Search

The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of creatine use along with the perceived benefits and barriers of creatine use among collegiate athletes who participate in throwing events within the sport of track and field. A total of 258 throwers from National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I institutions completed an online survey regarding creatine. The results provided baseline levels of creatine use and allowed for the analysis of factors related to athletic conference affiliation. Results indicate that creatine use remains to be a common (32.7%) practice among throwers with significantly higher levels of use among Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conference athletes (44.6%) than Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) conference athletes (28.8%), χ² = 5.505, p = 0.019. The most common reasons for using creatine included a desire to improve/increase: strength (83.3%), recovery time (69.0%), and performance (60.7%). The most common perceived obstacles included contamination/quality control (39.5%), cost (33.3%), inconvenience (16.7%), and cramping (14.3%). A desire for additional education and training was noted through an expression of interest (55.6%) with significantly higher levels of interest from FBS athletes (65.6%) than FCS athletes (52.2%), χ² = 6.425, p = 0.039. However, the athletic departments provide nutritional supplement counseling at only 26.6% of the schools. Although the access to full-time nutritionist counsel was available at 57.3% of the schools, there was a significant difference (χ² = 9.096, p = 0.003) between FBS schools (73.7%) and FCS schools (51.7%).

Strength and conditioning training programs are essential components of athletic performance, and the effectiveness of these programs can be linked to the strength and conditioning facilities (SCFs) used by athletes. The primary purpose of this study was to provide a statistical overview of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I SCFs, equipment and maintenance budget, and the relationship between SCF budget and staffing space, and equipment. The secondary purpose was to note differences in SCFs between those schools with and without football programs. An 84-item online survey instrument, developed with expert input from certified strength professionals, was used to collect data regarding the SCFs in NCAA Division I universities. A total of 110 valid and complete surveys were returned for a response rate of 38.6%. Results of Pearson's χ2 analysis demonstrated that the larger reported annual equipment budgets were associated with larger SCFs (χ2 = 451.4, p ≤ 0.001), greater maximum safe capacity of athletes using the facility (χ2 = 366.9, p ≤ 0.001), increased numbers of full-time coaches (χ2 = 224.2, p ≤ 0.001), and increased number of graduate assistant or intern coaches (χ2 = 102.9, p ≤ 0.001). Based on these data, it can be suggested to athletic administrators and strength and conditioning professionals at the collegiate level that budgets need to be re-evaluated as the number of personnel available to monitor student-athletes and the size and safe capacity of the facility are related to the ability of the strength and conditioning staff to safely and adequately perform their duties.

The purpose of this study is to determine the pre- and postactivity stretching practices of Division I, II, and III track and field throws programs. A 33-item survey instrument was developed to collect data regarding the warm-up and flexibility practices at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I (n = 320), Division II (n = 175), and Division III (n = 275) universities. A total of 135 surveys were completed for a 17.5% return rate, and although the response rate was generally low, it did mirror the distribution percentages of the 3 divisions. Significant differences were found for the level of United States Track and Field (USATF) certification and the use of static stretching (SS) between throws (χ = 6.333, p = 0.048). Significance was also found for the USATF certification level and athletic trainer (AT) assistance in performing SS (χ = 13.598, p = 0.01). Significant differences were also found for the NCAA division levels and the use of soft tissue mobilization (χ = 5.913, p = 0.026). Although research supports dynamic warm-up/stretching over other forms of preactivity protocols, it seems that some track-and-field throws coaches are reluctant to completely discontinue preactivity SS. The results of this study suggest that it is necessary for track and field throws coaches to reevaluate their own practices, perhaps better aligning them with current research findings.

This study sought to determine the effectiveness of coach certification courses in promoting proper preactivity and postactivity stretching practices in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, and III crosscountry programs. Distribution of questionnaires to 770 NCAA Division I, Division II, and Division III programs in the U.S.A. resulted in 111 coaches (88 [78.2%] men and 25 [21.8%] women) participating. Chi-square analyses revealed that noncertified coaches reported significantly greater (χ² = 21.582, p = 0.0174) usage of static stretching alone as their preactivity modality (18.9%, n = 9) vs. their certified counterparts (1.8%, n = 1). In addition, certified coaches reported a higher usage of dynamic flexibility only during the preactivity period (47.4%, n = 27) vs. their noncertified peers (32.4%, n = 16). Coaches were also asked if they allowed for static stretching between interval work and events in track and field, and a significantly higher percentage (χ² = 11.948, p = 0.0177) of noncertified coaches (45.5%, n = 23) reported allowing the athletes to perform static stretches between intervals at practice than certified peers (37.9%, n = 22). These significant differences help demonstrate that coaching certification courses are an effective tool for communicating current information about stretching practices. However, the results also revealed that there are still many certified coaches who are not implementing best practices in preactivity routines.

The rapid growth and expanding use of high school strength and conditioning facilities (SCFs) creates a need to research and better understand these vital facilities. This study was designed to examine SCFs at the high school level including facility size, equipment, leadership/staffing, and safety. A 70-item online survey instrument, developed with expert input from certified strength professionals, was used to collect data regarding the SCFs in high schools throughout a midwestern state, and was distributed via email to a total of 390 high school athletic directors. Survey respondents (n = 108) all reported the presence of SCFs with 95.4% indicating a dedicated SCF space. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.610, p ≤ 0.001) was determined between the variables of SCF size in square feet and school size measured by total enrollment. Analysis of variance and χ² analyses revealed significant differences in equipment, facility size, and safety factors based on the categorical variables of school size and the presence of certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) leadership. It appears the CSCS's application of their scientific knowledge goes beyond training athletes for the goal of improving athletic performance to actually influence the SCF itself. Athletic administrators at the high school level need to recognize the impact CSCS program leadership can have on the overall quality of the strength and conditioning program and facility.