Program v22.0

Take home message

Review and critically analyse program design

For Coaches

Critically analyse every exercise to maximise training whilst trying to keep programming fresh and engaging.

For Athletes

Biological training principles to improve performance are timeless. Embrace the basics.

The start of a new year or season involves a lot of planning of the cycle ahead (competitions, goals, etc) and a review - what worked and what didn’t. I also spend a bit of time thinking of new ways to present information.  I'm a reasonably simple and boring person (as my diet, haircut and wardrobe indicate).  I believe the principles of training (intensity, overload, reversibility, specificity) don't change from season to season. However, I've come to learn (albeit it a bit slowly), that my athletes do need change.  

As much as it might be new technology or a new training protocol, it can be as subtle and important as the presentation of the program or session.  From a gym perspective, the system is fresh to the new players and the young ones may still be enjoying good progress but experienced players going around again, like to know that a new layer is being added.  The senior players want to grow and evolve, even whilst principles remain the same.  Experienced athletes are a really good reason to consider new strategies.  It is also important to reinvigorate me too. Yes, I still use Excel for my programming (slow on the uptake of these modern cloud based platforms. Oh, for the good old days before phones in the gym!), but subtle tweaks to presentation can be refreshing for everyone.

During my rugby days, there were on average between 3-5 gym sessions per week. In that setting, variety was perhaps a little more important from a psychological perspective to ensure sessions were engaging and not repetitive. Now in hockey, we generally have two sessions per week (although the competition and travel schedule drastically influence this). Whilst player engagement still needs to be high, the fewer sessions per week decreases the risk of monotony, but increases the risk of trying to do too much, too many exercises and a long session.

Like most students in class at school or uni, I find mental concentration and physical energy in a gym session can start to fade between 40-45mins, no matter how inspired and motivated the athletes are, particuarly with multiple training sessions per day, so what is programmed late in a gym session can have questionable impact. I am very aware of having too much in my program to maximise athlete intensity. I hate having my time wasted and I am not about to waste time of the athletes I work with. I feel it also helps build trust and engagement with players. I respect their time and devotion, and I program accordingly. If I don’t believe 100% in their program, how will they?

I would encourage coaches to consider the presentation of their program to be important - is it engaging? Further, you should critically assess every component. In the context of the program/session, does every exercise have a purpose that will drive adaptation?