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

This study investigated the periodization, testing, and monitoring practices of strength and conditioning practitioners across different levels of coaching experience and sports.

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.

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 from 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 rating of perceived exertion (72%). None of the comparisons differed across experience levels and sport types (P > .05).

Practitioners employed a range of periodization models, often integrating flexible approaches. Unloading strategies were commonly implemented alongside various assessment methods. Technologies were used for monitoring, but conversational/subjective methods remained more widespread.