Every coach remembers those tidy diagrams in training manuals. Blocks, waves, undulations, hypertrophy phases, strength phases, taper phases, all laid out in clean lines. Then you get your first real client. Or your first athlete or team with your first chaotic season of travel, sickness, mini tournaments, trainee fatigue and unexpected dips in mood and motivation. Suddenly those perfect periodisation models feel like they belong in a museum rather than in a functioning programme.
This tension between the ideal and the real sat at the heart of a recent study by Washif et al. (2025). The authors looked at how strength and conditioning coaches across Southeast and East Asia actually build programmes, test their athletes, monitor readiness and handle the day-to-day ebb and flow of training. The results they published give us a much clearer picture of what coaching looks like outside the course material. And it offers useful lessons for anyone studying, coaching or even considering a personal trainer course to expand their skill set.
The findings also happen to be surprisingly reassuring. Coaching does not unfold in perfect cycles. Coaching unfolds through constant adjustment, a bit of creativity, a fair amount of fatigue management and a very human conversation with the client/athlete standing in front of you.
The Big Myth
One of the most persistent myths in fitness education is the idea that success hinges on choosing the right periodisation model. Linear, undulating, block, wave, flexible, autoregulatory, fluid. The list grows every year and each method attracts its own loyal supporters.
The study cut directly through the noise. When coaches were asked what model they actually use, very few committed to one approach for an entire season. For strength and power work, only 17% stuck to a traditional linear model. Undulating and block models were used, but not heavily. The most common answer across nearly every training objective was hybrid periodisation. In fact, 39–45% of coaches mixed different models depending on the goal. Many of them adjusted their approach again when dealing with tight schedules or short training windows.
This aligns with what researchers like Stone et al. have described for years. Real athletes rarely fit neatly into long-term study designs. Fatigue shifts. Recovery varies. Training schedules bend around competition. Hybrid strategies often become the natural result.
Hybrid Training
Hybrid periodisation is not a single method. It is a practical mindset built on blending different structures to support a collection of moving targets. A coach might use a block style early in a training cycle to build a strong base of force production. Later in the cycle, the same coach may shift toward more undulating work to handle the fluctuating demands of a competitive season. When a short window appears, of let’s say four weeks or less, coaches adapt again and use whatever structure supports quick gains without overwhelming an already fatigued athlete.
Washif et al. found that this approach dominates the coaching landscape. Coaches working in ball sports, combat sports, racquet sports, individual sports and strength-focused sports all leaned towards mixed models. This pattern did not shift when coaching experience changed. Both newer and more seasoned coaches behaved in almost exactly the same way.
Hybrid training simply reflects reality for most clients, teams and athletes. It gives coaches space to adjust intensity, volume, frequency and exercise selection without locking themselves into rigid blueprints. It also helps coaches support the wide variety of physical qualities demanded across modern training.
Flexibility as the Backbone of Modern Coaching
One of the standout findings in the study was the rise of flexibility as a working practice. Coaches regularly adjusted strength sessions based on client/athlete feedback, technical execution, observed fatigue, movement speed and basic readiness cues. Seventy-two percent of respondents identified fatigue management as a primary challenge in programming. This single factor created a continual need for modification.
Emerging models such as flexible nonlinear periodisation, agile approaches and autoregulatory practices had mixed ratings in terms of perceived effectiveness. Even with this hesitancy, the study revealed that 43% of coaches still used flexible programming on a regular basis. They valued the ability to switch sessions around, reduce load when needed or push harder when the athlete demonstrated clear readiness.
This mirrors earlier work by Mann et al. and other researchers studying autoregulation in resistance training. Performance fluctuates day to day due to sleep, stress, soreness, nutrition, daily workload, accumulated fatigue and countless personal variables. An athlete-centered approach accommodates these shifts without derailing long-term progression. Students taking a strength & conditioning coach course will recognise these same principles in modern coaching frameworks.
The Most Powerful Tool in Coaching is Conversation
Technology has become a huge part of training. Force plates, accelerometry, velocity trackers, heart rate variability, GPS units and monitoring dashboards are all part of the modern coaching programme design. Still, the study confirmed something that often gets overlooked in sports science discussions.
Seventy-one percent of coaches assessed readiness through conversation. Not saliva markers. Not blood lactate. Not heart rate variability. Just a simple exchange with the athlete.
A conversation often tells a coach:
- how an athlete slept
- how they are coping mentally
- how prepared they feel
- how their body feels under warm-up loads
- how much quality they can give in the session ahead
These subjective markers have already been shown in earlier research to be closely tied to load tolerance and performance outcomes. Saw et al. highlighted that subjective fatigue measures can outperform many objective metrics when predicting training response.
Coaching still moves forward through human connection. A good conversation remains one of the most insightful readiness checks available.
Keep Testing Simple and Relevant
Strength testing played a large role in programme evaluation across the cohort. Around 90% of coaches used testing data to assess the effectiveness of their training plans. Two to four testing cycles per year were common and the exercises most frequently used were the classics: bench press, back squat, deadlift and power clean. The word cloud in the study captured this visually, with bench press and back squat dominating the data set.
This approach gives coaches clean, consistent checkpoints they can compare across the season. It also reduces the disruption caused by excessive testing. Many coaches combined these lifts with smaller readiness tests like jump assessments, movement speed or technical execution under moderate loads.
Testing did not sit in isolation. Coaches also drew on training data, performance statistics from competition and direct feedback. The aim was to create a complete picture without overwhelming the client or stealing time from valuable training.
Tech Helps, but Coaches Still Lead the Process
The study showed that technology plays a supporting role rather than a leading one. Only 21% used force plates often or very often. Only 23% used velocity tracking devices often. Biomarkers were used sparingly. Many coaches instead relied on accessible load metrics like volume load and session RPE, both of which continue to show strong value in research.
RPE-based load tracking is fast, cost-effective and easy to integrate into PT sessions with clients or when coaching a large team. Volume load offers a simple record of accumulated stress. Both allow coaches to track progression and prevent excessive spikes without needing expensive hardware.
These choices reflect the demands of real sport. Coaches need solutions that work on busy training grounds, during travel weeks and in environments where technology may not always be available. Many personal trainers know this balance well, especially when dealing with commercial gym settings or outdoor session environments. Anyone exploring S&C courses will have seen how subjective and objective tools can blend together in daily practice.
What This Means for Us As Coaches and Trainers
This study reinforces a simple idea that often gets overshadowed by loud debates on social media. Real coaching grows out of practical problem-solving. Coaches succeed when they learn to shift training loads, adapt session goals and meet athletes at their current level of readiness. The myth of the perfect periodisation model fades quickly when faced with the practical demands of human performance.
Coaches who build strong communication habits, who listen closely, who watch movement, who track simple metrics effectively and who refine their sessions based on clear feedback tend to navigate seasons with more confidence. The fundamentals still matter. Load management still matters. Exercise prescription still matters. But the ability to bend without breaking may be one of the most valuable coaching skills of all.
This approach applies to team sports, endurance athletes, power athletes and general population clients alike. It also speaks directly to the realities that many students discover when they start coaching placements or when they take early professional steps after finishing a personal trainer course. Training plans shift. Athletes change. Seasons evolve. Coaching moves with all of it.
Closing Thoughts
The Washif et al. study created a fascinating view into the day-to-day decision making of practising coaches. The findings show a coaching landscape shaped by flexibility, communication, athlete-centred planning and simple, reliable monitoring tools. It also showed that even experienced coaches use hybrid structures and straightforward readiness queues to support progression.
Theory still plays an important role. Evidence helps coaches understand principles, organise training cycles and refine planning decisions. But the real world asks for something extra. It asks for adaptability, patience, keen observation and an ongoing conversation with the athlete.
That blend of evidence with real-world flexibility may be the direction coaching continues to grow for years to come.
Reference
- Washif, J.A., James, C., Pagaduan, J., Lim, J., Lum, D., Raja Azidin, R.M.F., Mujika, I., & Beaven, C.M. (2025). Current periodization, testing, and monitoring practices of strength and conditioning coaches. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Click here to review the full research article.
- Stone, M.H., Hornsby, W.G., Haff, G.G. et al. (2021). Periodization and block periodization in sports: emphasis on strength-power training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(8), 2351–2371. Click here to review the full research article.
- Mann, J.B., Thyfault, J.P., Ivey, P.A., & Sayers, S.P. (2010). The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1718–1723. Click here to review the full research article.
- Saw, A.E., Main, L.C., & Gastin, P.B. (2016). Monitoring the athlete training response: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(5), 281–291. Click here to review the full research article.
Build a Future-Proof Career in Strength & Conditioning
If this kind of real-world coaching insight excites you, our Strength & Conditioning Exercise Specialist and Master Diplomas™ give you the practical frameworks and hands-on skills to develop as a confident coach. The study showed that 39–45% of practising S&C coaches rely on hybrid models and 72% list fatigue management as their biggest programming challenge, which highlights how important adaptable thinking and strong technical foundations have become in the industry. These diplomas are ideal for anyone starting a fitness career, for gym instructors aiming to move into personal training and for existing PTs who want to specialise in Strength & Conditioning, Outdoor Fitness and progress all the way to Master Trainer status with the Level 4 Low Back Pain Management qualification. They offer a clear route into the kind of flexible, athlete-centred coaching reflected in modern S&C practice and they give you the knowledge to build programmes that work in the real world, not just on paper.
Strength & Conditioning Exercise Specialist & Master Diploma™ – In-Person, Live-Virtual & Distance Study
