Do coaches believe they can predict athletes’ responses to training? An international survey of coaches’ beliefs regarding the predictability of training-induced adaptations

The training process, as posited by periodization, is depicted as based on predictable phenomena. This survey investigated how coaches perceive the predictability of athletes’ responses to training. A sample of 106 coaches [age range: 18–65 + years, 31% 15 + years coaching experience, 58% worked in individual-events/sports and 32% worked with athletes competing at international level] from various countries participated in an online survey regarding the predictability of training responses. Few coaches (13%) indicated that they could ‘Often’ predict how much an athlete would improve over a training phase. When asked whether it was feasible to predict an athlete's response to either a single session, or a series of them, there was limited outright agreement (14% and 23%, respectively). The majority of coaches indicated that they made changes to the plan with many (46%) doing so frequently (‘Always’ and ‘Often’). A key assumption within traditional training theory is that training outcomes are predictable. The current results suggest that coaches may not believe this to be the case. Instead they may be more consistent with modern conceptualizations of the adaptation process as a complex system evolving over time. If training theory is to remain relevant and aid coaches then it needs to engage with these problems and the realities coaches face.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching
Published
2025-07-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541251361617
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do coaches believe they can predict athletes’ responses to training? An international survey of coaches’ beliefs regarding the predictability of training-induced adaptations

Lars Donath, Kechi Anyadike-Danes, John Kiely
1 citations
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching
Sports Performance and Training
1.72
article

Do coaches believe they can predict athletes’ responses to training? An international survey of coaches’ beliefs regarding the predictability of training-induced adaptations

Lars Donath, Kechi Anyadike-Danes, John Kiely
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The training process, as posited by periodization, is depicted as based on predictable phenomena. This survey investigated how coaches perceive the predictability of athletes’ responses to training. A sample of 106 coaches [age range: 18–65 + years, 31% 15 + years coaching experience, 58% worked in individual-events/sports and 32% worked with athletes competing at international level] from various countries participated in an online survey regarding the predictability of training responses. Few coaches (13%) indicated that they could ‘Often’ predict how much an athlete would improve over a training phase. When asked whether it was feasible to predict an athlete's response to either a single session, or a series of them, there was limited outright agreement (14% and 23%, respectively). The majority of coaches indicated that they made changes to the plan with many (46%) doing so frequently (‘Always’ and ‘Often’). A key assumption within traditional training theory is that training outcomes are predictable. The current results suggest that coaches may not believe this to be the case. Instead they may be more consistent with modern conceptualizations of the adaptation process as a complex system evolving over time. If training theory is to remain relevant and aid coaches then it needs to engage with these problems and the realities coaches face.

International Journal of Sports Science & CoachingVol. 20(6)
German Sport University Cologne (DE), University of Limerick (IE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Sports Performance and Training
1.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.