Abstract
Introduction: Resistance training is often included in an athlete’s training plan to improve performance and prevent injuries. When athletes travel for competition or training, normal resistance training may be interrupted, resulting in muscular de-training. However, it is not clear how practitioners typically prescribe resistance training during periods of travel. This study surveyed strength and conditioning coaches to investigate the prescription of, and barriers to, implementing resistance training for athletes during travel.
Methods:
An anonymous survey was shared online and via email to sporting organisations and athlete training facilities targeting strength and conditioning coaches. The survey consisted of 48 open and closed questions about resistance training during the highest load period, resistance training prescription during travel, and barriers to resistance training during travel. Thirty-six participants completed the survey and indicated their athletes travelled for sport. Qualitative data were analysed via content analysis, and frequencies were calculated for all variables. Paired samples t-tests comparing training practices between the highest load period and travel were calculated. Data were analysed via SPSS (v 29.0).
Results:
Of the 36 participants, several did not finish the survey but all completed answers were used for analysis. Twenty-eight (77.8%) participants indicated they prescribed resistance training during travel with 8 (22.2%) indicating no resistance training prescribed. Amount of travel was ≥21 days per year for 9 (45%) responders, with 5 (25%) indicating 11-20 days and 6 (30%) indicating ≤10 days of travel. The longest duration of each trip was ≤7 days for 10 (28.6%), 8 to 14 days for 3 (8.6%), 15 to 21 days for 4 (11.4%), ≥29 days for 2 (5.7%) responders. Significantly fewer resistance training sessions were prescribed during travel compared to during a high load period (mean: 1.84 sessions in travel vs. 3.14 sessions in high load, p<0.001). Resistance training volume (sets and repetitions) was reduced by 18 (72%) coaches during travel, while intensity was also decreased by 12 (57.1%) coaches compared to their highest load period. Nineteen participants indicated barriers to resistance training during travel, with the most common being facility availability (9 responses, 47.37%) logistic problems (6, 31.58%), inadequate equipment availability (4, 21.05%), or other reasons (3, 15.79%).
Discussion:
This study examined resistance training prescription and barriers during travel in athletes. Some common barriers to resistance training prescription during travel included a lack of facilities, difficulty with scheduling and lack of equipment availability. These barriers may have contributed to the observation that frequency, volume, and intensity of resistance training is generally decreased during this time. In addition to these barriers, reasons for travel such as competition or tapering may also result in the decrease in training stimulus. Without careful planning, travel may result in a sub-optimal resistance training stimulus.
Impact/Application to the field:
This research provides insight into the resistance training prescription of strength and conditioning coaches while travelling which may have an impact on an athlete’s physical performance.
Declaration:
My co-authors and I acknowledge that we have no conflict of interest of relevance to the submission of this abstract.