coaching staff and the strength and conditioning coaching (SCC) staff. Much in the same way that athletes can detract from a team’s performance due to cohesion-related factors, poor working relationships among sport coach and strength and conditioning coaches can also reduce team performance. Massey and
Andy Gillham, Michael Doscher, Jim Krumpos, Michelle Martin Diltz, Nate Moe, Shepard Allen, and Reese Bridgeman
Christoph Szedlak, Matthew Smith, Melissa Day, and Bettina Callary
individual athletes’ funding ( DCMS & SportEngland, 2012 ; UKSport, 2014 ). While performance is multifaceted, the level of strength and conditioning (S&C) is one of the key contributors to an athlete’s development and performance ( Brink, Nederhof, Visscher, Schmikli, & Lemmink, 2010 ; Newton & Kraemer
Christoph Szedlak, Matthew J. Smith, Bettina Callary, and Melissa C. Day
reduced to a simple, dominant instructional paradigm, where learning is linear and instruction-centred ( Paquette & Trudel, 2016 ). Indeed, when S&C coach developers, such as National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) and the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association (UKSCA), teach
Andy Gillham, Gary Schofield, Michael Doscher, Dan Dalrymple, and Joe Kenn
Traditional examinations of coaching philosophies consider the perspective of sport coaches (e.g., soccer, cricket, rugby). The focus on sport coaches’ coaching philosophy has advanced the study of coaching effectiveness while simultaneously omitting strength and conditioning coaches from the larger body of literature on coaching philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to reveal how award winning strength and conditioning coaches shape and use their coaching philosophy. The participants include four renowned strength and conditioning coaches, one at the high school, one at the college, and two at the professional level. A summary is provided at the end that examines commonalities (e.g., all the respondents expressed the need to have a specific coaching philosophy) and differences (e.g., how discipline factors into their coaching philosophy) across the respondents’ views and connects their viewpoints to the broader literature on sport coaching.
Rachel I. Roth and Bobbi A. Knapp
Female athletes often negotiate their meanings of femininity and athleticism due to restrictive cultural norms, with muscularity at the center of this negotiation. Using a critical feminist interactionist perspective, this study seeks to understand how female collegiate athletes negotiate their meanings of muscularity and femininity within the strength and conditioning environment. Negotiation strategies emerged from the data, including the gendered body and the weight room environment. The findings suggest that while the strength and conditioning coach is responsible for training athletes in power and speed, they must do so within the cultural context that often attempts to limit women’s physicality.
Bettina Karsten, Liesbeth Stevens, Mark Colpus, Eneko Larumbe-Zabala, and Fernando Naclerio
To investigate the effects of a sport-specific maximal 6-wk strength and conditioning program on critical velocity (CV), anaerobic running distance (ARD), and 5-km time-trial performance (TT).
16 moderately trained recreational endurance runners were tested for CV, ARD, and TT performances on 3 separate occasions (baseline, midstudy, and poststudy).
Participants were randomly allocated into a strength and conditioning group (S&C; n = 8) and a comparison endurance-trainingonly group (EO; n = 8). During the first phase of the study (6 wk), the S&C group performed concurrent maximal strength and endurance training, while the EO group performed endurance-only training. After the retest of all variables (midstudy), both groups subsequently, during phase 2, performed another 6 wk of endurance-only training that was followed by poststudy tests.
No significant change for CV was identified in either group. The S&C group demonstrated a significant decrease for ARD values after phases 1 and 2 of the study. TT performances were significantly different in the S&C group after the intervention, with a performance improvement of 3.62%. This performance increase returned close to baseline after the 6-wk endurance-only training.
Combining a 6-wk resistance-training program with endurance training significantly improves 5-km TT performance. Removing strength training results in some loss of those performance improvements.
Jonathon Weakley, Kevin Till, John Sampson, Harry Banyard, Cedric Leduc, Kyle Wilson, Greg Roe, and Ben Jones
Athletes participating in sport are typically exposed to strength and conditioning programs. 1 – 3 In particular, strength and conditioning interventions often incorporate resistance training and plyometrics (eg, jump training), which are both safe and effective for the development of strength and
Hugh H.K. Fullagar, Robert McCunn, and Andrew Murray
this time to the present day. These include injury prevention, 3 , 4 concussion, 5 return-to-play injury characteristics, 6 , 7 analysis of strength and conditioning, 8 – 11 overall health 12 and wellbeing, and, most recently, the objective quantification of training and games. 13 – 15 Despite the
Hayden J. Pritchard, Matthew J. Barnes, Robin J. Stewart, Justin W. Keogh, and Michael R. McGuigan
was kept consistent for Condition B. Gym-Based Testing In order to establish training loads, participants performed 1RM testing, according to National Strength and Conditioning Association guidelines 15 for the 3 powerlifts (squat, bench press, and deadlift) within 1 week of the first testing session