Managing an individual’s time and energy, their primary
means of generating stress both good and bad, is as important as it ever has
been if not more so; especially on the road to high-performance sport. In order
to manage stress more effectively researchers, coaches, and athletes have all
gone further in identifying and applying methods and techniques to monitor the
processes of adaptation and recovery as they impact performance. Athlete
monitoring has allowed them to improve this decision making by helping to better
coordinate the interaction between internal and external training loads as they
impact the process mechanically and energetically allowing for an effective
“coopetition” strategy to emerge (1). However it is important that in doing so
one does not “lose the forest for the trees.” How then does one remove barriers
interfering with further improvements in physical performance and/or recovery
while not at the same time creating new obstacles brought on by changes in a
new performance environment?
Total Athlete Management (TAM) is the goal in both
individual and team sports. As noted by Robert Newton and Marco Cardinale, “TAM
is the ongoing process of ‘plan, do, review, improve’ common to management
practice but applied equally effectively to athlete performance (2).” The
process of athlete monitoring must go through the same changes that the athlete
themselves must in order to break free from past limitations: checks and
balances. In order to ensure this process maintains efficiency there must be
changes that reflect better integration of “plan, do, review, improve”. In fact
research from Ovallo & Sibony, in a review of over 1048 business decisions
made in a five-year period, reveals that process trumps analysis by a factor of
six (3). Creating an environment where good process is empowered is critical to
maximizing what are sometimes very limited resources. This is an issue at the
heart of any athlete monitoring discussion: are under-performing athletes unfit
and poorly prepared because they are over-stressed or because the culture
allows a less than excellent standard? This discussion goes beyond this paper
but it is worth noting the critical relationship that culture plays in
high-performance and as stated by Peter Drucker, “Culture eats strategy for
breakfast.”
Rather than viewing culture and strategy or process and
analysis as antagonists we should instead view them as complementary but with the
understanding that performance enhancement requires pushing the envelope of any
targeted physical performance. As sport scientist Michael Regan suggested in
the lecture The Role of Data in S&C
and Scouting the goal is “sensible overload”(4). Yet defining “sensible”
requires significantly more context to adequately encompass the range of possibilities
in human performance. For example what is sensible for an athlete in a return-to-sport
program may be altogether inadequate for a healthy athlete with no
musculoskeletal issues (6).
Further, one should not assume that this is a one-sided
issue where athlete monitoring is the single factor generating potential
interference. Periodization itself should be challenged to validate its role in
human performance and the process of physical preparation. As noted by John
Kiely in his paper Periodization
Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven,
“In essence, due to complicating logistical constraints, experimental designs
have compared interventions regularly varying training parameters with
interventions with minimal, or no, variation. Accordingly what such studies
have demonstrated is that variation is a critical aspect of effective training,
not that periodization methodologies
are an optimal means of providing variation. (9)”
A common adage is, “a change is as good as a rest.” Indeed
many training program improvements brought on by a supposed proper application
of periodization principles are only validated against the continuation of a
program that may have already exhausted its ability to generate adaptation (9).
This is not to suggest that periodization and planning are insignificant
contributors to human performance, rather the intent here is to note that every
aspect of the TAM process should be subject to review for its contribution and
potential limitations both now and into the future. Again, “plan, do, review,
improve” and as noted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “In
preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless,
but planning is
indispensable." Taking this further in order to apply it directly to
physical preparation John Kiely states, “Such reasoning suggests a shift from
the historical ideal of preordained “best” training structures toward a
philosophy characterized by an adaptive readiness to response to emerging
‘information’. (5)” Best planning practices are those that allow for such
emergent information to be what dictates the process moving forward; and not
what was believed to be the appropriate process some time ago.
Much is made of the biological dose-response relationship as
it relates to the training process and adaptation (8). Coutts and Cormack
state, “The aim of training is to provide a stimulus that is effective in
improving performance. For positive adaptation to occur, a careful balance
between training dose and recovery is required. (8)” Coaches and athletes can
sometimes get lost in finding this balance and this is an area where effective athlete
monitoring is key. Coutts and Reaburn cited research that demonstrated this
difference, an imbalance between stress and recovery, where collegiate soccer
players who were under-recovered and had demonstrated symptoms consistent with
overreaching performed worse on tests for muscular strength, power, and speed
(9). These qualities are in essence a primary focus of many team sport athletes
and are likely the reason their coaches had these athletes training with such
vigor in the first place.
Also notable is work with elite alpine skiers from strength
& conditioning Coach Matt Jordan of The Canadian Sport Institute-Calgary
and his colleagues of the Human Performance Laboratory at The University of
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (6). Jordan et al. (2014) found that use of dual force
place technology and DXA scans provided insight into lower-body asymmetry and
its potential impact on physical preparation and the return to competitive
high-performance sport. Jordan states, “The main finding of our study was the
presence of a significantly greater CMJ and SJ phase-specific kinetic impulse
AI in top-level ski racers with a history of ACL-R compared with uninjured
ability-matched ski racers that remained despite a full return to activity.
(6)” The increased AI (Asymmetry Indices) demonstrates a potential risk factor
in the injured population versus their uninjured counterparts who were highly
symmetrical across all phases of the SJ and CMJ tests (6). Monitoring the AI in
elite alpine skiers, as well as other athletes with comparable demands on the
lower body, could prove to be critical in both the injured and uninjured
population collectively.
In his dissertation for the University of Kentucky School of
Kinesiology and Health Promotion Christopher Morris examined 59 Division One
American football athletes and their use of an Athlete Monitoring System (AMS)
that examines Heart Rate Variability and Direct Current Brain Wave Potential
Outcomes (7). Morris then used a “fluid periodization” model to make daily
decisions regarding the amount of stress to impose upon the athletes based on
their current physiological state and readiness. Morris states, “The results
from this study confirmed our hypothesis that the use of objective physiological
measures, provided by the AMS, produced significantly higher performance
outcomes in vertical jump, vertical power, broad jump, and aerobic efficiency.
Additionally, the results confirmed our second hypothesis that these
performance outcomes were gained at a reduced physiological cost by significant
reductions in both core and accessory resistance training volume. (7)” The
potential benefits of an athlete monitoring system that can help guide better decision
making regarding what is the appropriate amount of stress to impose on athletes
on a day to day basis, represented by the term “fluid periodization” here,
warrants further discussion at the very least and potentially a paradigm shift.
Athlete monitoring should not be critiqued for what it is
not. It is simply a part of the physical preparation process, that of TAM, and
can be emphasized or de-emphasized according to a program, team, or individual
athlete’s needs. In order to use athlete monitoring effectively the process
should be consistent, valid/reliable, multi-faceted, individualized, and time
sensitive. Coutts and Cormack state, “The ultimate value of monitoring training
load and the fatigue response is when such monitoring informs decision making.
For this to occur, the monitoring process needs to be part of the overall
program approach. (8)” TAM should integrate athlete monitoring as a piece of
the puzzle but with the understanding that athlete monitoring is only intended
to better inform personnel on the decision making process. Atul Gawande speaks
to the process of better effectively in his book Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, “Better is possible. It
does not take genius. It takes diligence. It takes moral clarity. It takes
ingenuity. Above all, it takes a willingness to try. (10)” Table 1 represents
some suggestions on athlete monitoring and is adapted from John Kiely’s book
chapter “Planning for Physical Performance: The Individual Perspective,
planning, periodization, prediction; and why the future ain’t what it used to
be!” (5)
|
Table 1. Some Suggested
Monitoring Methods
|
|
When What Who
says
Pre-Pre-training • Subjective
indicator of ‘general’ well-being, e.g. RESTQ, Collins 2000
POMS, recovery-cue;
abbreviated versions of same Kellmann 2002
• Objective measure Morning HR/HR
variability
|
|
Pre-Training • Subjective rating (Score 1–10) of
key indicators, e.g. Mood Collins
2000
Sleep quality Readiness to train, Residual muscle soreness/fatigue Site specific soreness rating Perceived readiness rating • Objective measure (readiness check) Nurmekivi et al 2001 Psychomotor speed/reaction time Rietjens et al 2005 Measure system readiness, e.g. countermovement Nederhof et al 2006,
jump (height);
drop jump (contact time/height) 2007
|
|
In-training • Prescriptive accuracy Rate
desired intensity (how it
should feel)
Technical execution (required quality) Empirical
range (load
and repetition limits) • Recording detail Empirical
descriptors
RPE (per effort, set, or session)
|
|
Post-training • Post-session objective measure
Repeat pre-session readiness Suzuki
et al 2003,
check
• Session RPE. Retrospectively calculate associated 2006
measures,
e.g. Monotony (weekly average load/standard
deviation),
Strain (mean weekly load monotony),
Training
load (RPE training time) CPS (category ratio pain scale) TQR (total quality recovery) • Weekly training ‘stress’ assessment Daily and/or individual session RPE ¼ week total |
|
HR, heart rate; POMS, profile
of mood state; RESTQ, recovery-stress questionnaire for athletes; RPE, rating
of perceived exertion
|
*Adapted from Kiely, John “Planning for Performance: The
Individual Perspective” book chapter
Athlete monitoring and TAM need not be unnecessarily
complicated for as Albert Einstein once said, “Make things as simple as
possible, but not simpler.” Athletes are complex on many levels and as such
they present with issues that will challenge coaches in many ways. Solutions to
such problems should not further complicate these issues. John Kiely states
here, “The functioning of complex biological systems is characterized by deeply
entangled interdependencies between component subsystems, by sensitive
dependence to initial conditions and subsequently introduced “noise,” and by
the inherently unpredictable chain of consequences that may be initiated by any
imposed action. (9)” For fear of noise or consequences athlete monitoring
should not be dismissed. However it is important that it is given the
opportunity for the same review process as every other component of TAM as
there is not an unimportant part of athlete development. Better will always
qualify as an improvement even if it never represents best.
REFERENCES
1.
Plisk, Steven and Stone, Michael. “Periodization Strategies”. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research: Vol 25 (6) pp. 19–37
2.
Newton, Robert and Cardinale, Marco (Ed.). Strength & Conditioning: Biological
Principles and Practical Applications. 2011: Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford, UK)
3.
Lovallo, Dan and Sibony, Olivier. “The Case for
Behavioral Strategy”. McKinsey Quarterly 2:
30-45 (March 2010)
4.
Regan, Michael (2015). “The Role of Data in
S&C and Scouting”: Lecture Presentation from Central Virginia Sports
Performance Symposium
5.
Kiely, John. Planning for Physical Performance:
The Individual Perspective, planning, periodization, prediction; and why the
future ain’t what it used to be! In: Collins D, Button A, Richards H, (Ed.). Performance Psychology for Physical
Environments: A Practitioner’s Guide. Oxford, UK: Elsevier: 2011: 139-160.
6.
Jordan, M.J. and Aagaard, W. Herzog. “Lower Limb
Assymmetry in Mechanical Muscle Function: A comparison between ski racers with
and without ACL reconstruction”. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science
In Sports: June 2014: 25(3), pp. 301-309,
7.
Morris, Christopher (2015). “The Effect of Fluid Periodization on
Athletic Performance Outcomes in American Football Players” (Doctoral
Dissertation). UKnowledge: University of Kentucky, Theses and Dissertations –
Kinesiology and Health Promotion
8. Coutts,
Aaron and Cormack, Stuart. Monitoring the Training Response. In: Joyce, David
(Ed.). High-Performance Training for
Sport. (2014) Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL
9. Kiely,
John. Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or
Tradition-Driven? IJSPP 2012 (7): 242-250
10. Gawande,
Atul (2008). Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on
Performance. Picador: Hampshire, England
