Radiofrequency Ablation

by ptfadmin | Feb 23, 2026 | Health Tips

 Reference: 

Effects of Core Training on Balance Performance in Older Adults

by ptfadmin | Feb 19, 2026 | Health Tips

NSCA 2023 National Conference session “Effective Decision-Making in Strength and Conditioning” speaker: Duncan French, PhD, CSCS,*D

by ptfadmin | Feb 17, 2026 | Health Tips

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])

1. What does complexity refer to in decision making?
2. A simple situation easily understood
3. A condition with integrated order and too many elements to understand simply
4. A lack of decision‑making structure

   Answer: B

2. Which factor(s) influences how much decision-making time is required?
3. The athlete’s physical condition
4. Task complexity and analytical cognitive mode
5. The availability of data alone

   Answer: B

3. What is the main challenge in data growth for modern decision making?
4. Data growth is linear and our ability to understand grows exponentially
5. Data growth is exponential and understanding is linear
6. Data growth matches the capacity to process it

   Answer: B

4. _________________ is central to human withdrawal behaviors?
5. Emotion
6. Decision making
7. Logic

   Answer: A

5. What is the impact of “bounded rationality” in decision making?
6. Enables unlimited data processing
7. Focuses only on rational aspects, ignoring emotions
8. Limits decision making to the available information and our ability to process that information

   Answer: C

6. What decision is recommended for an athlete underperforming on lower body striking?
7. Terminate training
8. Identify performance determinants and adjust adaptive strategies
9. Ignore performance variations until you have more data

   Answer: B

7. 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.
8. Weight class norms
9. Upper body strength
10. Lower body strength

   Answer: A

8. Dynamic strength prescription during off‑camp general preparation should start with a programming strategy that utilizes a __________________ approach?
9. Wave loading
10. Linear loading
11. Reverse linear loading

   Answer: B

9. What should the neck flexion to extension strength ratio be for an athlete?
10. 1:1
11. 1:1.5–2
12. 1:3

   Answer: B

10. What is the recommended approach to balance force and velocity if the athlete is classified as an “antelope?”
11. Train on the heavy side to build strength
12. Train on the light side to build velocity
13. 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”

Matt Crawley’s “Sleep in Elite Athletes”

by ptfadmin | Feb 4, 2026 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

Matt Crawley’s session underscores a simple idea with big consequences: in high‑performance sport, sleep is a trainable, coachable performance variable, not just a passive recovery state. He frames the talk around three practical pillars—education, screening, and measurement—so coaches can systematize sleep the same way they do strength, conditioning, and skill work. The session also walks through case studies of sleep tracking in elite programs and closes with travel and circadian tactics athletes can implement immediately. ([NSCA TV][1])

Why sleep matters in performance. Crawley reviews the broad effects of insufficient sleep on athlete health and output. In elite and tactical populations alike, short or poor sleep is associated with metabolic dysfunction (e.g., shifts in leptin, ghrelin, testosterone, cortisol), greater illness/injury risk, impaired motor function, and reduced cognitive performance (attention, reaction time, decision‑making). These effects are relevant at both the short‑term (after a few late nights) and long‑term (chronic restriction) timescales and manifest as performance decrements rather than benefits. In other words, sleep loss does not enhance mood or performance—quite the opposite. ([NSCA][2])

How much is enough? For the general adult population, 7–9 hours nightly is recommended, but elite athletes commonly require ~9–10 hours to fully recover and adapt to training and competition. Observational data show many athletes don’t reach that threshold, averaging ~6.5–6.8 h per night—well below their self‑assessed need—highlighting a persistent, fixable recovery gap. Crawley positions this “sleep deficit” as low‑hanging fruit coaches can address to improve readiness and robustness. ([NSCA][2])

A shared vocabulary for coaches and athletes. The talk defines the fundamental sleep metrics that should anchor conversations:

• Total Sleep Time (TST): the total minutes asleep across light, REM, and deep stages—this is the primary quantity target.
• Sleep Latency: time to fall asleep; very short latencies (e.g., < 5 minutes) can be a flag for overtiredness/sleep debt.
• Sleep Efficiency: percent of time in bed actually spent asleep.

Using consistent language demystifies reports from wearables and makes goal‑setting concrete across the staff. ([NSCA][3])

Measuring sleep: what to look for in tools. Crawley stresses a pragmatic stance toward technology. Wearables can be useful for trend‑tracking, coach–athlete dialogue, and decision‑support, but products should have independent validation and reliability data. He notes that some devices estimate TST and efficiency reasonably well, while sleep staging (light/REM/deep) remains less accurate outside the lab. The takeaway is to select validated tools, use them consistently, and interpret stage data cautiously; most programming decisions should hinge on robust, higher‑level measures like TST and latency. ([NSCA][2])

A coach’s ‘sleep toolkit’. Crawley organizes implementation into a three‑part toolkit:

1. Education—normalize talking about sleep, teach ‘why’ (health, performance), and the ‘how’ (sleep hygiene basics) so athletes can self‑manage;
2. Screening—use simple, validated questionnaires (e.g., ASSQ/ASBQ, PSQI) and daily check‑ins to identify issues early and refer when needed;
3. Measurement—choose validated devices (or diaries) that fit the context and budget, then review trends with athletes and staff to drive behavior change. This structure gives coaches an operational path from intent to execution. ([NSCA][2])

Sleep hygiene the talk emphasizes. Several actionable behaviors are highlighted:

• Blue‑light management: limit bright/blue light exposure in the ~2 hours before bedtime to help the circadian system wind down. Software filters are helpful, but behavior (screens down) is better. ([NSCA][3])
• Light timing: seek early‑morning natural light exposure to anchor circadian rhythms and shift the clock appropriately after travel or schedule changes. ([NSCA][3])
• Sleep extension: in heavy phases or when athletes are underslept, consciously increasing TST (e.g., earlier lights‑out, strategic naps) is encouraged; this is “sleep extension.” ([NSCA][3])

Travel and jet‑lag strategies. Competition calendars make travel inevitable, so Crawley includes tactics to minimize sleep disruption:

• Movement dose: after travel or on arrival days, a ~20‑minute low‑intensity shakeout is recommended to help the body settle without spiking arousal or load.
• Light timing: get morning sunlight in the destination time zone; avoid bright light late evening.
• Routine: stabilize meal times, caffeine timing, and pre‑bed rituals to help the clock re‑ ([NSCA][3])

Case studies and applied decision‑making. The session references high‑performance case studies where sleep tracking was integrated with training load, wellness, and performance metrics. The point is not gadgetry—it’s using sleep data to inform day‑to‑day coaching decisions (e.g., adjusting the intensity of a session after red‑eye travel, moving a technical session earlier for an ‘early‑type’ athlete, or deploying sleep extension in congested schedules). Coaches are encouraged to use small, high‑yield changes—like blue‑light curfews, morning light, and earlier bedtimes—rather than relying solely on advanced devices to “fix” recovery. ([NSCA TV][4])

Bottom line. Crawley reframes sleep as a strategic lever. By educating athletes, screening systematically, measuring with validated tools, and applying circadian‑savvy behaviors (even simple ones), coaches can meaningfully improve readiness, reduce risk, and support long‑term development—no all‑nighters required. ([NSCA][2])

1. Which of the following is not an expected effect of short‑ or long‑term sleep loss?

Enhanced mood (Metabolic dysfunction and performance decrements are expected with sleep loss.)

2. Minimum daily sleep recommended for elite athletes?

9 hours (elite needs exceed the general population.)

3. How long before bedtime should athletes limit blue‑light exposure?

About 2 hours.

4. Post‑travel, what exercise dose helps minimize sleep disruption?

~20‑minute low‑intensity “shakeout” session.

5. Key requirement when choosing a wearable to track sleep?

Independent validation and reliability evidence.

6. What does ‘total sleep’ quantify?

The minutes spent asleep across light, REM, and deep stages (i.e., summed stage time).

7. Which sleep latency value can indicate overtiredness/sleep debt?

< 5 minutes to fall asleep.

8. Compared with the general public, how much sleep do athletes need for recovery?

A greater amount.

9. What is “sleep extension”?

Deliberately increasing total sleep time (e.g., earlier lights‑out, planned naps).

10. When is sunlight exposure most helpful for circadian alignment?

Early morning (destination local time when traveling).

References:

Crawley M. Sleep in Elite Athletes. NSCA TV. Coaches Conference 2022. `https://www.nsca.tv/videos/matt-crawley-coaches-2022-sleep-in-elite-athletes` ([NSCA TV][1])

Crawley M, Melton BAF. Sleep Health in High Performance Populations—Considerations to Optimize Athletic Potential. TSAC Report. 2022;64(1). https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/tsac-report/sleep-health-in-high-performance-populationsconsiderations-to-optimize-athletic-potential/` ([NSCA][2])

Applications of the 3‑Min All‑Out Exercise Test for Prescribing High‑Intensity Interval Training: A Narrative Review on a Decade of Research Progress

by ptfadmin | Jan 22, 2026 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

This narrative review explains how the 3‑minute all‑out exercise test (3MT) operationalizes the critical speed (CS) and critical power (CP) framework so coaches can prescribe precisely targeted high‑intensity interval training (HIIT) from a single test session. In brief, CS/CP represents the highest intensity at which a metabolic steady state can be sustained during continuous exercise; above CS/CP, time to task failure becomes predictable. The 3MT exploits this relationship by letting an athlete go “all‑out” for three minutes and deriving CS/CP and the finite work/distance capacity above that threshold—W′ (cycling/rowing) or D′ (running/swimming)—from the speed/power trace. That makes it possible to individualize intervals using exact fractions of W′/D′ rather than crude percentages of maximums or reserves.

Conceptual basis and what the 3MT estimates.

In running, the classic approach regresses multiple time‑trial distances to obtain a linear distance–time slope (CS) and an intercept (D′). The 3MT replaces those multiple visits: early in the test, the athlete uses up D′ while running above CS; as D′ nears depletion, speed falls to a plateau that reflects CS. Thus, the average speed over the final 30 seconds equals CS, whereas the mean speed above CS earlier in the test quantifies D′. Figure 2 in the article illustrates this with an example where CS = 4.0 m·s⁻¹ and D′ = 180 m.  The review frames CS/CP as the organizing metric of sustainable vs. non‑sustainable intensities and argues it offers more physiological specificity for interval work than percent max schemes.

Procedures and measurement quality.

For the running 3MT, the athlete runs all‑out for three minutes while speed or distance is monitored (e.g., GPS, timing splits); pace cues are concealed to discourage conscious pacing. Quality checks include reaching near‑max speed in ≈10 s, attaining ≈90% of 40‑m sprint speed at peak, and expending ≈90% of D′ in the first 90 s. The test shows strong reliability and validity (CS and D′ intraclass correlations ≈0.92–0.96).  The cycling 3MT uses a fixed flywheel load (typically ~2–5% of body mass), originally requiring two visits but now supported by validated single‑visit load‑setting approaches.  Rowing and swimming versions exist with acceptable agreement, although they are less studied than running/cycling.

Prescribing HIIT from CS/CP.

The 3MT enables interval design by specifying how much W′/D′ to deplete per bout and allowing precise rest for reconstitution. For cycling, power for a given interval duration can be set with

Power = (W′% / time) + CP, with rest (e.g., 5 min) chosen to standardize metabolic responses across sets (e.g., 60% vs. 80% W′ depletion). The review cites work where a mere 7‑W difference separated protocols that allowed completion of 3 vs. 4 five‑minute intervals, underscoring the fine control this method provides.  For running, coaches can fix distance and compute target time that expends a specified D′ fraction, or fix time and compute the necessary speed above CS; both approaches produced similar physiological outcomes and robust improvements after 6 weeks.

Load carriage applications.

Tactical and occupational settings often require running with extra load. The review shows how the CS derived from an unloaded 3MT can be adjusted downward by a simple regression tied to load as % of body mass, accurately predicting the decline in performance under load and allowing interval prescriptions that match the new (loaded) CS. Example calculations in Table 1 show how CS of 4.0 m·s⁻¹ would fall to ≈3.74 m·s⁻¹ with 15% and ≈3.10 m·s⁻¹ with 25% body mass added.

Shuttle running and field sports. For team sports where changes of direction are intrinsic, a shuttle 3MT (25–70 m switch‑backs) is preferable for prescription to account for the energetic cost of accelerations, decelerations, and turning. The shuttle‑based CS derived from a shuttle 3MT predicts performance, aligns better with VO₂‑related measures than common field tests (e.g., CS–VO₂max r ≈ 0.90 vs. Yo‑Yo IR1 r ≈ 0.55), and avoids the overestimation of CS/D′ that occurs if a linear 3MT is used to set shuttle training.

Training effects, frequency, and caution.

Across studies using CS/CP‑guided HIIT, meaningful improvements in VO₂max, speed at VO₂max, gas‑exchange threshold, CS, and fatigue tolerance are typically achieved in 4–6 weeks with 2–3 sessions per week. However, placing too much training above CS/CP without adequate relief can promote progressive metabolic strain, elevating the risk for overreaching/overtraining, so monitoring of internal and external load remains essential.

Safety and contraindications.

The test is self‑moderating (athletes can’t exceed their capacity by definition), but caution is warranted. The cycling 3MT likely carries a lower musculoskeletal risk because it relies predominantly on concentric contractions; athletes should remain seated to avoid forceful accessory motions. The running 3MT should be avoided during musculoskeletal recovery; if an athlete isn’t cleared to sprint 40 m, they shouldn’t perform the test. The high ventilatory demand can trigger symptoms in athletes with asthma or vocal‑cord dysfunction, and the test is contraindicated with sickle‑cell trait.

Future directions.

The authors anticipate closer integration of CS/CP, D′/W′ and wearable technologies for “live” energetic modeling in sport and tactical environments, including potential match‑play applications and periodized modulation of severe‑intensity work to optimize adaptation while minimizing risk.  Figure 1 in the paper also shows the rapid growth in CS/CP literature since the early 2000s, coinciding with the rise of the 3MT.

Bottom line:

The 3MT–CS/CP approach compresses testing into one efficient session, yields individualized, physiologically anchored interval prescriptions across running, cycling, swimming, rowing, and shuttle running, and now includes load‑carriage corrections for tactical use—all with strong measurement properties and practical guardrails for safe implementation.

1. What is the primary reason the 3-minute all-out test was developed?

   Answer: b. To estimate the time for onset of momentary fatigue at a given intensity.

   Rationale: The 3MT was designed to estimate when momentary fatigue occurs for speeds/powers exceeding CS/CP.

2. Which of the following best describes critical speed and critical power?

   Answer: a. They indicate an exercise intensity associated with a maximal steady state for continuous exercise.

  Rationale: CS/CP correspond to the maximal metabolic steady state for continuous work.

3. What is a key advantage of using the 3-minute all-out test over other traditional exercise testing methods?

   Answer: a. It provides an efficient way to assess and prescribe high-intensity exercise without multiple laboratory visits.

 Rationale: The 3MT replaced multi‑trial protocols by yielding CS/D′ or CP/W′ from a single session.

4. How is critical speed (CS) derived from the 3-minute all-out running test?

   Answer: c. By analyzing the average speed during the last 30 seconds in the test.

   Rationale: The final 30‑s mean speed plateaus at CS as D′ is effectively exhausted.

5. The cycling version of the 3-minute all-out test requires the athlete to pedal against a fixed load on a flywheel, typically between _______________ body mass.

   Answer: b. 2 and 5%.

   Rationale: Fixed flywheel loads of about 2–5% body mass are indicated.

6. Why does the CS/CP concept make an effective method for prescribing individualized HIIT?

   Answer: a. It represents the metabolic rate that determines exercise sustainability, allowing for precise interval training.

   Rationale: Intervals can target exact W′/D′ depletion above CS/CP.

7. Why is the shuttle 3-minute all-out test preferred for prescribing HIIT in shuttle-based training rather than relying on a linear 3MT?

   Answer: a. It accounts for the added energy expenditure with acceleration, deceleration, and turning.

   Rationale: Linear CS/D′ overestimates sustainable shuttle work; shuttle 3MT corrects for stop‑and‑go costs.

8. Research consistently demonstrates training improvements from HIIT using the CP/CS concept within _______________ with a frequency of __________________.

   Answer: a. 4–6 weeks, 2–3 times per week.

   Rationale: The review recommends cautious application, noting typical gains over 4–6 weeks at 2–3 sessions weekly.

9. There is a lower risk of musculoskeletal injuries when performing the ______________3-minute all-out test due to its reliance on concentric muscular contractions.

   Answer: b. Cycling.

   Rationale: Cycling emphasizes concentric actions and is recommended to minimize MSK risk.

10. What is a key concern when implementing HIIT within the severe intensity domain (exceeding CP/CS) too frequently?

    Answer: a. It can lead to progressive metabolic strain, increasing the risk of overreaching/overtraining.

    Rationale: The article cautions against excessive severe‑domain loading without adequate monitoring and relief.

References:

Pettitt RW, Dicks ND, Kramer M. Applications of the 3‑Min All‑Out Exercise Test for Prescribing High‑Intensity Interval Training: A Narrative Review on a Decade of Research Progress. Strength Cond J. 2025;47(1):45‑55.