A Framework for Making Decisions Within Unpredictable Training Environments

A significant challenge for the strength and conditioning coach lies in the unpredictability of training environments (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2016; Cziko, 1989; Esposito, 2013). Unpredictability makes decision making a difficult task for the coach, as the coach needs to continue to drive the desired outcomes along with retaining adequate optionality, within their decision making to cater for many different situations (Esposito, 2013; Jeffreys, 2017; Noyes, 2017). One obvious example where this takes place is during training sessions, where a problem the coach is faced with is the need to adjust planned sessions, due to differing scenarios such as a lack of time, or a lack of resources (Cassidy et al., 2016; Klein, 2007; Noyes, 2017). Decisions need to be made quickly and as such the adjustment of a session is usually evaluated superficially, with the new prescription potentially not achieving the desired response and a lack of consideration on the wider programme (Collins, Carson, & Collins, 2016; Jeffreys, 2017; Turner & Barker, 2014). This article will present a framework for decision making in adjusting planned sessions with the main considerations that need to be made.

A typical scenario within a training environment is that the coach has to change a planned session due to an unforeseen circumstance (Collins et al., 2016; Cziko, 1989; Esposito, 2013; Noyes, 2017). These circumstances can present themselves in the way of two constraints, either a lack of resources or a lack of time (Esposito, 2013; Jeffreys, 2017; Klein, 2007; Solow, 2008). Resources could reflect many difference scenarios, however in broad terms could relate to a lack of provision in the environment e.g. equipment, facilities, space etc,. or a lack of provision within the individual e.g. injury, excessive fatigue etc which will impact the ability to train and perform (Bowen, Gross, Gimpel, & Li, 2017; Solow, 2008; Wyatt, Donaldson, & Brown, 2013). Time could be restricted due to numerous aspects such as a change in priorities, or a change in the athlete’s schedule As such the coach has to make decisions which allow the objective of the session to still be met, however the method used may be different dependent on the constraint (Davids, Button, & Bennett, 2008; Passos, Araújo, Davids, & Shuttleworth, 2008). Two tools that the coach can use to facilitate management of these constraints, are either a change in exercise prescription or a change in the loading protocol through volume/intensity manipulations (Bompa & Haff, 2009; Plisk & Stone, 2003; Stone et al., 1999).

In manipulating exercise prescription, the main consideration from a theoretical point of view that should be made is around biomechanical similarity, namely, how close the dynamic correspondence is between exercises or between the adjusted exercise and the intended sport skill (Verkhoshanky & Siff, 2009). Furthermore, a consideration on whether the adjusted exercise is achieving the intended effect for which the original exercise was prescribed (Verkhoshanky & Siff, 2009). As an example, a coach may prescribe for an athlete who presents with back pain an alteration of a planned exercise from a back squat to a hip thrust (Contreras, Vigotsky, Schoenfeld, Beardsley, & Cronin, 2015; Liebenson, 2003). One key difference in this scenario, would be how the ankle functions which in turn would affect the mechanics of the lower limb (R. Jacobs, Bobbert, & van Ingen Schenau, 1996; Ron Jacobs, Bobbert, & Schenau, 1993; Simonsen, Thomsen, & Klausen, 1985). In squatting, as well as in many athletic tasks there is a dorsiflexion of the ankle in eccentric phases, followed by plantarflexion in the concentric phases (Contreras et al., 2015). The bi-articular muscles of the ankle allow efficient transfer of force within these scenarios (Cleather, Southgate, & Bull, 2015). Within the hip thrust, the ankle moves from plantarflexion in the eccentric phase to dorsiflexion in the concentric phase (Contreras, Cronin, & Schoenfeld, 2011; Contreras et al., 2015). As such, an inference can be made that this would affect the transfer of force through the bi-articular muscles, due to the gastrocnemius muscle not interacting with the rest of the kinetic chain, as would be expected in usual athletic tasks where force is produced from the floor (Cleather et al., 2015).

Therefore the transfer of training effect may be limited due to the regime of muscular work within the bi-articular muscles being altered (Verkhoshanky & Siff, 2009). Additionally, the amplitude of movement is significantly different within the squat and hip thrust as is evident with the reduced amplitude of the bar in the hip thrust (Contreras et al., 2011, 2015).

While it is clear there are some fundamental differences between the hip thrust and the deadlift, a further consideration should be if the adjusted exercise is fulfilling the intended purpose of the original exercise (Plisk & Stone, 2003). In the described scenario, if the purpose of the exercise was purely to hypertrophy the gluteal muscles a change from a back squat to hip thrust may be favourable, however if the original intended reason was to use the exercise as a method of a transfer of training to a jumping based skill this will be limiting (Cleather et al., 2015; Contreras et al., 2011, 2015).

The second tool that is available to a coach within the setting of a session is to use volume and intensity manipulations to achieve desired responses (Stone et al., 1999). These may be used in a variety of scenarios and may be of particular use if time is a constraint, as sessions can be shortened with creative volume/intensity adjustments to achieve physiological adaptations in reduced time (Howe, Read, & Waldron, 2017; Howe & Waldron, 2017). The following considerations are of most importance in using this method: intended goal of the session, understanding the principles of how overload may be achieved and finally an appreciation that additional adjustments may be required, if exercises are changed as per the previous discussion (Plisk & Stone, 2003; Stone et al., 1999).

Clearly, an initial consideration should be to evaluate the intended goal of the session and how this session fits into the wider microcycle and mesocycle objectives (Hartmann et al., 2015). As an example, if the head coach informs a practitioner that a particular strength session on a day has had to be reduced due to conflicting demands, the practitioner should consider what other similar training is occurring that week (Naclerio, Moody, & Chapman, 2013). If the athlete has two further strength sessions due within the week, the practitioner could use appropriate load prescription to achieve the session objective as well as balance the ensuing fatigue to allow adequate performance in future sessions (Bompa & Haff, 2009; Stone et al., 1999). If there were no further strength sessions the practitioner could be more aggressive with their prescription. Secondly, from the literature it appears that volume progressions and intensity progressions can both be used as forms of overload and the considerations in this context should be related around what the overall volume load should be, considering the wider cycle objectives as stated previously (Bompa & Haff, 2009; Plisk & Stone, 2003; Stone et al., 1999). Lastly, if exercises have been adjusted as per the previous discussion then an adjustment of load prescription may be required. As in the previous example, the vertical displacement of the barbell is reduced for a hip thrust compared to a back squat and as such the athlete will be completing overall less work, which may be a consideration that the coach needs to make (Contreras et al., 2015; Haff, 2010).

Using the tools of changing exercise prescription and volume load variables allows a formulation of a framework for decision making as detailed below (Diagram 1) The framework allows flexibility within the decision making of practitioners as it considers the main constraints that may arise and considers the impact on the wider programme. Initially a consideration of whether time or resource is a constraint is important to identify, as this could impact decision making later on within the framework. Considerations of the cycle and session are then made as previously discussed to ensure the decision fits with objectives. The decision making is then offered two strategies with the option of changing volume load or prescription or exercise or both in some cases. This part of the framework is not prescriptive as there are an infinite number of decisions a coach could make based on previous notions. An important consideration however, is how volume load prescription and exercise selection may interact as for example if an exercise is changed a consideration of whether the previous volume load prescription is appropriate needs to be made (Bompa & Haff, 2009; Stone et al., 1999). Furthermore, if certain volume load prescriptions are adjusted based on time constraints it may be that a different exercise would be applicable (Gentil, Fisher, & Steele, 2017).

The narrative within this article has implied that adjustments should be made whenever constraints are present. However, this decision should be made considering whether any change is needed at all, as scenarios may present themselves where the best course of action may be to adhere to the prescribed programme (Noyes, 2017).

Diagram 1. Decision making framework with a session

In summary, the framework presented allows a practitioner to manage the unpredictability of environments while still achieving desired objectives. Two main ways that the practitioner can achieve this is through adjustment in exercise prescription and altering volume loads. Within each strategy, a wider consideration of the programme should be made considering the biomechanical similarity for desired skills, as well as how adjustments may affect cycle objectives.

Bompa, T. O., & Haff, G. (2009). Periodization. Human Kinetics.

Bowen, L., Gross, A. S., Gimpel, M., & Li, F.-X. (2017). Accumulated workloads and the acute:chronic workload ratio relate to injury risk in elite youth football players. Br J Sports Med, 51(5), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095820

Cassidy, T., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2016). Understanding sports coaching. Routledge.

Cleather, D. J., Southgate, D. F. L., & Bull, A. M. J. (2015). The role of the biarticular hamstrings and gastrocnemius muscles in closed chain lower limb extension. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 365, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.10.020

Collins, L., Carson, H. J., & Collins, D. (2016). Metacognition and Professional Judgment and Decision Making in Coaching: Importance, Application and Evaluation. International Sport Coaching Journal, 3(3), 355–361.

Contreras, B., Cronin, J., & Schoenfeld, B. (2011). Barbell Hip Thrust. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 33(5), 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e31822fa09d

Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2015). A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyographic Activity in the Back Squat and Barbell Hip Thrust Exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 31(6), 452–458.

Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and Indeterminism in Human Behavior: Arguments and Implications for Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018003017

Davids, K. W., Button, C., & Bennett, S. J. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition : a constraints-led approach. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics. Retrieved from http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showproduct.cfm?isbn=9780736036863

Esposito, E. (2013). The structures of uncertainty: performativity and unpredictability in economic operations. Economy and Society, 42(1), 102–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2012.687908

Gentil, P., Fisher, J., & Steele, J. (2017). A Review of the Acute Effects and Long-Term Adaptations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises during Resistance Training. Sports Medicine, 47(5), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0627-5

Haff, G. (2010). Quantifying Workloads in Resistance Training: A Brief Review. Prof. Strength and Cond., 10, 31–40.

Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Keiner, M., Mickel, C., Sander, A., & Szilvas, E. (2015). Short-term Periodization Models: Effects on Strength and Speed-strength Performance. Sports Medicine, 45(10), 1373–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0355-2

Howe, L., Read, P., & Waldron, M. (2017). Muscle hypertrophy: A narrative review on training principles for increasing muscle mass. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 39(5), 72–81.

Howe, L., & Waldron, M. (2017). Advanced resistance training strategies for increasing muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength: part 1 accumulation methods. Professional Strength and Conditioning, 47, 7–13.

Jacobs, R., Bobbert, M. F., & Schenau, G. J. V. I. (1993). Function of mono- and biarticular muscles in running. ResearchGate, 25(10), 1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199310000-00013

Jacobs, R., Bobbert, M. F., & van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1996). Mechanical output from individual muscles during explosive leg extensions: the role of biarticular muscles. Journal of Biomechanics, 29(4), 513–523.

Jeffreys, I. (2017). Using the tools of economics: Can they enhance the S&C cognitive toolbox? Professional Strength and Conditioning, 23–30.

Klein, C. C. (2007). The Economics of Time as a Resource (Working Papers No. 200712). Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Economics and Finance. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mts/wpaper/200712.html

Liebenson, C. (2003). Activity modification advice: part II – squats. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 7(4), 230–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-8592(03)00063-9

Naclerio, F., Moody, J., & Chapman, M. (2013). Applied periodization: a methodological approach. Journal of Human Sport & Exercise, 8(2), S350–S366.

Noyes, J. (2017). Decision Making in Complex Environments. (M. Cook, Ed.) (1 edition). CRC Press.

Passos, P., Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Shuttleworth, R. (2008). Manipulating Constraints to Train Decision Making in Rugby Union. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1260/174795408784089432

Plisk, S. S. M., & Stone, M. H. (2003). Periodization Strategies. Journal, 25(6), 19–37.

Simonsen, E. B., Thomsen, L., & Klausen, K. (1985). Activity of mono- and biarticular leg muscles during sprint running. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 54(5), 524–532.

Solow, R. M. (2008). The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390450802504048

Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., Schilling, B. K., Johnson, R. L., Pierce, K. C. E., Haff, G. G., & Koch, A. J. M. (1999). Periodization: Effects Of Manipulating Volume And Intensity. Part 1. Journal, 21(2).

Turner, G., & Barker, K. (2014). Exercise Selection to Develop Optimal Explosive Lunge Movements for World-Standard Squash: Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(4), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000065

Verkhoshanky, Y., & Siff, M. (2009). Supertraining. Rome: Verkhoshansky SSTM.

Wyatt, F. B., Donaldson, A., & Brown, E. (2013). The Overtraining Syndrome: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 16(2), 12–23.