|
When coaches hear the term training load, they often think about numbers.
Sets. Reps. Weight. Distance. Speed. Duration. Heart rate. GPS data. These metrics can be useful. But they only tell us part of the story. Training load is not simply how much an athlete does. It is the demand we intentionally place on the athlete. And that demand can be physical, psychological, emotional, social, or environmental. This distinction matters because two athletes can complete the exact same activity and experience completely different loads. The activity may look identical. The training effect may not be. What Is Training Load? At its simplest: Training load is the demand placed on the athlete. That demand can come from the amount of force an athlete has to produce, the speed at which they have to move, the number of decisions they have to make, the uncertainty they have to manage, or the pressure created by the environment. This gives us a more useful way to think about training. The activity is simply the vehicle. The load is the demand we are trying to create through that vehicle. Physical Load Physical load refers to the mechanical and physiological demands placed on the athlete. This might include:
For example, if our goal is to expose an athlete to greater elastic demands, we can manipulate the activity to increase velocity, ground interaction, stiffness, or the magnitude of force being produced and accepted. If the goal is repeatability, we may manipulate work-to-rest ratios, duration, density, or the number of repeated efforts. The activity hasn't necessarily changed. The demand has. Psychological Load Not all training stress comes from the muscles. An athlete can experience a significant training demand through perception, decision-making, attention, and uncertainty. This is especially important when using small sided games. Consider a simple 1v1 activity. We can manipulate:
The physical movement may look similar, but the psychological demand can change dramatically. A predictable drill may require the athlete to execute. A chaotic game may require the athlete to perceive, decide, and act. Both are training. But they create different problems for the athlete to solve. The Environment Is Part of the Load One of the easiest ways to change training load is to change the environment. A larger playing area creates different movement opportunities than a smaller one. A stable surface creates a different demand than an uneven surface. A predictable environment creates a different perceptual challenge than an unpredictable one. Adding teammates, opponents, boundaries, equipment, or time constraints can further change the affordances available to the athlete. This is why we don't view the environment as something separate from training. The environment helps create the training load. Same Activity, Different Load This is where training design becomes interesting. Imagine we use the same small sided game with the same athletes. Instead of simply repeating it session after session, we can manipulate the constraints depending on the demand we want to emphasize. Speed & Elasticity We may manipulate:
The goal is to create opportunities for high-velocity movement and elastic solutions. Strength, Power & Change of Direction We may manipulate:
Now the athlete is exposed to greater demands around force production, force acceptance, and changing direction. Repeatability & Work Capacity We may manipulate:
The same vehicle can create a completely different demand. This is why simply naming the activity doesn’t tell us what the athlete is actually training. Load Is About Intent Intent is one of the most important components of training load. A movement performed with maximal intent creates a different demand than the same movement performed extensively. A jump for max height creates a different problem than an extensive ankle jump. A dynamic change of direction creates a different demand than a predetermined change of direction. A 1v0 where the athlete knows exactly what is coming creates a different experience than a 1v1 where the athlete has to interact with an opponent. The exercise is only the starting point. Our intent determines how we use it. External Load vs. Internal Load Traditional discussions around training load often separate load into external and internal measures. External load describes what the athlete does. Examples include:
Internal load describes how the athlete responds. Examples include:
Both can provide valuable information. But neither completely explains the training experience. Two athletes can produce the same external workload and experience it very differently. That is why context matters. Measuring Load Isn’t the Same as Understanding Load Technology has made it easier than ever to collect information. We can measure almost everything. But measurement and understanding are not the same thing. A GPS device can tell us how far an athlete traveled. It doesn't necessarily tell us why they traveled that distance. A force plate can tell us how an athlete generates force. It doesn't automatically tell us what problem the athlete was solving. A heart-rate monitor can tell us about physiological response. It doesn't explain the athlete's perception of the task. Data can inform our decisions. It shouldn't replace them. The coach still has to interpret the information within the context of the athlete, the activity, and the goal of the session. Training Load Should Be Individualized Another important consideration is that the same task does not create the same load for everyone. An activity that is low demand for one athlete may be highly demanding for another. Experience, physical qualities, skill, confidence, fatigue, attention, and previous exposure all influence how an athlete responds to a task. This is one reason we favor adaptable training environments. Rather than trying to prescribe the exact same experience to every athlete, we can create conditions that allow the athlete to interact with the task and adapt accordingly. The goal isn't always to make every athlete do more. The goal is to expose them to the right amount of the right demand. The Coach’s Job: Manipulate the Demand This changes the role of the coach. Instead of simply selecting exercises, we become designers of the training environment. We can manipulate:
Small changes can create significantly different demands. This gives us more options without constantly needing new exercises. The Activity Is the Vehicle This is ultimately how we think about training load. The activity itself is not the destination. It is the vehicle we use to expose the athlete to a particular demand. A med ball can be used to train different qualities. A jump can be manipulated to create different force and velocity demands. A small sided game can be organized around different physical or psychological objectives. A sprint can be performed in a predictable environment or surrounded by uncertainty. The exercise doesn't automatically determine the training effect. The design determines the demand. Training Load Is a Design Problem Training load isn't simply something we calculate after a session. It is something we design before the session. We decide what demands matter. We determine how much exposure is appropriate. We manipulate the environment to create those demands. We observe how the athlete responds. Then we adjust. This creates a more dynamic approach to training, one where load isn't reduced to a single number. Because athletic development is not simply about doing more. It is about creating the right problems, with the right intent, at the right time. The activity is the vehicle. The load is the demand. The design is what connects the two.
0 Comments
For years, athletic development has been heavily influenced by the idea that there is a “correct” way to move.
A certain position. A certain joint angle. A certain sequence. A certain technique that should be repeated until it becomes automatic. But human movement, and especially sporting movement, is rarely that simple. Movement is not a fixed product. It is a constantly adapting solution to a constantly changing problem. This is where the concepts of attractors and fluctuators can provide a different lens for understanding how athletes learn to move. What Is an Attractor? In motor learning and dynamical systems theory, an attractor represents a movement solution that an athlete tends to gravitate toward because it helps them successfully solve a particular task. Importantly, an attractor isn’t a rigid position or a predetermined technical model. It is better understood as a stable tendency within the movement system. An athlete may consistently organize their body in a particular way when accelerating, changing direction, landing, throwing, or jumping because that solution has proven useful. That solution emerges from the interaction of multiple factors:
Two athletes can solve the same problem differently while both producing effective outcomes. That’s an important distinction. Consistency doesn’t have to mean identical movement. Then There Are Fluctuators If attractors represent stability, fluctuators represent variability. They are the small changes and adjustments occurring within the movement system that allow an athlete to adapt when the conditions surrounding the task change. And sport is essentially one giant collection of changing conditions.
And when the problem changes, the solution may need to change with it. This is why variability shouldn’t automatically be viewed as a mistake. Sometimes variability is the mechanism that allows adaptability to emerge. Stability + Variability The relationship between attractors and fluctuators gives us an interesting way to think about athletic development. The attractor provides stability. The fluctuator provides adaptability. You need both. An athlete with no stability may struggle to consistently organize an effective solution. But an athlete with too much rigidity may struggle to adapt when the environment presents something unexpected. Think about a soccer player changing direction. There may be certain underlying principles that consistently emerge:
But the exact movement solution doesn’t need to look identical every time. The opponent, speed, angle, space, surface, and intent can all change. The principles remain relatively stable while the expression of those principles fluctuates. That’s functional adaptability. Why “Good Movement” Doesn’t Exist This doesn’t mean that anything an athlete does is automatically “good”. It means that evaluating movement solely against a predetermined visual model can be misleading. A movement can look different and still be effective. A movement can look “messy” and still solve the problem. And a movement can look technically beautiful in a controlled environment while failing when the environment becomes unpredictable. Instead of asking: “Does this movement look right?” We can ask: “Did the athlete successfully solve the problem?” And perhaps more importantly: “Can they solve the problem again when the conditions change?” That is a much more meaningful question for sport. From Prescribing Positions to Developing Principles This changes the role of the coach. Rather than constantly prescribing exact positions, we can create environments that encourage athletes to discover useful solutions. Instead of eliminating every deviation from a predetermined technique, we can explore whether the deviation represents a problem, or simply an alternative solution. The coach becomes less of a movement sculptor and more of an environment designer.
And then we observe how the athlete adapts. Repetition Without Repetition This connects with a fundamental concept in motor learning: repetition without repetition. The athlete needs enough repetition to develop stable solutions, but not so much repetition that the solution becomes dependent on identical conditions. The goal isn’t to eliminate variability. The goal is to make variability functional. The athlete learns the underlying solution while continuously adjusting its expression. This is one reason we shouldn’t confuse movement variability with movement inconsistency. An athlete can display considerable movement variability while maintaining consistency in the outcome or underlying intention. That’s not a breakdown of the system. That’s the system adapting. What This Means for Athletic Development When we view movement through the lens of attractors and fluctuators, our goal begins to shift. We’re no longer trying to manufacture a single “perfect” movement pattern. We’re trying to help athletes develop a movement bandwidth, a collection of stable tendencies and adaptable solutions that allow them to navigate unpredictable environments. We want athletes who can:
Because sport doesn’t reward athletes for producing the same movement every time. It rewards athletes for producing effective solutions when the problem keeps changing. The goal isn’t movement perfection. The goal is functional adaptability. Build the attractors. Allow the fluctuations. Let the athlete learn to navigate the space between them. The weight room is often treated like a place where athletes complete a predetermined list of exercises.
Squat. Hinge. Push. Pull. Jump. Sprint. Check the boxes. Move on. But athletic development isn’t about completing exercises. It’s about creating meaningful adaptations that help athletes perform, adapt, and respond to the demands of sport. That requires a different approach. Train the Problem, Not Just the Exercise An exercise is simply a tool. Its value comes from what it asks the athlete to do and what adaptations it creates. Two athletes can perform the same movement and experience completely different challenges based on their abilities, intent, fatigue, environment, or the constraints surrounding the task. That’s why we don’t believe there is a single “best” exercise. Instead, we ask:
Once we understand the problem, we can manipulate the environment to create the desired challenge. Small Changes Can Create Big Differences You don’t always need a completely different exercise to create a different adaptation. Sometimes, a small modification is enough. Change the stance. Alter the implement. Manipulate the range of motion. Change the surface. Add or remove an external constraint. Use one limb instead of two. Change the direction of force. Alter the speed or intent. Give the athlete a different starting position. These changes can dramatically alter how an athlete solves the movement problem. The exercise may look familiar, but the strategy required to complete it has changed. That’s where the weight room becomes more than a collection of movements. It becomes an environment for exploration. Movement Variability Is an Opportunity Athletes don’t perform in perfectly controlled environments. Sport is messy. The foot doesn’t always hit the ground in the same position. The opponent doesn’t always arrive from the same direction. The athlete doesn’t always have the ideal amount of time, space, or balance. If training constantly reinforces one solution, athletes may become very good at reproducing that solution, but less comfortable when the environment asks for something different. We want athletes to develop a broader movement bandwidth. Not perfect movement. More movement solutions. Variability gives athletes opportunities to discover strategies they may not naturally find on their own. The goal isn’t to make every repetition look different just for the sake of being different. The goal is to create functional variability, different solutions that allow the athlete to accomplish the task effectively. Force Development Isn’t Just About Producing Force Traditional strength training often emphasizes force production. And for good reason. Athletes need to be able to produce high levels of force. But sport also requires them to accept, manage, and redirect force. Every acceleration eventually requires deceleration. Every jump requires a landing. Every change of direction requires the athlete to manage forces before producing new ones. This is why we place so much value on movements and environments that challenge athletes to manage force in less predictable positions. A slightly different foot position. An awkward split stance. A rotational component. A change in surface. A unilateral demand. A constraint that forces the athlete to find a new solution. These modifications can create opportunities to develop qualities that traditional, highly predictable repetitions may not expose. Transfer Isn’t About Copying the Sport A common misconception is that exercises need to look like sport in order to transfer to sport. That’s not necessarily the case. A "good" training exercise doesn’t have to replicate a sprint, cut, jump, tackle, or change of direction. Instead, it should develop qualities and capabilities that support the athlete’s ability to solve those problems. The weight room gives us an opportunity to manipulate variables that may be difficult to control in the sporting environment. We can increase or decrease force demands. We can slow things down. We can increase resistance. We can create different positions. We can expose athletes to unfamiliar shapes. We can control the number of repetitions. We can manipulate fatigue. We can create constraints that encourage different strategies. The goal isn’t to recreate the sport. The goal is to prepare the athlete for the problems the sport will present. The Individual Still Matters Perhaps the most important consideration is the athlete standing in front of you. A method that works extremely well for one athlete may not be the right solution for another. Training age matters. Experience matters. Intent matters. Physical qualities matter. Current readiness matters. The athlete’s perception of the task matters. Even the same athlete may need something different from one session to the next. That’s why rigid programming can become problematic when it becomes more important than the individual. A program should provide structure without eliminating adaptability. We can have principles without prescribing every movement. We can have objectives without demanding identical solutions. We can have a plan while still allowing the athlete and coach to respond to what is happening in the moment. Coach the Athlete, Not the Checklist Good coaching isn’t about finding the perfect exercise. It’s about understanding why you are using the exercise in the first place.
That might mean modifying the movement, changing the constraint, reducing the load, increasing the challenge, or choosing an entirely different solution. The ability to adjust is not a weakness in the program. It is part of the program. Movement Isn’t One-Size-Fits-All The weight room should be more than a place where athletes collect repetitions. It should be a place where they develop the physical and movement capabilities to interact with an unpredictable sporting environment. That requires flexibility. It requires curiosity. And it requires coaches who are willing to look beyond the exercise itself. Because the best method isn’t necessarily the newest, most complex, or most traditional. It’s the method that helps the individual athlete solve the problem in front of them. One of the defining characteristics of our training philosophy is our willingness to intentionally introduce small doses of uncertainty, pressure, and controlled chaos into the learning environment. We often refer to these moments as small doses of “venom.”
At The U of Strength, we don’t avoid messy situations, we welcome them. To many, this approach can seem unconventional. Traditional training models often emphasize clean repetitions, predictable drills, and tightly scripted outcomes. Coaches strive to eliminate mistakes, reduce variability, and create technical consistency. While those methods may have their place, they often fail to reflect the environment athletes are actually preparing for. Sport is rarely clean. It’s unpredictable, emotionally demanding, and constantly changing. Every action is influenced by opponents, teammates, available space, fatigue, pressure, and countless variables that cannot be rehearsed in isolation. If competition is chaotic, shouldn’t preparation expose athletes to manageable doses of that same chaos? We believe the answer is yes. Why We Embrace Messy Environments Gamespeed is often misunderstood as simply moving faster. In reality, gamespeed is the ability to perceive information, make effective decisions, and organize movement under constantly changing conditions. Those qualities aren’t developed through perfectly rehearsed patterns alone. They emerge from environments filled with:
These environments force athletes to solve movement problems instead of simply executing predetermined solutions. Rather than asking, “Can you repeat the movement?” the question becomes, “Can you adapt when the movement changes?” That distinction matters. Every repetition presents a new problem. Athletes must continuously search, adjust, and reorganize their actions based on the information available to them. Over time, they begin developing something far more valuable than technical consistency, they develop adaptability. Discovering Individual Solutions One of the greatest benefits of chaotic environments is that they shift ownership back to the athlete. Instead of chasing a coach-prescribed “ideal” technique, athletes begin discovering movement solutions that fit their own current capabilities. No two athletes possess identical body structures, experiences, strengths, or movement histories. Why should they all move exactly the same? When we manipulate constraints instead of prescribing every action, athletes naturally self-organize toward effective solutions. They learn what works, what doesn’t, and how to adjust when circumstances change. This creates adaptable movers rather than robotic performers. Pressure Is a Teaching Tool Pressure is often viewed as something to minimize during practice. We see it differently. When applied appropriately, pressure becomes one of the most effective teaching tools available. It increases informational load. It raises emotional and physical demands. It accelerates perception-action coupling. It forces commitment instead of hesitation. Most importantly, pressure reveals behavior. It’s easy to execute movement when everything unfolds exactly as expected. The true learning begins when expectations disappear. Pressure amplifies chaos. Chaos exposes behavior. That’s where meaningful adaptation occurs. Small Doses Build Resilience The goal isn’t to overwhelm athletes. Just like medicine, dosage matters. Too little challenge creates comfort. Too much creates panic. Our responsibility is to provide the right amount of “venom” at the right time. Small enough that athletes can successfully adapt. Challenging enough that they must search for new solutions. Over time, these repeated exposures improve more than physical qualities. They strengthen decision-making, emotional regulation, confidence, resilience, and adaptability under stress. Athletes become more comfortable solving uncomfortable problems. Chaos Isn’t the Goal, Adaptability Is It’s important to understand that chaos itself isn’t the objective. We don’t create confusion simply to make training harder or more entertaining. Every perturbation, every constraint, and every layer of uncertainty has a purpose. Chaos is simply the vehicle. Adaptability is the destination. By carefully designing environments that expose athletes to manageable amounts of uncertainty, we prepare them for the reality of competition without overwhelming the learning process. Sport will eventually provide plenty of “venom.” A defender will disrupt your movement. The space you planned to attack will disappear. Your balance will be compromised. The game won’t slow down because you’re unprepared. Our job as coaches is to introduce those challenges before competition does, allowing athletes to build the physical, cognitive, and emotional capacity to respond. Because preparation isn’t about producing perfect movement. It’s about developing adaptable humans who can solve imperfect problems when the environment inevitably bites back. For decades, conditioning has been viewed through a simple lens: Make athletes tired so they become fitter.
This philosophy has produced endless gassers, suicides, timed runs, and punishment-based conditioning sessions. While these methods certainly create fatigue, an important question remains: Does becoming tired actually improve sport performance? Not necessarily. The objective of "conditioning" shouldn’t be to see who can tolerate the most suffering. It should be to develop athletes who can continue producing high-quality actions when fatigue inevitably appears. Fatigue is not the enemy. It’s simply another constraint the athlete must solve. Repeatability Is the Real Goal Success in sport rarely depends on producing one great effort. Instead, athletes must repeatedly execute high-quality movements and decisions over the course of an entire game. Can they:
These are the qualities that separate high performers from everyone else. Repeatability isn’t about surviving fatigue. It’s about maintaining movement effectiveness, perception, and decision-making despite fatigue. Fatigue Exists Within the Game Fatigue doesn’t occur in isolation. It develops while athletes are constantly interacting with teammates, opponents, space, time, and the ball. Every possession requires athletes to:
The physical and cognitive demands occur simultaneously. Training should reflect that reality. Fatigue as a Constraint Within a constraints-led approach, fatigue becomes another constraint influencing behavior. As fatigue increases, athletes are forced to continuously search for movement solutions.
Rather than avoiding fatigue, we expose athletes to it inside representative environments where they learn to adapt. This develops far more than fitness. It develops adaptable performers. Contextual Work Capacity Through Small Sided Games One of the most effective ways to build work capacity is through well-designed small sided games. Instead of separating conditioning from skill development, the two become inseparable. Athletes naturally accumulate fatigue while performing the exact actions required during competition. A well-designed game can create:
The environment creates the "conditioning". The athletes simply solve the problems placed in front of them. Why This Matters Traditional conditioning often teaches athletes one thing: Run when you’re tired. Sport requires something very different. It requires athletes to:
When conditioning becomes contextual, every repetition develops multiple qualities simultaneously. Rather than accumulating meaningless volume, athletes accumulate meaningful experiences. Designing Fatigue Without Losing Intent The coach’s role isn’t to make training harder. It’s to manipulate constraints so athletes naturally experience repeated high-intensity efforts. Variables such as:
Athletes remain engaged because every action still has purpose. Intent stays high because every repetition matters. Final Thoughts Conditioning shouldn’t be something athletes do after training. It should emerge from training itself. When work capacity is embedded into representative training environments, athletes don’t just become fitter. They become more adaptable, more effective, and more capable of repeating quality when the game demands it. The highest-performing athletes aren’t the ones who can suffer through the hardest conditioning session. They’re the ones who can continue accelerating, decelerating, changing direction, perceiving information, and making effective decisions long after fatigue has arrived. That’s the kind of conditioning that transfers to sport. |
AuthorJamie Smith is a proud husband and father, passionate about all things relating to athletic development and a life long learner, who is open to unorthodox ideas as long they are beneficial to his athletes. Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
Services |
The Gym |
|
Tel: (860) 833-9366
Email: [email protected]
*By accessing this website and/or purchasing or utilizing the articles, emails, programs, images, videos, services and/or products, you are agreeing to this disclaimer in its entirety. The content on this website and the educational products sold within are the intellectual property of The U of Strength, LLC and may not be replicated, reproduced, or sold without prior written consent from The U of Strength, LLC. Website, social media and product content provided is for informational purposes and meant to be utilized by athletes, sport coaches, and fitness professionals at their own discretion. It is not meant to substitute advice or guidance from qualified medical experts, and misuse of the information can result in serious injury. Any fitness program should be administered under the discretion of qualified professionals who take into account individual differences in health and ability. While our programs have found success with the athletes who train at our facility, individual results vary and we do not guarantee any specific results. The U of Strength, LLC assumes no liability from the misuse of the content provided or products purchased. Users assume all risk when implementing our ideas in theirs or their clients’ real life training experiences.
Email: [email protected]
*By accessing this website and/or purchasing or utilizing the articles, emails, programs, images, videos, services and/or products, you are agreeing to this disclaimer in its entirety. The content on this website and the educational products sold within are the intellectual property of The U of Strength, LLC and may not be replicated, reproduced, or sold without prior written consent from The U of Strength, LLC. Website, social media and product content provided is for informational purposes and meant to be utilized by athletes, sport coaches, and fitness professionals at their own discretion. It is not meant to substitute advice or guidance from qualified medical experts, and misuse of the information can result in serious injury. Any fitness program should be administered under the discretion of qualified professionals who take into account individual differences in health and ability. While our programs have found success with the athletes who train at our facility, individual results vary and we do not guarantee any specific results. The U of Strength, LLC assumes no liability from the misuse of the content provided or products purchased. Users assume all risk when implementing our ideas in theirs or their clients’ real life training experiences.