The evaluation of specific tests and standards related to a sport is a crucial part of developing a periodized training plan (79). These evaluations need to be organized, systematic, and consistently performed across the annual training plan to garner detailed information about the athlete’s progress. Monitoring training by using tests and standards provides the coach an objective means with which to quantify the athlete’s evolution, potential for stagnation, or risk of performance deterioration. By monitoring training, the coach can evaluate the dose–response relationship and thus optimize the training load to help the athlete achieve optimal performance at the appropriate time (79).
An athlete monitoring program can include specific physical tests that are peri- odically performed by the athlete to evaluate markers of the athlete’s progress (see bottom of this page). More specific testing can be used to identify the athlete’s strengths and weakness. Test results are then evaluated in relation to established performance standards. To ensure the effectiveness of a testing battery, the tests used must be valid (measure what they are supposed to measure), reliable (repeatable), and related to factors that affect the actual competitive performance. To truly under- stand the athlete’s status, the coach must select diverse tests that evaluate more than just competitive performance results (66). For example, swimming performance is affected by basic speed, stroke mechanics, and start and turning ability. In addition, physiological factors such as anaerobic power and capacity, muscle power and flex- ibility, and basic and specific endurance affect swimming performance (66). Actual swim performance should also be evaluated, but time should not be the only focus. The coach should examine technical proficiency in conjunction with a competitive performance to gain insight into the athlete’s progress (66). Therefore, to monitor a swimmer’s preparation, the coach should periodically use tests that address these factors. A large amount of research has been conducted that correlates specific tests
MOCk: Modified from Mujika and Padilla (49)
mAIn oBjeCTIveS of The TeSTS ConTAIned
In An AThleTe monITorIng ProgrAm
• to determine appropriate standards in all training factors
• to evaluate and develop psychological attri- butes or traits
• to evaluate the athlete’s potential for over- training
• to monitor the dose–response relationship in the training plan
• to monitor the athlete’s rate of improve- ment in specific biomotor abilities or skills • to determine skill status and ability level,
which can then be used to guide training • to determine the athlete’s training content • to determine the athlete’s strengths, weak-
nesses, and limitations
• to test improvement in tactical skills or maneuvers
• to evaluate body mechanics and movement skill
Human
with performance in specific sporting activities, and this research can be used to establish performance-based testing procedures.
The testing battery should be based on metabolic specificity (bioenergetics), sport specificity (biomechanical or movement pattern), and the athlete’s training status (25). Athletes should be familiarized with the testing procedures but should not directly train to master the test because this distorts the evaluative ability of the test. Obviously, the test may contain an activity that is germane to the training process and is frequently encountered during the training plan. For example, a common exercise used to train lower-body strength is the back squat, and this same exercise is often used to evaluate lower-body strength. So in this instance an athlete would train the back squat to develop leg strength and use a 1RM test with the back squat to evaluate maximal strength.
The testing battery should be concise (4-8 performance tests) and the tests should be highly related to the sport in question (20, 28, 33, 75-77). For example, Stone and colleagues (75) reported that maximal strength as assessed by the snatch and iso- metric midthigh pull is strongly related to both shot put– and weight bag–throwing ability in university throwers. Therefore, it makes sense to evaluate maximal strength throughout the annual training plan of university throwers. Haff and colleagues (21) used a biweekly testing battery that included assessments of body mass, body fat, lean body mass, hormonal responses to training, and force–time curve characteristics (peak force, rate of force development with isometric and dynamic movements) in elite women weightlifters. The testing battery was simple to perform, and changes in the force–time curve characteristics were related to the training plan. Interestingly, the maximization of peak force and peak rate of force development were shown to be related to weightlifting performance (20). Thus, this simple battery of tests was able to differentiate the level of preparedness of these athletes.
The tests used across the annual training plan and the dates of testing should be decided when the coach constructs the annual training plan. The first tests should occur during the first microcycle of the preparatory phase. By conducting the test at this time, the coach can determine the athlete’s level of preparation and make any modifications to the annual training plan. Each macrocycle targets specific objectives, and testing can be conducted to determine whether these objectives are accomplished. Therefore, some form of testing should be conducted during 1 or 2 days at the end of each preparatory phase and precompetitive subphase macrocycle. This is done to evaluate the athlete’s preparatory status during these phases. If the test results reveal consistent improvement, the original training structure should be maintained. Conversely, if the results indicate stagnation or decrease in the spe- cific test measures, then the coach may need to modify the next training cycle. The coach must be careful when evaluating testing data, because the phase of training may cause expected decreases in specific performance characteristics. For example, during the general preparation phase where training volume, work load, and fatigue are the highest, one might suspect declines in markers of maximal power-generating capacity (71, 79). On the other hand, during the competitive phase one would expect elevations in power-generating capacity. During the competitive phase of the annual training plan, testing sessions should be planned only if the time between two com- petitions is 4 to 5 weeks. During this phase the competitions themselves provide ideal opportunities to evaluate the athlete’s training status. Regardless of which phase of the annual training plan the testing sessions occur in, the coach must keep detailed records about the athlete’s test results. The more organized the data, the easier it is
Human
to perform a longitudinal analysis of the athlete’s rate of improvement and adapta- tion to the training plan.
In the written plan, the coach should indicate the test for each training factor using different colors or symbols. The coach should establish standards for each test, especially for physical and technical factors, while compiling the annual plan. Standards from the previous training year can serve as reference points for achiev- ing each standard. This progression should reflect the athlete’s rate of improvement and level of adaptation to the program. For novice athletes who are just beginning a structured training program, the results of the first testing session can be used as the reference point for further planning.
The coach must be careful when establishing standards because they provide incen- tives for preparation and progress. Standards must present a challenge but also must be realistic enough that the athlete can achieve them. For athletes who are aiming for high levels of performance, the standards must resemble those of other top ath- letes. There are two types of standards: Evolutionary standards are slightly superior to the athlete’s potential and stimulate increases in performance, and maintenance standards that aim to preserve an optimal level of preparation. The time frame of training that progresses the athlete toward these standards should include a maxi- mum of two macrocycles between each testing period. If the athlete has not achieved the standard within two macrocycles, the coach must determine why. For simplicity, the results of the tests and standards can be presented in a tabular format (table 6.9).