In the modern history of athletic preparation, there has been growing consideration for physical preparation. What the Americans call ‘strength & conditioning’. It may not be accurate to suggest that physical preparation is a new concept. The interpretation of the stories of the Greek athlete Milo of Croton from 6th BC gives support to a longer history.

However physical preparation has changed a lot in the forty-plus years during my professional involvement in sport.

A review of literature review reveals that track and field and then American football led the way in embracing physical preparation during the last century, especially the American version of physical preparation where ‘strength training’ dominants, literally and figuratively (i.e. in the title – strength… and then conditioning).

As surprising as it seems to the younger generation these were the only sports up until about 1980 in the US and 1990 in Australia that fully embraced the American interpretation of physical preparation.

Post 1980 (North America) and 1990 (Asia Pacific) a new wave embraced the American interpretation of physical preparation. Power and mixed energy sports such as most field sports e.g. rugby union, rugby league, Australian Rules Football, to name a few Australian based sports.

I call this the second wave.

Post 2000 there was a third wave that involved sports such as swimming. Some may suggest that swimming embraced strength training earlier – not based on my experiences working with both US and Australian-based swimmers. Let’s just say the discussions in the national team environment, that I was party to, were not favorable in the direction of strength training for swimming. I did not see any real acceptance of this until post 2000, and I include observations of coaching protocols as well as the content being shared at the annual Australian Swim Coaches Association (as it was known then) conventions.

Post 2010 there was a fourth wave that involved sports with great balance and less direct relationship with swimming e.g. surfing, off-road motorcycle racing. I call these the late arrivals.

There is I suggest a pattern to the sequence of acceptance by sports of the American influenced ‘strength and conditioning’. From sports where strength training plays a bigger role through to sports where strength training plays a lessor role.

Table 1 – Four waves of sports that embraced physical preparation.

Phase	USA	Australia	Sports
1 – Early embracers	<1980	<1980	Track # field, American football
2 –	>1980	>1990	Power and mixed energy sports e.g. rugby, Australian Rules
3 –	>2000	>2000	Diverse medium sports e.g. swimming
4 – Late arrivals	>2010	>2010	Displacement, balance and more coordination-based sports e.g. off-road motorcycle disciplines

©King, I., 2021

Put simply, there is a reason they are late arrivals. And therefore, blind acceptance and embracing of methodology applied in all other sports has even more potential downsides the further along the continuum you go.

I feel for the late arrivals, and I lament the collateral damage they are potentially walking into. To see they feel, they are being more ‘professional’ by the mere act of ‘going to the gym’ and embracing the same training values as their predecessors sports is hurtful to watch.

There is a reason certain sports were later to the ‘strength training’ party, and if you fail to respect that and fail to reflect and consider more optimal ways, then these sports will pay the biggest price of them all. And I suggest it is happening.

Firstly, if the lessons of the last century of strength training for sport were made available. However, they are not.

Let me give an example. There would be very few swimming coaches in the Australian high-performance environment alive and coaching today who were around in the 1960s when Australian swim coaches began their initial flirtation with strength training. They learned certain things and reacted appropriately, pulling back from this modality, in at least the way it was being done. I base these observations on personal discussions with the late John Carew. I doubt too many if any of the current Australian elite swim coaches have had such discussions. The lessons have been lost.

The outcome is increased injuries and decreased performance. The exact opposite to the proclaimed benefits of ‘strength and conditioning’. A great example of this is Australian rugby, where it’s been nearly 20 years since Australia beat the New Zealand All Blacks for the cherished Bledisloe Cup, and the nation has sunk to a historic low world ranking of 7th in recent years. There are reasons for this, and a big part of this I suggest is the misguided off-field training resulting in decreased performance potential and increased injury incidence and severity.

It’s tough to beat a nation where the players may be more culturally and genetically suited to the game when your off-field training is letting you down.

Secondly, it may also be fine if strength training for sport, the American way, has evolved well past the programs used for American football. However, I suggest they have not.

Again, in anticipation of challenges to my last statement, let me give you an example – a golf scholarship athlete at a Div. 1 US NCAA college given the exact program as the American football team at the same college – post 2010…

Many American football players do not run far, do not touch the ball and so. If you are not playing American football and conduct your off-field training in a way that is heavily influenced, you will pay a price. And I suggest that is happening.

However how many were around in the 1970s transition to the 1980s in physical preparation to know from a personal/ professional perspective what had transpired in the formation of the American interpretation of physical preparation. Not many. The lessons have been lost.

All athletes want to play, and some want to play at the higher levels. In this pursuit, they seek additional and ‘new’ ways to train, to gain confidence they are ‘on track’ e.g., training like ‘all the other pro’s’.

I feel for the late arrivals, and I lament the collateral damage they are potentially walking into. There should have been a better message for you by now, however there is not. Tread carefully.

Ideally, I should be saving I hope your non-specific (physical preparation) training helps you thrive. That would be nice. However, based on my experience and observations – what I know – if you do what the rest of your colleagues are doing in their interpretation of the best way to train, survive may be a more appropriate term.

You deserve better. Our profession has failed to deliver safe training, let alone optimal training. Now it’s up to you to be more discerning. Don’t assume. Don’t imitate. Seek answers, dig deeper, objectively question and interpret the cause-effect relationship of what you are seeing and doing. Be more scientific in your review than our profession is.

Your future depends on it.

And not just your sporting future.