet the demands of the task.  Of course, after a few weeks of this sort of training, they will begin to make the necessary adaptations, their fitness level will increase, and it will take a different sort of stimulus/stress to get more changes and improvements.  For an athlete in need of hypertrophy training, 2-3x/week of hypertrophy specific work with low to moderate volume (when just starting out on the training program) should be sufficient to see those sorts of adaptations.  This leaves a lot of time to develop the main quality of cardiac output and ensure that the athlete is recovering properly and making the adaptations that you seek.

I think the key thing is to look at your training week and ensure that you are managing stress well and that the progressions you are using are sound and not destroying the athlete right from the get go.  Too often coaches will start a training program with incredibly high amounts of volume and/or intensity only to have an athlete that is broken down 3-4 weeks later.  As I talked about in a previous article, Movement Reserve: Enhancing the Physiological Buffer Zone, managing stress and training appropriately are paramount.  An athlete who is just starting their training program should be eased into the process to ensure they are sufficiently tolerating the stresses you are exposing them to and the training program should be created to help them develop a higher level of fitness over several weeks.  Train only as much as you need to get an adaptation and then no more.  The problem of undertraining is an easy one to remedy – simply add a little more work and see if you get the changes you want.  The problem of overtraining can be a bit more difficult as you are always trying to playcatch up with the athlete as they are generally breaking down more frequently from training and needing to take time off only to try and start over again.  Additionally, if the athlete is overtraining because they are slammed from their offseason training program, as the pre-season approaches this presents a serious problem as the athlete is not going to be able to miss practice or pre-season games, causing the strength coach to determine what parts of training the athlete should miss out on or scale back on and then sometimes the athlete will also need therapy (which is an additional stress on the system).

At the end of the day it really comes down to two things:

1) Figure out what you need from your training program and prioritize that.  Don’t separate strength and conditioning, as they should work together.  Separating them causes the program to have mixed messages as there is a bleed over between strength and conditioning when they are trained as separate functions and one will start to rob the other.

2) Manage stress, start slow, progress properly, and only train as much as you need to get what you want.

There has been, and always will be, much debate about why athletes get injured.  This is the holy grail question that keeps researchers busy in the lab, coaches scratching their heads, and athletes constantly frustrated.

Injuries are a complicated event and usually cannot be linked to one single variable (aside from a contact injury).  In my mind, I think of three main categories that influence the state of the athlete:

1. Stress Overload
2. Poor Fitness
3. Poor Movement

The first two have been discussed before in previous blog entries.  Obviously, we should be doing everything we can to try and monitor and manage the stress and fatigue of the athlete to ensure that they are in an optimal state of readiness for their competitive season.  Part of being able to tolerate the stresses of practice and the game is being in shape.  Plain and simple, being out of shape is huge problem!  An athlete can have an amazing movement capacity but if they are unfit the chances of them being able to sufficiently use their movement throughout the course of a game, as fatigue sets in, will drastically be reduced.  Additionally, athletes who do not possess a level of basic general strength (which is a component of fitness) will lack the ability to tolerate the stress of the season.

Poor movement is an interesting addition to the puzzle and one that has come under scrutiny lately as many want to take shots at the idea that having a decent movement base to draw from can potentially limit your chances of getting injured.

I tend to see many of these arguments being one-sided, with advocates arguing either for or against the issue.  I’d rather take the middle ground and say that (a) we probably don’t know exactly why most injuries happen and (b) it is probably a combination of all of the things above instead of just taking a myopic view and saying that one thing is the only thing or one thing is more important than anything else.  As stated earlier, if you have great movement but poor fitness, you are no more bullet proof than the guy with great fitness but less of a movement base.

Theory of Movement Reserve

With all of this in mind it led me to come up with my idea of what I callmovement reserve.

What this basically means is that the athletes who do have a well-developed movement capacity appear to have a little bit larger physiological buffer zone when the circumstances are not perfect and the stars are not all aligned.

Obviously we do all we can to manage stress but no situation is 100% perfect.  If the team has to fly across country, the plane is delayed getting in, everyone misses dinner, and then they don’t get a good night sleep, the head coach cannot just go to the other head coach and say, “Our team is really exhausted.  Do you think we can put the game off until tomorrow so that we have another day to rest?”  It just doesn’t happen!  And, as an athlete, if a coach says “you have to play”…you have to play!  Even if that means you are a little bit tired, the HRV numbers are poor, and your level of stress is high.

In these instances, when there is more fatigue/stress than usual and when their body is not fully recovered/rested, it is the athlete with better movement capacity (and better general strength) that can get in the game and challenge their bodies knowing that their physiological buffer zone is a little bit greater than the guy who, when trying to push himself and operate under a high level of fatigue, doesn’t have the ability to manage his bodies ranges of motion and joint positions.

In a nut shell, when the chips are on the line, when the athlete starts to fatigue those with the greater movement capacity have some movement reserve to fall back on.  I believe that this may be one of the reasons why when looking at the research on the Functional Movement Screen it appears to be most valid in the NFL population.  This is a group of people who are trying to push their body to the max limit of its capacity and do so under some considerable amount of fatigue.

If you take the time to do all of the things above:

• Manage stress with a good training and recovery program
• Develop fitness – work capacity, strength, power, etc – to adequately prepare for the season
• Enhance movement reserve – ensure that joint ranges of motion, mobility, joint stability, etc, are healthy – and then integrate of all of these things into systematic whole body movements to help increase the physiological buffer zone

you have a much better chance (in my opinion at least) to keep athletes as healthy as possible.

Look at all the factors of the athlete and try not to get stuck in the black & white arguments.  Nothing in the body is as simple as that.  Allow the body to express its complexity and embrace the grey area between the black & white by accepting the fact that no one has all of the answers (and maybe never will).

You’re only as good as your ability to recover.

Stress is a necessary component in training.  If we don’t do anything to stress the system and disrupt homeostasis, then we never get anywhere.  Conversely if we apply so much stress that we are unable to recover from it we begin to breakdown, overtrain, and risk injury.

Thus, recovery is the name of the game and coaches and scientists are always looking for better ways to influence the body to promote a more advantageous healing environment.  Thanks to Dave Tenney for passing the following video of Aaron Coutts lecture on recovery strategies in Australian Rules Football:

I enjoyed Mr. Coutts’ talk and ideas. I especially liked to hear his ideas about performing a lower intensity of work in the 24-48hrs following competition. This period, according to Mr. Coutts, should be devoted to “recovery” so that more intense work can be completed later in the week.

This recommendation contradicts some of the ideas I have heard a few strength coaches make who recommend doing the most intense training session the day following competition so that it is performed furthest from the next competition and the athlete can have greater time to recover before the next game. I often wonder if this recommendation comes from coaches who are not monitoring stress and recovery as much as Mr. Coutts is.

Mr. Coutts’ point about ensuring that the athlete recovers well being the key priority following a game is a very good one and shows that flexibility in the training program is essential. Oftentimes coaches get roped into a very rigid program that they overlook the needs of the athletes in an effort to “stick with the plan”.

Managing stress during the season is a difficult task due to the high number of variables the athlete is dealing with – competition, training, therapy, practice, travel, etc. Ensuring that the athletes’ are well recovered following game day not only helps to manage fatigue and any nagging aches and pains that may follow competitive play but, as Mr. Coutts points out, allows for a higher intensity of work to be performed in the middle of the week. In the example I gave earlier regarding performing the most intense training the day after competition it would be difficult to get a lot of quality work out of the athlete to see any true benefit. Some athletes may initially be able to tolerate this sort of schedule; however, as the season goes on, I think you will see more athletes start to break down. By allowing the training program to be flexible you can make changes in intensity on any given day depending on what the athlete needs and can tolerate. Having a system of monitoring stress will help you better meet the athletes individual needs on any given day.

Enjoy the video!

Also, if interested, Joel Jamieson just wrote an interesting piece on using the sauna as a recovery method.

Last week’s article, DOMS, Performance, & Pain, generated some pretty great discussion via email, however, we did have some people post comments in the comment section.  The following is a comment from a strength coach out of Maryland, Kevin Neeld.  Kevin wrote:

Patrick-Great article! The complex integration of psychological interpretation and physical performance is an interesting topic and one overlooked by most in the performance world. The results of this study certainly aren’t unexpected, but provide some evidence of the power of performance psychology. In our setting, it’s amazing how empowering it can be for athletes to realize that they can tolerate and push through more discomfort than they previously thought. Keep up the great work.

I think it is always cool to see how different people interpret different books, articles, and papers.  I don’t think that there is a right or wrong way to interpret something you read or a lecture you heard, but I do find it interesting to see the different conclusions that people come to.  This is why I encourage people to go out and read the articles or books that others cite, recommend, or say they were influenced by, in order to see if you come to similar conclusions.  Sometimes you may be surprised!

Anyway, back to Kevin’s comments…

I found it interesting that Kevin brought up the topic of athletes’ tolerating a certain level of discomfort and learning to “push through it”.  When I read the above paper that sort of thing wasn’t even on my radar!

The above paper, to me, was giving me insight into the way in which an athlete may develop a fear avoidant strategy following an injury which intern would challenge their ability to compete or train since they are always playing with a certain amount of fear or uncertainty.  This can be a very dangerous place for an athlete to be in as they are attempting to play at the highest level with a lack of confidence in their body, even if the sports medicine staff has cleared them to play, the injury has been healed, and the rehab has gone well, in their mind, they are still not ready.

Leaving my thoughts on the paper aside, I think that Kevin raises some good points.  Some athletes are real work horses and if you told them that running through a brick wall would make them better they would probably do it without questioning you.  These are the guys that show up to train and never let on that they are having a bad day – they operate like machines.  Other athletes may need a little more pushing and may not be as motivated or may not psychologically be prepared to handle certain amounts or intensity of training – they give up too easily.

One way I believe we can impact this is the way we program workouts during the training week, perhaps even if the athletes are slightly under recovered and even a little sore, as it can help the athletes psychologically in terms of knowing that they can work a little harder or push a little more than they may not think they can.  Obviously monitoring stress in some way and monitoring the athletes ability to recover from training is necessary to ensure that you aren’t doing anything inappropriate, however, once an athlete has done some consistent training and developed a general level of fitness, performing back to back workouts (and these can be intense workouts) can sometimes be a great way to not only illicit some increased adaptation, but also, tap into the athletes psyche and teach them to push themselves.

Another thing to consider, in regard to the athlete, is how frequently you would do this and how many days in a row training can take place before a “back off” day or more recovery based session is needed.  This would be something you can build up over time.

As strength coaches we often get wrapped up in the idea of “getting them strong” or “getting them fit” that things tend to become very mechanical that we can forget about how important the psychology of the athlete really is.

Pain is a rather complex event that is perceived in the brain through a variety of inputs coming from both the internal and external environment. It does not happen in isolation as many commonly think, rather, it is composed of many variables and has a strong psychological component, so much so that there can even be a perception of pain/threat without any nociceptive input.

Training can oftentimes lead to delayed-onset of muscle soreness (DOMS) which is an increased amount of muscular pain and soreness lasting anywhere form 12-48hrs following a bout of new, unfamiliar, or overly strenuous exercise. DOMS can often lead to impairments in performance as the intense amount of soreness causes the athlete to decrease their muscular output in an effort to prevent painful sensation. Additionally, there is a strong psychological component attached to this scenario in the form of fear-avoidance.

Fear-avoidance may explain why some athletes develop chronic pain conditions following musculoskeletal injuries. The fear-avoidance model works in the following way:

• Injury leads to disability and a functional limitation
• This limitation is followed by a cycle of increased pain interpretation and hypervigilence to pain sensation
• Due to the increased pain sensation the athlete may begin to avoid activities that they fear will cause them more pain, ultimately leading to an inability to regain function and return to competitive form in a healthy manner (both physically and psychologically)

A recent study published in the journal Pain, by Trost, et al., set out to examine the relationship between pain-related fear and physical performance utilizing a DOMS protocol for the trunk extensors in healthy subjects.

The subjects, thirty in all (16 male/14 female) ages 18-24, were healthy, free of back pain, and were not currently engaged in a low-back resistance training program (to ensure that the DOMS protocol would be sufficient).

A variety of questionnaires were used at both baseline and post exercise (24hrs later) to determine the effect that the exercise program had on the subjects psychological state, muscular strength, and impairments in daily activities.

Baseline strength was conducted on a back exercise machine in the form of 3 maximum isometric back extensions.  The DOMS protocol was conducted on the same machine where the subjects performed 25 repetitions of eccentric back extension (rep tempo = 4 seconds per repetition) with a load of 75% of their peak extensor performance.

Twenty-four hours following the exercise program the subjects returned to the lab to re-test their back extension strength and fill out the questionnaires again.

The researchers reported that following the exercise induced DOMS, pain-related fear was predictive of perceived disability.  Additionally, pain-related fear was able to predict decreases in muscular performance.  These findings led the researchers’ to state that “pain-related fear is associated with perceived disability at an early stage of injury.”  Finally, two of the key points the researchers made in the paper were that:

1. “Avoidant behavior patterns among high fear individuals may persist even in the absence of initially triggering pain stimuli, setting the stage for a range of potentially deleterious physical and psychosocial consequences.”

2. “Following DOMS induction, higher fear participants may be hypervigilant to pain sensations and may experience difficulty disengaging or using cognitive strategies to cope with pain or distressing pain cognitions.”

Wrapping up

As stated earlier, pain is highly complex and it is something that athletes deal with throughout their competitive career.  Many things can influence threat perception and pain and as strength coaches or therapists, we should be aware of these influence to ensure that we meet the athlete’s individual needs and help them perform to their highest abilities.

This study was conducted on healthy subjects who are were not elite level athletes (or athletes at all), however, it does give a glimpse into the psychological and physiological aspects of pain and fear-avoidance, which are often overlooked in athletes who are in pain as many tend to only focus on the functional limitations the athlete is displaying following injury or pain.  While returning the athlete back to function and ensuring they can meet the physiological demands of their sport is critical, we should also take into consideration the entire person and be aware of their psychological state and perceptions.

Reference

Trost Z, France CR, Thomas, JS. Pain-related fear avoidance of physical exertion following delayed-onset muscle soreness. Pain2011; 152: 1540-1547.