Posted In: Strength & Conditioning
I hate starting new topics, because over the years we have touched on most everything you can talk about on this site. I tried to find an article on this, but couldn’t.
How often should I test athletes in the weightroom? Should I go every 4 weeks, or every eight weeks?
I usually test every 4th week. That seems to be the common train of though around here. The more interesting question to me is whether to test during a rest week or during the first week of the following work cycle.
ELITETRACK Founder
I concur with every 4 weeks. Sometimes it doesn’t hurt to wait longer especially during the competitive season when you may want to working testing around certain meets (I test on Fridays so sometimes I change the period I test) and sometimes it doesn’t hurt to do it in the 2nd or 3rd week either if you notice an athlete is just pounding the weights a little faster and a lot less fatigued (I have done this on occasion as well as those two signs/symptoms are common after a HUGE adaptation has occurred, but the athlete hasn’t sensed it).
Athletes i’ve been working with lately have been on a reverse loading system (90,80,70,50% load) with testing during the 4th week…and it has been working very well indeed…
This method kinda eliminates the issues of when’s best to test, they always seem to be more than ready to PR’s on the 4th week.
I generally don’t test (other than the actual competitions!) during the competitive season other than an occasional weight lifting test. By that point in time, I see the competitions as the only real measure that matters and I couldn’t care less if a field test value went down if the athlete was PRing in their actual event. The only reason I’d test in the weight room is because I use %s of max lifts as a general means of regulating intensity.
ELITETRACK Founder
I generally don’t test (other than the actual competitions!) during the competitive season other than an occasional weight lifting test. By that point in time, I see the competitions as the only real measure that matters and I couldn’t care less if a field test value went down if the athlete was PRing in their actual event. The only reason I’d test in the weight room is because I use %s of max lifts as a general means of regulating intensity.
I thought we were talking about the weight room in regards to testing and my post is only about weight testing, but I still think many coaches have workouts they consider “tests” on the track and I don’t want people confused about what I posted about weights for the track. I don’t really get a chance to test 60m until the start of the outdoor season for HS athletes and they do 2 of them one in March/April depending on weather and one in May to go along with a 30m test on the same day which happens to be a Monday when I am in the competitive season for those types of sprint tests, I test 30m’s about 4-5 times from Mid-Janurary to May (once in the first 2 weeks, once in the 3rd week of Feb, and maybe again in beginning of March). I also have SE runs that I consider a “test” or time trial of 300-350m that I run 4-5 times from Jan-May and these are done on Wednesday. I don’t believe I can gauge the effectiveness of training without some sort of testing going on throughout the season at regular periodic intervals. I don’t consider competition a test, because it is not, it is competition against others and not oneself as different factors affect competitions and tests. I do have some competitive workouts that I do with HS teams dealing with relays and I don’t do in the summertime.
I don’t consider competition a test, because it is not, it is competition against others and not oneself as different factors affect competitions and tests.
Isn’t it by it’s very nature the most applied form of testing there is. The fact that competitions have other variables is actually a benefit because it tests EVERYTHING that matters at one time. This is especially in field events or laned races.
For the workouts you’re talking about, I do have benchmark workouts that I can use as predictors to gauge training and monitor training but I wouldn’t consider them tests…just benchmark workouts. That’s more of a semantical issue though. I would say that if you let on that something is a test that it can induce a training stress that is beyond what you are planning on.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="dbandre" date="1232797797"]I don’t consider competition a test, because it is not, it is competition against others and not oneself as different factors affect competitions and tests.
Isn’t it by it’s very nature the most applied form of testing there is. The fact that competitions have other variables is actually a benefit because it tests EVERYTHING that matters at one time. This is especially in field events or laned races.
For the workouts you’re talking about, I do have benchmark workouts that I can use as predictors to gauge training and monitor training but I wouldn’t consider them tests…just benchmark workouts. That’s more of a semantical issue though. I would say that if you let on that something is a test that it can induce a training stress that is beyond what you are planning on.[/quote]
I respectively will agree to disagree on tests and competitions and the two be different. A coach has control over the Test environment, A coach doesn’t have control over the Competition environment. Practice, Test, Competition is my pedagogical model and while the academics may not like the Competition part they have yet to produce great results in the US school systems assessing student competencies in KSA’s through standardized testing because testing begets testing in that model.
Do you think the SAT scores matter when GPAs are low? I don’t. In my opinion the things you can’t control are testing the very things that are so important and can’t be ‘tested’ in the more sterile environment that you’re defining as the test environment.
ELITETRACK Founder
I usually test every 4th week. That seems to be the common train of though around here. The more interesting question to me is whether to test during a rest week or during the first week of the following work cycle.
First of all, it’s been a long time Mike. Glad to be back. I see ALOT has changed on the site.
Anyway, I’ve actually tried it both ways. I recently tried testing during the 1st week of the following work cycle, mainly because my theory is (and I’m pretty sure this is yours as well), give them that 4th week to unload, THEN test them, with the thought being you’d see even greater “performances” in the weights. To be honest, I haven’t tested enough this way to be able to give any kind of sound opinion. But as you said, it is a very interesting train of thought.
Here’s something that I’ve never put too much thought into until now. Hypothetically speaking, lets say a coach tested ONLY once a season. What are some of the effects (negative, or positive) you might come across?
Yeah, when I test after the rest week I usually see bigger results. Usually I don’t do it this way though because I feel it interrupts training more than I like. It’s really a personal preference though as I see benefits both ways. Likewise, I actually typically see best performances in a meet the week AFTER a rest week rather than the week of the rest week. Anyone else notice this?
ELITETRACK Founder
Here’s something that I’ve never put too much thought into until now. Hypothetically speaking, lets say a coach tested ONLY once a season. What are some of the effects (negative, or positive) you might come across?
I think you’d lose a lot of the value in testing. In fact, one of the main things I like to see is longitudinal data both over the course of a season but also over the course of an athlete’s career. With only one data point per year it would be hard to monitor training state, effectiveness of training (other than the preceding 4-6 weeks) and make comparisons against other athletes, previous seasons, previous cycles, etc.
Also, what would happen if it rained on that day? Or the athlete didn’t get a good night’s sleep? Or they they got sick? I run in to things like these all the time even with the most dedicated of athletes who center their entire life around training. It could be quite disheartening to the athlete, and meaningless to the coach if these other factors had a bigger impact on test results than the training and physical adaptations did.
ELITETRACK Founder
Do you think the SAT scores matter when GPAs are low? I don’t. In my opinion the things you can’t control are testing the very things that are so important and can’t be ‘tested’ in the more sterile environment that you’re defining as the test environment.
I think SAT scores are more reflective of intelligence than grades are. In fact, I know they are, I am actually proud of my 1.11 GPA in HS to go along with my perfect math/analytical SAT score. The only why I graduated HS was acing nearly all my tests, because I didn’t do homework and I didn’t go to class or when I did wasn’t paying attention, because I learned more outside of the classroom than I ever did in it. I didn’t learn to read, write, or do arithmetic in school I did all that before kindergarten. I learned from books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, thesaurus, speak and spell, speak and math, and mr. professor. I learned from observations as well. I wrote my first commercial software application when I was 15 a whole 20 years ago before I ever had a formal class in software. I was the first student in my computer science class in HS to program a graphics program that randomly plotted Sierpinski’s triangle and the class had the top 7 students in my class at graduation. I won this competition by 2 weeks, because it took me about 2 hours to write it and I did it in 3 computer languages (basic, pascal, and c) hoping it would get me extra credit (it didn’t).
So where in the world am I leading this to? Competition results are meaningful, but so are test results, but this begs the question of what was the practice to produce such results? Obviously in my experience the practice reflects the results of tests and competition and both tests and competition are needed to assess what changes must be made in practice. However, the assessed practice in school was reflected in GPA which means absolutely nothing, the SAT score is more significant because it reflects the ability to perform at that moment in time. Any rational person can look at high SAT and low GPA and come to one conclusion the school environment did not meet my needs and I looked elsewhere for knowledge. The most common professional opinion I received from teachers and a school psychologist was I lazy, insubordinate, and have ADD. Only one professional didn’t agree with these assessments and knew what made me tick. My GPA in college is strikingly different from HS because of how they grade, but I still had some troubles as I would spend roughly 20-30 hours a week in the Library reading and copying works completely unrelated to school work and I did papers the night before they were due for the most part.
Yeah, when I test after the rest week I usually see bigger results. Usually I don’t do it this way though because I feel it interrupts training more than I like. It’s really a personal preference though as I see benefits both ways. Likewise, I actually typically see best performances in a meet the week AFTER a rest week rather than the week of the rest week. Anyone else notice this?
I see it every year in HS girl athletes at honor roll meets in preceding 2-3 days after the girls state meet and before the boys state meet in Illinois. The boys suffer at the honor roll meet and roll at the state meet or they roll at the honor roll meet and suffer at the state meet.
I pretty much agree with all you said but I think you’re post echos what I’m trying to say. Schools use SATs to measure potential success at the school and whether a student will be able to stay enrolled at a school. The very fact that you saw this disconnect (as there is with field tests and competitions) indicates that the SAT isn’t nearly as important (for the purposes of the school) as it was once believed to be. The same can be said for field tests. I don’t give 2 craps whether a kid can’t break 3.9 for 30m, do off-the-charts multi-throws, and is weaker than a twig if he can run 10.2….because in my mind, the 10.2 is really the only thing that ultimately matters. All those other numbers are subservient to that one (or whatever the comp eval is). Note that I say all that being one of the biggest ‘test-junkies’ around.
ELITETRACK Founder
I pretty much agree with all you said but I think you’re post echos what I’m trying to say. Schools use SATs to measure potential success at the school and whether a student will be able to stay enrolled at a school. The very fact that you saw this disconnect (as there is with field tests and competitions) indicates that the SAT isn’t nearly as important (for the purposes of the school) as it was once believed to be. The same can be said for field tests. I don’t give 2 craps whether a kid can’t break 3.9 for 30m, do off-the-charts multi-throws, and is weaker than a twig if he can run 10.2….because in my mind, the 10.2 is really the only thing that ultimately matters. All those other numbers are subservient to that one (or whatever the comp eval is). Note that I say all that being one of the biggest ‘test-junkies’ around.
I guess my point really is the SAT > GPA and when factored together they mean nothing without the motivation, feedback, and practice that allowed them occur and they don’t correlate well with each other either, yes better grades tend to score higher, but GPA is not a limiting factor in one abilities to score well nor do they express current abilities well. My biggest problem in school and quite possibly is my biggest character flaw next to passion is competitiveness, but both are strengths so I don’t limit them. I never looked at school as a place to get good grades, and its not, the purpose of a school is an environment to learn in (such as a practice is).
However, for myself school limited my learning environment or ability to practice what I deemed necessary to learn. To me the only thing competitive in school was being as smart or smarter than the teacher or aspiring to that goal. This troubled my mathematics teachers to no end as I can just see things and know the answer, not like a savant such as Rainmain nor like Goodwill Hunting, but I harldy ever needed scratch paper and never showed work and I fully expected to receive no credit if I answered wrong. This served me well on the Standardized tests in math to include the SAT, because you don’t get partial credit on those tests and it hurt most other students.
Relating this back to track and field and even how I would hire potential employees is the one who can compete better is who I would choose to pick up. This doesn’t mean I would automatically take a 10.2 over 10.5 in track. The 10.2 is world’s apart, but when did 10.2 get to 10.5? If it was 4 years ago and he was at 10.2 last year and the 10.5 was at 10.8 last year then the 10.5 deserves serious consideration especially if there is a huge maturation difference. I could maybe get the 10.2 to 10.0, but I would think I had the same chance to get the 10.5 to 10.0 and most likely at a faster rate. What is needed is background information regarding the development of the student or the athlete or the potential employee. How did they get to were they are now? However, that’s not what a coach/teacher/employer is doing with an athlete/student/employee when they under their charge. Which leads us to the purpose of testing, its a way to gauge an aspect of training and what has been learned. Competition is the public result of performing the work at hand, but proof lies in the testing and practice and if someone’s tests show deficiencies which likely hinder performance capabilities despite the great competition results wouldn’t one reassess the training structure (practice) in a way which minimizes the deficiency while not hurting the competition result?
On a side note, I truly believe most public school classrooms and schools need more competition in the school environment. They also need to be less restrictive and allow greater creativity as well while interlocking interdisciplinary subjects like math/science/PE and english/social sciences and both of those groups to business and fine arts. I also believe teacher certification and C&I courses are the biggest hogwash next to fitness/personal trainer certifications as well as most licensed professions to include doctors.
[quote author="DaGovernor" date="1232801809"]Here’s something that I’ve never put too much thought into until now. Hypothetically speaking, lets say a coach tested ONLY once a season. What are some of the effects (negative, or positive) you might come across?
I think you’d lose a lot of the value in testing. In fact, one of the main things I like to see is longitudinal data both over the course of a season but also over the course of an athlete’s career. With only one data point per year it would be hard to monitor training state, effectiveness of training (other than the preceding 4-6 weeks) and make comparisons against other athletes, previous seasons, previous cycles, etc.
Also, what would happen if it rained on that day? Or the athlete didn’t get a good night’s sleep? Or they they got sick? I run in to things like these all the time even with the most dedicated of athletes who center their entire life around training. It could be quite disheartening to the athlete, and meaningless to the coach if these other factors had a bigger impact on test results than the training and physical adaptations did.[/quote]
Is it possible that the weight workouts start to have different effects than originally intended? For example, a 6 x 3 squat session at 85-90%. Four months later, you’re still doing a 6 x 3 squat session at 85-90%. Perhaps, because of almost certain strength gains at this point, would it not become, theoretically, a 75-80% session? Thoughts?
Yes of course…my max during week one is 80% of what it is now…
and is now performed for a different reason than it was before…
Yes of course…my max during week one is 80% of what it is now…
and is now performed for a different reason than it was before…
Ok, so IF. . . IF this is true (not agreeing OR disagreeing with you), then what are some effects you may see from this happening?
Well, first off, i am now able to move this weight much faster than i was 4 months ago…So power has increased a lot and a lot of neural development has take place…
I don’t understand why you IF this has happened…it did happen. I even figured it out on a calculator 😉
Don’t pay any attention to that. I ALWAYS do that. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe it.
Also, when I asked about possible effects, I meant those effects from not testing regularly. Thoughts?
Here’s the thing. Last season I had an athlete, suddenly become very stiff and actually LOST flexibility. Absolute strength continued to increase though. I’ve thought long and hard about why this may have happened. Hence why I started this topic in the first place.
I agree with testing every 3 or 4 weeks. I have done both where I would test the week before the unloading week and I’ve also tested following the unloading week and sometimes during. However it was more of a rep max self test. I had great success with this program. I remember coming back for the unloading week and being wasted. Those weeks were always very difficult because of the toll I had put on my body the previous week. Everytime I came back to start the cycle again I was fresh and made more gains. It was a 12 week summer program and the final week we tested out for our 1 rep maxes. I have had great experience with that type of format.
When I was bobsledding I was unable to hit the numbers that I hit in this program and I was 15 lbs lighter. I always felt really gassed when it came time to test when I was bobsledding. The program that I had success with was one from from the same sport as the other, but from a different strength coach. One at the Olympic Training Center. The program I didn’t have success was with the strength coach who was with the National Team.
I actually have the workouts still and could post them. I would probably be easier to explain.
Weeks 1-4
Weeks 5-8
Weeks 9-12
There is also a sprint training portion to this program as well.
Just trying to start this topic up again…
Last season I had an athlete, suddenly become very stiff and actually LOST flexibility. Absolute strength continued to increase though. I’ve thought long and hard about why this may have happened. Anyone have any opinions as to why this may have occurred?
Did you eliminate flexibility work? Did she put on body mass? Increased body mass has been correlated with decreased flexibility.
ELITETRACK Founder
Did you eliminate flexibility work? Did she put on body mass? Increased body mass has been correlated with decreased flexibility.
She did in fact put on body mass. We did not eliminate, nor even decrease flexibility work.
Definitely the body mass to blame.
ELITETRACK Founder
Definitely the body mass to blame.
Ok, well the million dollar question is, what can you do to get rid of this increase in body mass?
Cut calories, change macronutrient ratios (probably shifted to more protein, eliminate sugars, etc) and do activity throughout the day to boost metabolism.
The real question is if she’s stronger and faster why do you care about flexibility? Is it limiting performance somehow?
ELITETRACK Founder
Cut calories, change macronutrient ratios (probably shifted to more protein, eliminate sugars, etc) and do activity throughout the day to boost metabolism.
The real question is if she’s stronger and faster why do you care about flexibility? Is it limiting performance somehow?
She’s definitely stronger, but I’m not sure if she’s faster or not. She’s had lots of other issues that hasn’t allowed her to train as consistently, so I can’t say for sure if she’s faster or not.