Monitoring training part I - can't see the wood for the trees

Monitoring training is something I have gone over in this blog before, but thought you guys deserved a more in depth look into this very important subject. Please be sure to also check part II and part III of this blog post.

There is a tremendous amount of information out there investigating the intricate details of subjects such as periodization, Olympic Weightlifting, and movement screening. Seeking perfection in these areas may not be a bad thing, but I cannot help but think that it is a bit pointless going for the elusive 5% when major percentages may be "leaking out" when training isn't monitored.

Some team situations mean that the strength and conditioning coach (SCC) may have an influence into all areas of training, but the majority of SCCs (in the US college setting, for example), only have influence inside the weight room. This makes it natural to focus on what is happening in the weight room. However, the right exercise, at the right time, in the right program may well become the wrong exercise, at the wrong time, in the wrong program if things are off-plan elsewhere (the sport coaches turning a light session into physical punishment, for example).

An example of the team sport scientist would be Raymond Verheijen and the work he is doing for the South Korean football team in preparation for the World Cup. Everything is monitored, evaluated, and adjusted appropriately. This is one end of the spectrum, however. The support and influence Verheijen has with Manager Huh Jung-moo, along with appropriate funding/equipment, and his expertise makes his influence very enviable. If you are on twitter, you can get updates on South Korea's training from Raymond Verheijen (@raymondverheije).

The South Koreans may not seem as athletically developed as
other teams in the typical sense, but their preparation for major
tournaments has helped them punch above their weight

Doing all of this is impossible for the collegiate SCC who works with multiple teams and authoritarian style coaches. Being solely consigned to the weight room, however, makes some kind of monitoring even more important as the SCC is not able to see what is going on in team training to even make a subjective assessment. A "ideal" or "optimal" program in the weight room cannot exist without having a an assessment of what is happening elsewhere. We are talking big picture here - the saying "can't see the wood for the trees" comes to mind. Without looking at the whole scheme of things, perfect elements to training may well just be part of a global training set up that is heading in the wrong direction.

Monitoring training, is just one piece in the testing & monitoring puzzle:

Medical & movement screening

Performance testing 

Anthropometrical testing

Athlete monitoring (lifestyle factors, nutrition, etc.)

Monitoring training

Match analysis (pro zone, GPS, etc.)

This post is just about monitoring training, but it is important to understand how this fits in with everything else. When concerning training, there are many different measures that can be taken:

Heart rate monitoring: The aerobic systems response to exercise. Max heart rate, heart rate recovery, average heart rate during a rep, set, session. Time in zones & loading / TRaining IMPulse (TRIMP). Widely used in team and individual settings.

GPS: Top speed, speed decrements, average speed in a rep, set, or session. Total distance, & movement tracking. Some concerns over the accuracy of GPS systems have been brought up of late, but it is widely used in elite sport.

Local Positioning Measurement (LPM): Similar features to GPS but uses antennas set up in the location of training to take measurements. Inmotio produce a system that is currently used by Bayern Munich and South Korea. Pricey!

Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE): Subjective data that can be taken to get the athletes feelings on the sessions intensity, and volume. Can manipulate data to get monotony and strain. Some sport scientists do not value RPEs, but I feel it is a useful tool as what the athlete feels is important. Part II will focus on this. Also you can look up the work of Carl Foster for more info.

Weight room monitoring: Volume and intensity can be calculated fairly easily by analyzing the numbers. Also accelerometry can help assess speed and power output during movements in the gym and on the field. Accuracy still seems to be an issue with accelerometry, but reliability is high.

Other measures: Lactate, testosterone, cortisol, hydration, heart rate variability can be indicators of training status.

What makes a light session, a light session? Or a heavy session,
a heavy session? How do you plan, measure, evaluate, and adjust this?

Now having all of the equipment, numbers, and spread sheets in the world may well make a sport scientist feel great, it won't do anything to improve performance unless it is analyzed and evaluated. Following this, adjustments (or no adjustments) may be appropriate.

As I said above, if you are a personal trainer working with a few individual athletes, or a collegiate SCC facing the challenge of hundreds of athletes each day, the monitoring methods above may not be logistically possible. I did, however, want to illustrate what can be done in the ideal situation. 

Part II focuses on a simple method of monitoring training. Using a modified Borg scale, as suggested in the work of Carl Foster of the University of Wisconsin Lacrosse, can be useful to both sport coaches and strength and conditioning coaches. RPE may not the best method scientifically, but if you are able to implement some of the suggestions in the next part, you may better realize the importance of monitoring all aspects of training and set up some form of athlete monitoring program to help you with your athletes. It can also assist you educate the sports coaches, and negotiate certain principles with them.