Many athletes, coaches, and support personnel are adopting a more scientific approach to training, program design and monitoring. This new field of sports science is developing at a rapid rate as teams continue to search for the leading edge over their competition. A topic of interest currently is assessing athlete readiness and response to fatigue. Collecting data such as this may help determine if an athlete is appropriately adjusting to a training program and therefore could reduce the danger of overtraining, sickness, and/or injury. Furthermore, this objective data can be used to autoregulate training sessions based on the individual athlete's needs. A variety of possible markers are available for usage to acquire an understanding of the training load and its effect on the athlete. However, only a few of these indicators are backed by significant scientific data. In both individual and team sports, the countermovement jump (CMJ) is one of the most often used measures for measuring neuromuscular status. CMJ performance has been proven to be an objective marker of fatigue and supercompensation by several researchers (1)(2). Nevertheless, the topic is still somewhat new with inconsistent findings when using CMJ measures (3). A mix of general and specific variables might be to blame for the discrepancy in results. The demographic, the type of intervention, the duration of the intervention, and the intensity of the activity performed are all examples of general variables. The reporting of a variety of kinematic and kinetic variables (e.g. jump height, peak power, relative peak power, relative power, mean power, peak velocity, peak force, mean force, rate of force development, eccentric time/concentric time, flight time/eccentric time, and flight time/contraction time using an unloaded and/or loaded CMJ) are among the specific CMJ performance factors. This article will provide a method for utilizing the CMJ to assess athlete readiness with examples of how to autoregulate the training session based on the readiness results.
Traditionally, strength training programming intensity and volume are usually based on a percentage of a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for a specific exercise, this is called fixed loading. This has shown to be an effective method for increasing strength however it comes with many disadvantages specifically for athletes. Fixed loading does not account for the daily changes in our physiology such as sleep, nutrition, injuries and the stress endured from training and competition. As a strength and conditioning coach, I’ve seen this method fail many times due to fatigue which can drastically affect strength levels. Another issue with fixed loading is missed training sessions. If you miss a session should you repeat that session next week while continuing with the other training days or should you continue to progressively overload the weight which could be dangerous depending on how adapted you are to those exercises? In response to these issues and more, autoregulation methods were developed to manipulate training volume and intensity to better suit the needs of the individual (4). One example of this is the readiness stoplight system.
The readiness stoplight system assesses an athlete's recovery or readiness to train by utilizing the CMJ. The idea is that before each lift, each athlete will perform three CMJs of which the average will be taken and used to determine how recovered and ready the athlete is for the session. This method was created based on the research and notion that CMJs are associated with neuromuscular fatigue (1). This readiness and recovery is determined by establishing a rolling baseline typically a month-long for their CMJ performance. If the athlete exceeds this baseline by 10% they are given a green light to proceed with training as usual or exceed the intensity prescribed if they are interested. If the athlete is + or - less than 10% they are given a yellow light to proceed with training as usual. Lastly, if the athlete is greater than -10% they are given a red light which provides grounds for a discussion between the strength and conditioning staff and the athlete. It’s critical in this step that the athlete has some autonomy as to what happens to them. If the athlete feels fine and wishes to proceed with training as normal they are welcome to do so. If the athlete explains they are feeling fatigued for whatever reasons then the training session is adjusted most commonly in the form of reduced volume and or intensity. I’ve used this method for about three years consistently and have had a good overall experience with it however it does come with some drawbacks.
One of the biggest issues that can happen from using this method is if the jump is skewed by ignorance of proper form or on purpose to fluff the results. Regardless of what equipment you are using if the jump is not reliable then the data is not useful. Secondly, this can be a time-consuming process and logistical nightmare depending on the setup. If you are working with individual athletes after your get your spreadsheet set up it is pretty straightforward. If you are working with a team and only have one set of force plates or whatever equipment you are using then this will cause athletes to get impatient as they wait for their turn to jump before they start their lift. This could be streamlined with more equipment or smaller training groups. As a result, this method can have mixed reviews from athletes.
In conclusion, I would recommend the implantation of the stoplight system to strength and conditioning staff who are looking to expand on their sports science services as it is a relatively simple technique to utilize that could potentially benefit your athletes. Caution should be used when collecting the data to ensure jumps are reliable and diligence is needed to provide athletes with a smooth-flowing monitoring station.
References
1) Claudino, João & Cronin, John & Mezêncio, Bruno & McMaster, Daniel & McGuigan, Michael & Tricoli, Valmor & Amadio, Alberto & Serrao, Julio. (2016). The countermovement jump to monitor neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 20. 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.011.
2) Alba-Jiménez, Claudia & Moreno, Daniel & Peña, Javier. (2022). Trends Assessing Neuromuscular Fatigue in Team Sports: A Narrative Review. Sports. 10. 33. 10.3390/sports10030033.
3) Malone, James & Murtagh, Conall & Morgans, Ryland & Burgess, Darren & Morton, James & Drust, Barry. (2014). Countermovement Jump Performance Is Not Affected During an In-Season Training Microcycle in Elite Youth Soccer Players. Journal of strength and conditioning research National Strength & Conditioning Association. 29. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000701.
4) Zhang, X., Li, H., Bi, S., Luo, Y., Cao, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Auto-Regulation Method vs. Fixed-Loading Method in Maximum Strength Training for Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.651112
Comments