As more knowledge becomes available and as the field of science expands we see greater progress in understanding the foundation and tenants of many different fields. This applies to almost all professions. But, it appears to be lacking when it comes to the science of training an athlete.
How can this be? The answer is quite obvious if we look closely at most sports related magazines newspapers and TV shows. There is a lack of science or application of science in each. Even more examples of this can be found on various sports and fitness related websites, forums and even YouTube.
In addition, if you look into the archives of the literature in the 1970’s and 80’s you will see that the knowledge at that time was basically the same or more advanced in comparison to the knowledge that is being displayed today. In other words, there has been little if any progress in expanding, understanding and applying the information that we had available 30 to 40 years ago.
You may argue that this is not so because there are many research articles published every year and many new measuring, testing and training devices are constantly being developed. This is true but there has not been any or perhaps very little advancement in the methods of how we train an athlete. Most advances are in the area of new pieces of equipment and new wrinkles on how to do an exercise, most of which have not been shown to enhance performance on the field.
For example, in the area of plyometrics, rather than adhering to the original definitions and practice of plyometrics as exemplified by its originator Yuri Verkhoshansky, plyometrics has now come to mean a jump exercise. When I first introduced plyometrics to the United States back in the 1980s, I brought out how it was used to elicit a strong and powerful muscular contraction in the shortest amount of time.
In essence, it was the shock method as created by Dr. Yuri Verkhoshansky. Today most people think of plyometrics as an easy type of jump without any forced loading on impact. This is opposite of what plyometrics should be as its creator intended. In fact, plyometrics is now the accepted term for all jump exercises. Most coaches do not distinguish between plyometric and jump training.
Another example is the concept of specialized training or specialized strength and explosive exercises. The meaning of specificity as used in the literature and by many trainers shows that it is still not well understood and is often misinterpreted. But yet, this type of training, as for example, specialized strength training (also known as dynamic correspondence exercises) and the criteria for such exercises was well-established back in the 1980s.
In spite of the information known, coaches still continue to practice general training and using general exercises in the training of athletes on all levels of performance. In essence, specificity is still not being practiced in spite of the fact that it is the key to improving performance on the higher levels.
Even the concept of explosive or power training is still controversial. Many believe that explosive power comes from lifting heavy weights while others believe it comes from lifting light weights very quickly. Even more definitions can be found that only confuse the issue. Yet I wrote about this back in the 1980s, in a series of articles that appeared in the National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal.
At that time I debated this concept with Arthur Jones through one of his colleagues until he could no longer substantiate the erroneous belief that power (as needed by athletes) is synonymous with strength. They believed that power could be developed through strength training done at a relatively slow rate of speed. However they could not substantiate their viewpoint in our series of articles.
Periodization is another concept that is still not understood even though it was well-established by the Russians back in the 1950s and 60s. Its tenants are very simple and easy to understand but over the years have been so misused that it is now difficult to understand exactly what is meant. It is possible to find many examples of how periodization is now also used for training physical qualities for which it was never intended.
This practice has only led to more confusion rather than elucidation of the problem. In addition, there has been little distinction between different types of periodization schemes for athletes who respond differently to the same training. For example, Bondarchuk identified 16 different periodization schemes with his athletes. Each was dependent upon the individual characteristics of the athletes.
This lack of progress using science or scientific principles in the training of athletes is seen in the lack of knowledge and concepts that underlie the training of an athlete. It sometimes appears that we have forgotten what has already been discovered and proven to be beneficial and are substituting popular but unproductive training practices.
It seems that very few coaches are looking at the results that they get from doing particular exercises (except in the weight room) or using particular types of equipment. But yet this should be the bottom line. Does the exercise or training program improve the player’s ability to perform on the field, court or ring? This is what we should be not only asking, but demanding from all exercise programs and exercises.
For more information see Secrets of Russian Sports Fitness and Training, Transfer Training and Build a Better Athlete.