Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
This talk frames decision‑making as a core coaching skill, not simply a by‑product of collecting more data. French situates modern strength and conditioning (S&C) inside a noisy, high‑velocity information environment where data volume grows faster than human understanding, pressing coaches to develop repeatable processes that translate numbers into training actions. The session’s aim is to help coaches identify, review, and improve strength, power, and conditioning interventions through a structured decision framework. ([NSCA TV][1])
1) The decision environment—complicated vs. complex.
French distinguishes routine, linear problems from complex scenarios characterized by many interacting elements, emergent behavior, and no single “right” answer. In complexity, the coach’s job is to simplify without being simplistic: define the problem space, isolate leading indicators, and stage decisions (e.g., “if this, then that”) so the staff can act decisively under uncertainty. The CEU quiz underscores this by defining *complexity* as “integrated order with too many elements to understand simply,” reinforcing the need for robust but practical heuristics. ([NSCA][2])
2) Time available dictates the mode of thinking.
Decision time is shaped less by the athlete’s mood than by task complexity and the cognitive mode required. When time is short and the setting is familiar, “fast” decisions anchored in practiced rules and thresholds work well; when tasks are novel or stakes are high, the coach deliberately slows the process to an analytical mode. The quiz explicitly flags task complexity and the analytical cognitive mode as the key determinants of how much time a coach needs to decide. ([NSCA][2])
3) The data deluge and bounded rationality.
French cautions that data growth is exponential while understanding is relatively linear, so chasing perfect certainty leads to analysis paralysis. Coaches work under bounded rationality—decisions are limited by the information available and the brain’s capacity to process it. The implication is to pre‑define what “good enough” evidence looks like, protect staff attention, and favor consistent, transparent rules over ad‑hoc judgment. ([NSCA][2])
4) Emotion and human behavior.
French notes that adherence, withdrawal, and performance variability are not purely rational phenomena—emotion sits at the center of human withdrawal behaviors. High‑quality coaching decisions therefore blend objective metrics with interpersonal context and communication strategies that reduce threat and increase athlete buy‑in. ([NSCA][2])
5) From diagnosis to decision: performance determinants > interventions.
When an athlete underperforms (e.g., lower‑body striking is off), the recommended pathway is not to terminate a block or ignore the signal; it’s to identify the performance determinants (strength, rate of force development, tissue tolerance, technical timing, etc.) and adjust the adaptive strategy—volume loading, constraint‑led drills, or recovery emphasis—while monitoring the response. This “determinants‑first” logic is echoed in the quiz. ([NSCA][2])
6) Build a gated profiling pipeline—strength before power.
French describes a gated approach to athlete profiling: first confirm that an athlete meets strength standards relative to their weight class; only then do they “unlock” power profiling. This keeps testing economical, protects time, and prevents advanced diagnostics from obscuring foundational deficits. The talk’s conference listing and quiz both reference this staged approach (strength ➜ power). ([NSCA][3])
7) Force–velocity balance: classify then correct.
Within the power domain, French advocates classifying athletes along the force–velocity spectrum and then programming to pull them toward balance. For a velocity‑dominant profile—what he labels an “antelope”—the corrective emphasis is to train “heavy” to raise force capacity; for a force‑dominant “gorilla,” program on the light/fast side to build velocity. This aligns with NSCA guidance on force–velocity–power profiling as a holistic lens for tailoring training. ([NSCA][2])
8) Programming architecture: general prep starts simple.
In off‑camp general preparation, dynamic strength prescriptions start with a linear loading strategy to establish rhythm, raise chronic workloads safely, and set the stage for later variation (e.g., undulating/wave loading) as camp approaches. This respects the decision principle “simple ➜ complex” and minimizes confounds while the staff is still learning how the athlete responds. The quiz anchors this point with “start with linear loading.” ([NSCA][2])
9) Contact readiness and neck strength ratios.
The session includes neck strength profiling with target flexion:extension ratios to mitigate head/neck risk in contact and collision sports. A commonly referenced target is ~1:1.5–2 (flexion:extension)—recognizing that extensors should be stronger—alongside balanced lateral flexion. Evidence over the past few years supports comprehensive neck training to improve head stabilization and potentially reduce head kinematics during impacts. ([NSCA][2])
10) Turn decisions into a repeatable operating system.
French’s practical message is to codify decision rules—thresholds for advancing from strength to power testing, clear profiles (“antelope” vs. “gorilla”), pre‑planned loading progressions, and communication sequences that account for emotion. This reduces variance between coaches, speeds up choices in complex settings, and keeps the staff focused on interventions that actually change performance, not just dashboards. ([NSCA TV][1])
Overall, the talk urges coaches to think like applied scientists: define the question, choose the smallest valid measure, decide promptly based on bounded evidence, and then observe how the athlete adapts. Iterate quickly, document decisions, and let the athlete’s response—not the prettiness of the graph—drive the next choice. ([NSCA TV][1])
- What does complexity refer to in decision making?
- A simple situation easily understood
- A condition with integrated order and too many elements to understand simply
- A lack of decision‑making structure
Answer: B
- Which factor(s) influences how much decision-making time is required?
- The athlete’s physical condition
- Task complexity and analytical cognitive mode
- The availability of data alone
Answer: B
- What is the main challenge in data growth for modern decision making?
- Data growth is linear and our ability to understand grows exponentially
- Data growth is exponential and understanding is linear
- Data growth matches the capacity to process it
Answer: B
- _________________ is central to human withdrawal behaviors?
- Emotion
- Decision making
- Logic
Answer: A
- What is the impact of “bounded rationality” in decision making?
- Enables unlimited data processing
- Focuses only on rational aspects, ignoring emotions
- Limits decision making to the available information and our ability to process that information
Answer: C
- What decision is recommended for an athlete underperforming on lower body striking?
- Terminate training
- Identify performance determinants and adjust adaptive strategies
- Ignore performance variations until you have more data
Answer: B
- During strength profiling, the athlete is being tested on whether or not they hit performance standards against _________________. If yes, then they unlock the ability to go on to power profiling.
- Weight class norms
- Upper body strength
- Lower body strength
Answer: A
- Dynamic strength prescription during off‑camp general preparation should start with a programming strategy that utilizes a __________________ approach?
- Wave loading
- Linear loading
- Reverse linear loading
Answer: B
- What should the neck flexion to extension strength ratio be for an athlete?
- 1:1
- 1:1.5–2
- 1:3
Answer: B
- What is the recommended approach to balance force and velocity if the athlete is classified as an “antelope?”
- Train on the heavy side to build strength
- Train on the light side to build velocity
- Continue programming as planned; this is a balanced athlete
Answer: A
References
French D. Effective Decision‑Making in Strength and Conditioning
. National Strength and Conditioning Association; 2023. Available at: `https://www.nsca.tv/national-conference/season:7/videos/effective-decision-making-in-strength-and-conditioning` ([NSCA TV][1])
Context on force‑velocity profiling: NSCA. Force‑Velocity‑Power Profile Characteristics. Available at: `https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/kinetic-select/force-velocity-power-profile-characteristics/` ([NSCA][4])
Neck ratio background: Sportsmith. Neck training to improve performance and injury outcomes. Published April 25, 2024. Available at: `https://www.sportsmith.co/articles/neck-training-to-improve-performance-and-injury-outcomes/` ([Sportsmith][5])
[1]: https://www.nsca.tv/national-conference/season%3A7/videos/effective-decision-making-in-strength-and-conditioning “Effective Decision-Making in Strength and Conditioning – 2023 NatCon – NSCA TV”
[2]: https://www.nsca.com/certification/ceu-quizzes/effective-decision-making-in-strength-and-conditioning/ “effective-decision-making-in-strength-and-conditioning | NSCA”
[3]: https://www.nsca.com/globalassets/events/pdf/2023/natcon/nat23-schedule-as-of-7.7.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoq5NTDbNx-6Rj5cfre4ejQz8dcy6Ld2d3OEimg9Cv8NFlpjpDjN&utm_source=chatgpt.com “2023 National Conference | Las Vegas, NV & Online”
[4]: https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/kinetic-select/force-velocity-power-profile-characteristics/?srsltid=AfmBOop8vVCiPwx3zWKyX1rtWSKFlMFl8KfP4FbkYkNvcjp0qyzvWVub&utm_source=chatgpt.com “Force-Velocity-Power Profile Characteristics”
[5]: https://www.sportsmith.co/articles/neck-training-to-improve-performance-and-injury-outcomes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Neck training to improve performance and injury outcomes”