Search

In January 2012, the National Athletic Trainers' Association, along with the National Strength and Conditioning Association, convened a meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Its purpose was to hold an interdisciplinary forum and gather input to address sudden death in collegiate conditioning sessions. Based on these discussions, a writing group drafted the following recommendations. To date, these best practices have been endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, American Osteopathic Academy of Sports Medicine, Canadian Athletic Therapists' Association, Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Coaches association, Gatorade Sports Science Institute, Korey Stringer Institute, National Academy of Sports Medicine, National Athletic Trainers' Association, and National Strength and Conditioning Association. Other reviewers and meeting participants are listed with the professional organizations they represent at the end of this article. Maximizing strength and conditioning sessions has become fundamental to sport. The right combination of strength, speed, cardiorespiratory fitness, and other components of athletic capacity can complement skill and enhance performance for all athletes. A sound and effective training program that relies on scientific principles of exercise physiology and biomechanics intended to produce outcomes that are sensitive and specific to the sport should be the goals. Unfortunately, the athlete's development, health, and safety are sometimes overshadowed by a culture that values making athletes tough, instilling discipline, and focusing on success at all costs. This ill-conceived philosophy has been a contributor to the alarming increase in collegiate athlete deaths and serious injuries during conditioning sessions. A total of 21 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football players have died during conditioning workouts since 2000.1 The 3 most common causes of the fatalities were (in order) exercise-related sudden death associated with sickle cell trait (SCT), exertional heat stroke, and cardiac conditions.1 Seventy-five percent of the fatalities (n = 16) were Division I football players. Also, the incidence of exertional rhabdomyolysis in collegiate athletes appears to be increasing. Excesses in strength training and conditioning—workouts that are too novel, too much, too soon, or too intense (or a combination of these)—have a strong connection to exertional rhabdomyolysis. Introducing full-intensity workouts too quickly is especially high risk: 11 of the 21 deaths occurred during day 1 or day 2 workouts. Rule changes enacted in 2003 related to heat acclimatization procedures during August football practices have been extremely effective. In the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision, no player died from practicing or playing in a game between 2000 and 2011. However, conditioning workouts continue to be a catalyst for catastrophic outcomes. It is imperative that similar guidelines be implemented to improve the safety of conditioning sessions. This consensus statement provides specific conditioning recommendations with the intent of ending conditioning-related morbidity and deaths of collegiate athletes.

Given the relationships among athlete workloads, injury1 and performance,2 athlete monitoring has become critical in the high-performance sporting environment. Sports medicine and science staff have a suite of monitoring tools available to track how much ‘work’ an athlete has performed, the response to that ‘work’ and whether the athlete is in a relative state of fitness or fatigue. The volume of literature, coupled with clever marketing around the ‘best approaches’ to optimising athlete performance, has resulted in practitioners having more choices than ever before. Furthermore, the range of different practices used in sport and the lack of agreement between parties emphasise the importance of having a clear rationale for athlete monitoring. The aim of this paper is to provide a practical guide to strategic planning, analysing, interpreting and applying athlete monitoring data in the sporting environment irrespective of data management software. When deciding on the athlete monitoring tools to use with your athletes, the first question one should ask is “What do I want to achieve through athlete monitoring?” Quite commonly, the answer is to maximise the positive effects (eg, fitness, readiness and performance) and minimise the negative effects (eg, excessive fatigue, injury and illness) of training. Once practitioners know the reasons for athlete monitoring, appropriate tools can be chosen in order to answer the athlete monitoring question. For example, if practitioners wish to maximise ‘fitness’ and minimise ‘fatigue’, then appropriate monitoring tools to measure these outcomes are necessary. Measurement of fitness improvements for a Premier League football player (eg, a Yo-Yo test) …

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a 7-week heavy elastic band and weighted-chain program on maximum muscular strength and maximum power in the bench press exercise. Thirty-six (n = 36) healthy men aged 18-30 years old, from the Robert Morris University football team, volunteered to participate in this study. During the first week, predicted 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and a 5RM speed bench press tests were conducted. Subjects were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 12): elastic band (EB), weighted chain (WC), and traditional bench (C). During weeks 2-8 of the study, subjects were required to follow the prescribed resistance training program. Mean and SD of the predicted 1RM bench press and 5RM speed bench press were computed. A two-factor (method X time) analysis was applied to identify significant differences between the training groups. Significance was set at alpha = 0.05. Results indicated a significant time (p < 0.05) but no group effect for both predicted 1RM (kg) and 5RM peak power tests (watts). Although not significant, results did show greater nonsignificant improvements in the EB (848-883 W) and WC groups (856-878 W) vs. control (918-928 W) when the 2 highest and greatest values were selected regarding peak power. The use of EB and WC in conjunction with a general off-season strength and conditioning program can increase overall maximum upper-body strength in a sample of Division 1-AA football players. These types of training modalities add a unique training style and more flexibility with respect to exercise prescription for athletes and strength practitioners.