Today I have a guest blog from Sam Leahey regarding both qualitative and quantitative testing in an athletic environment.  The main point Sam addresses is whether or not there is a right or wrong time to perform quantitative testing.

Sam Leahey is currently pursuing a masters degree in exercise science at Springfield College and serves as a strength and conditioning coach at American International College.  He can be contacted through his website www.samleahey.com.

—–

When Is It OK to “Guess” and Not Assess? 
Sam Leahey

“If you’re not assessing, you’re guessing.”

“Don’t assume, assess.”

The novelty with the above two statements is that when most coaches say this in reference to program design, they’re specifically speaking about “movement/orthopedic” types of assessments and not so much about “performance” type assessments.  What exactly do I mean by that?  In order to properly address the argument we have to start with as much objectivity as possible.  Consider the following categorical paradigm:

• Movement:  Mobility, Stability, Fundamental Movement Patterns, Symmetry, etc.
• Performance:  Absolute Strength, Elasticity, Impulse, Agility, Energy Systems, Power, etc.
• Skill:  Sport-specific Skills (throwing/striking a ball, tackling an opponent, shooting a puck)

Given the pyramid we can see how foundational movement acts as a buffer to performance markers which further buffer our skill level in sports.  Ultimately, semantics prevail here and you could argue that the way I’ve defined said categories is not universal and just a mental construct.  This is true.  But for the sake of argument let’s continue with this outlook to provide better clarity in the end.

When we talk about assessing our athletes we need to attach an adjective that tells others if we’re referencing “performance assessments” or “movement assessments”.  Sport coaches will usually handle the “skill assessments.”  Given the system of buffers described above it only makes sense we invest thorough attention to the foundation via our assessment process. However, the Risk:Reward ratio for many performance tests may not be advantageous at times.  If a highly ectomorphic high school freshman walks into your facility with zero training background is it worth the risk to perform a 1-3RM just to prove (aka “assess”) he/she is weak?  Is it sensible to perform agility tests on that same athlete just to obtain an objective measure that labels him/her “non-agile” and slow?  Do we really need to use the tendo-unit with every incoming athlete to see whether speed-strength or strength-speed is the limiting factor?  Might someone get hurt if we attempt to compare counter-movement and depth jumps with an entire high school team just to “assess” their elasticity when we could simply “guess” via their training age that they’re not adequately elastic enough?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  It depends on the individuals involved and certainly logistics play a governing role in what we can or choose to perform.

Undoubtedly things will be missed without an assessment no matter how much experience, insight, or prediction one has.  I believe this to be the case especially in our “movement” assessment category but not as realistic of an outlook in our “performance” category given the potential Risk:Reward ratio previously mentioned.  This is why I propose the general rule of thumb that we be most thorough with our movement tests and conservative with our performance tests.  We wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt during a performance test just because it’s better to “assess” then “guess.”  Simply “guessing” the obvious that they lack absolute strength and training for it is perfectly fine.  It’s equally as acceptable to “guess” a beginner athlete lacks elasticity and training them for it without having to “assess” a depth jump to counter movement jump comparison.  Also, the performance test outcomes will most likely change after foundational movement has been brought up to adequate.  In this light we could argue that doing many performance tests are simply an expression of current limitations and the athlete’s true potential will only be realized after the base of the pyramid has been fixed.

Now, if you’ve developed a battery of performance tests for a particular population then it only makes sense you run them through it provided there’s no contraindications from movement assessments.  But if you’re applying a battery of performance tests to all populations irrespective of individuality you may run into trouble and someone might get hurt.  Ultimately, the decision to perform any test relies on your priority of qualities and/or estimation of the probability that the client has a particular condition in question via algorithmic thinking.

In conclusion, sometimes a “guess/assumption” is a good thing and you’re safest estimation towards a desired outcome without having to take them to a threshold point.  It should not always be frowned upon, especially in regards to performance assessments.  Heck, sometimes “guessing” is a better option than assessing in a certain situations.  It depends.

Recovery is an important component of any good training program given the fact that if you can’t recover from the training stress you won’t be able to make any progress (in fact you will more than likely begin to slide backward).

“Are you getting tired or are you getting better?”
– Vern Gambetta

In talking with a few athletes this week, I was amazed to hear how their mentality of training is centered around the bravado of deconstruction.

It is unfortunate that so many are still under the belief that a workout is only productive if you are lying on the floor in a puddle of your own sweat and vomit.  The “last man standing” mentality of training is not one that should be sensationalized and often leads to a very short sighted view of the overall training picture – which is much larger than any single workout.  This thought process is often accepted by sports coaches as well, who commonly don’t understand the goal of a good training program and are typically the first coaches to prescribe “penalty” workouts/runs for those who do poorly in competition.

I am not saying this to give athletes a free pass from working hard, in fact, hard work is extremely important.  However, periods of hard work (or sometimes hard training days) should be followed by days of reconstruction to allow the athlete time to recovery and adapt to the training stimulus you have just imposed on them.  You can have the best program on paper, but if an athlete cannot recover from it, then it is pretty much worthless.

The training program should by thought out and satisfy the goals of the individual and the specific sport.  Doing workouts is not the same as performing a program.  As Vern’s quote above states, the goal is not to get tired, it is to get better!

“Make your hard days hard and your easy days easy.”
–Charlie Francis

Just as Charlie Francis states, if the day is going to be a “hard” day, then really get after it, and if the goal is to recover and give the body a break, then do so appropriately.  The biggest error most athletes make is the later, as their mind tends to play tricks on them, causing them to think that they are “Not working hard enough” or “This is too easy.  I need to add in a few more sets or increase the intensity a little bit to make it worthwhile”.  Unfortunately, your body can only handle so much and eventually you begin to go backwards in your training or, even worse, sustain some sort of injury.

Remember, training is a process and not everyday is going to be your day.  Not everyday is for breaking personal records or adding more weight to the bar.  Keep the end goal in mind and slowly hack away at that goal.  Don’t be so focused on a single workout and the idea that every workout should absolutely destroy you for it to mean anything.

You are only as good as your ability to adapt to the stresses that are placed upon you.

In the past I have discussed the importance of being flexible with regard to your training program and not being so rigid with regard to what is written on paper.  This is especially true when talking about backing off of the training intensity on a given training day if an individual is physically not preparedto do the assigned work.

In talking with a number of coaches over the past few weeks a common topic that has come up has been fitting it all it. There are many things that are considered in a training program:

• Warm up
• Mobility/Flexibility
• Corrective exercise
• Medicine ball throws
• Sprints
• Power Training (jumps, plyos, olympic lifts, etc)
• Strength training
• Energy system development
• Etc

With so many qualities that need to be trained it is easy to see why it may be difficult to fit everything into the hour (or however long you have with your athletes).  And then there is the question of“why would you want to fit everything into an hour?”

It isn’t that this can’t be done or that I think it is bad.  In fact, there are times when this may be the best way to go.  However, I tend to run into the problem with this sort of programming where my training session end up looking a little schizophrenic.  With so many qualities to try and cram into one session, I find it hard to prioritize anything or take the time to focus on something more specifically.  Additionally, there are often times where things don’t work out as planned – people show up late to training, practice was harder than usual, there was a competition the day before, etc.  Thus, it is more beneficial (in my opinion anyway) to prioritize your training sessions as much as possible.

Rather than trying to do everything, look at the training session and determine what one or two things on the sheet are THE MOST IMPORTANT things to focus on for that day.  Make those things the priority.  Warm up and get right to work on those qualities.   Instead of lumping everything together on one day, prioritize one or two qualities to focus on and then focus on different qualities the next training day.

This same sort of mentality can be taken with soft tissue therapy as well.  Instead of trying to  improve everything, look at your assessment and determine what one or two things are the most important things to focus on that day.

With so many components to take into consideration in a training program, it is important not to lose sight of what the main goal or objective is for the day.  Attack that goal and really try and develop it.

We sit around and debate periodization schemes, toss around ideas on energy system development, and discuss movement.  But really, in the grand scheme of things, how much does that matter?  While it is certainly interesting and important, videos like the one below make me often question what it is I do for a career, as there are professionals out there that are doing things which impact millions of people on a daily basis: doctors who are working to save lives, researchers who are studying the body to “crack the code” behind fatal diseases, etc.

Don’t get me wrong.  I love this profession  and I can’t think of anything more I am interested in doing.  However, videos like this always make me think about if what I do really matters.