These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A survey of the scientific data and training methods utilized by collegiate strength and conditioning coaches.
    Author: Durell DL, Pujol TJ, Barnes JT.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2003 May; 17(2):368-73. PubMed ID: 12741880.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which scientific research influences college strength and conditioning coaching practices and to determine the training methods utilized. A total of 321 surveys were mailed to Division I strength and conditioning coaches, and the response rate was 42.7% (137 of 321 surveys). Results indicate that all subjects held a baccalaureate degree, the majority in a human performance-related field, and that 75% were Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) certified. The respondents' most widely utilized professional resources were the Strength and Conditioning Journal (94%) and other collegiate coaches and programs (93%). Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that other collegiate coaches and their programs were the most important sources of knowledge outside of formal education. The majority indicated that they used a periodization protocol (93%) utilizing multiple sets (97%), plyometrics (90%), explosive movements (88%), and Olympic lifts (85%). Respondents tend to rely on sources of information that may not be defined as scientific, as evidenced by the low priority given to peer-reviewed literature. Respondents also tend to employ the methods they utilized as athletes. Reliance on these sources may not take advantage of advances made through scientific research in exercise physiology, biomechanics, and more specifically the area of strength and conditioning.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]