RESISTANCE TRAINING PRESCRIPTION FOR ATHLETES DURING PERIODS OF PLANNED DE-LOADING: A SURVEY OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES

Abstract

INTRODUCTION & AIMS Implementing resistance training (RT) for athletes may be difficult during some training-phases due to competing demands. However, it is currently unknown how strength and conditioning coaches prescribe RT during periods of planned de-loading. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the RT prescription practices of coaches during four common de-loading periods (taper, competitive season, tournament, travel). METHODS An anonymous online survey was shared globally to coaches, with data analysed from 204 responders (current level of athlete coached: world class n=68, elite/international n=62, highly-trained n=64, trained n=10). Coaches only provided answers about prescription for de-loading periods which they reported encountering. Where a coach indicated not prescribing RT for specific de-loading periods, they provided information on any barriers preventing RT prescription. RESULTS Weekly RT prescription across all de-load periods was typically reported as: 1-2 sessions, 30-60 min, 1-3 sets, 1-6 repetitions. Most coaches reported decreasing volume during all periods (taper: 89.1%, competitive season: 70.4%, tournament: 84.1%, travel: 74.6%), with the most common reduction in RT volume reported as 0-25%. Most coaches also decreased intensity during a taper (52.9%), tournament (54.8%) and travel (53.6%), with a 0-25% reduction most common. ‘Lack of equipment and facilities’ and ‘scheduling/time’ were common barriers cited to RT prescription during the competitive season (100% for scheduling/time), tournament (55.6% and 50.0%), and travel (57.3% and 60.0%). During a taper, ‘recovery’ was the most reported reason (41.7%). CONCLUSION During planned de-loading periods, both training volume and intensity are generally decreased by coaches compared to periods of normal training. The similarity of barriers to RT prescription during de-load periods suggests the experiences of coaches are not influenced by the phase. To address barriers experienced by some coaches, researchers should examine the use of alternative RT strategies for periods of planned de-loading to maintain training stimulus.