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

Washif, Jad Adrian

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

dc.contributor.author	Washif, Jad Adrian
dc.date.accessioned	2025-07-17T20:32:28Z
dc.date.available	2025-07-17T20:32:28Z
dc.date.issued	2025
dc.description.abstract	This 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.citation	International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (2025) pp. 1-14
dc.identifier.doi	10.1123/ijspp.2025-0051
dc.identifier.issn	1555-0265
dc.identifier.orcid	https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8143-9132
dc.identifier.uri	https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12254/4231
dc.language.iso	eng
dc.publisher	Human Kinetics, Inc.
dc.rights	Acceso abierto
dc.rights.license	Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 CL)
dc.rights.uri	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/cl/
dc.subject	Assessment
dc.subject.nabs	07 - Protección y mejora de la salud humana
dc.subject.ods	ODS 3 - Salud y bienestar
dc.subject.oecd	3.3.11 - Ciencias del Deporte y Acondicionamiento Físico
dc.title	Current Periodization, Testing, and Monitoring Practices of Strength and Conditioning Coaches
dc.type	Article
dc.type.coar	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dcterms.accessRights	El artículo completo no puede ser publicado en el Repositorio Institucional debido a los permisos de copyright definidos por la editorial publicadora. Ingrese a través del DOI.