RESUMEN
This study was designed to provide an overview of weightlifting performance as a function of age group and sex and evaluate the potential of countermovement jump height (CMJH) as a tool to gauge performance potential. Data from 130 youth athletes (female, n = 65 & male, n = 65) were used to examine progression of performance (Total and Sinclair total) and the relationship between CMJH and Sinclair total while considering interactions between CMJH and age and/or sex. ANOVAs with post hoc analyses revealed that both totals had a statistical first-order polynomial interaction effect between age group and sex and the difference between age groups of 12-13 and 14-15 years old was statistically greater for male than female. A linear model, developed to examine the relationship, revealed that CMJH and CMJH x sex x age rejected the null hypothesis. Our primary findings are that male youth weightlifters have a higher rate of performance progression, possibly owing to puberty, and CMJH may be a better gauging tool for older male youth weightlifters.
RESUMEN
Ideally an athlete would continue to improve performance indefinitely over time, however improvement slows as the athlete approaches their genetic limits. Measuring performance is complex-performance may be temporarily depressed following aggressive training for multiple reasons, physiological and psychosocial. This reality may be vexing to the strength and conditioning coach, who, as a service provider, must answer to sport coaches about an athlete's progress. Recently an evaluation mechanism for strength and conditioning coaches was proposed, in part to help coaches establish their effectiveness within the organization. Without formal guidance and realistic expectations, if an athlete is not bigger, leaner, stronger, etc. as a result of training within a specified timeframe, blame is often placed upon the strength and conditioning coach. The purpose of this article is to explore possible causes of what may be perceived as athlete non-responses to training and to provide guidance for the coach on how to handle those issues within their domain. A process of investigation is recommended, along with resources to assist coaches as they consider a broad range of issues, including enhancing existing testing methods, improving athlete behaviors, and adjusting processes designed to bring about performance improvement.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT: Stone, MH, Hornsby, WG, Haff, GG, Fry, AC, Suarez, DG, Liu, J, Gonzalez-Rave, JM, and Pierce, KC. Periodization and block periodization in sports: emphasis on strength-power training-a provocative and challenging narrative. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2351-2371, 2021-Periodization can be defined as a logical sequential, phasic method of manipulating fitness and recovery phases to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for nonfunctional over-reaching, overtraining, and injury. Periodization deals with the micromanagement of timelines and fitness phases and is cyclic in nature. On the other hand, programming deals with the micromanagement of the training process and deals with exercise selection, volume, intensity, etc. Evidence indicates that a periodized training process coupled with appropriate programming can produce superior athletic enhancement compared with nonperiodized process. There are 2 models of periodization, traditional and block. Traditional can take different forms (i.e., reverse). Block periodization has 2 subtypes, single goal or factor (individual sports) and multiple goals or factors (team sports). Both models have strengths and weaknesses but can be "tailored" through creative programming to produce excellent results for specific sports.
