Transfer of Training: How Specific Should We Be?

A SPECTRUM OF APPROACHES EXISTS AMONG STRENGTH COACHES AS TO THE DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY REQUIRED TO OPTIMIZE TRAINING TRANSFER TO TARGETED ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE. THE “PROBLEM” WITH SPECIFICITY IS THAT IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH OVERLOAD. SOME GIVING PRECEDENCE TO SPECIFICITY FIND A SOLUTION IN APPLYING OVERLOAD THROUGH VARIATION, WHEREAS OTHERS SEEK TO TRADITIONALLY OVERLOAD 1 OR 2 ELEMENTS OF THE SPORTING MOVEMENT. ADVOCATES OF GENERAL TRAINING MORE READILY SACRIFICE SPECIFICITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPACITIES. IN APPLYING THESE CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO THE HYPOTHETICAL TARGET TASK OF ACCELERATIVE SPRINTING, THIS REVIEW COMBINES EVIDENCEAND LOGIC-LED ARGUMENTS TO EVALUATE THE EFFICACY OF EACH. AS SUCH, A SUMMARY OF LITERATURE IS PRESENTED. IN MOST CONTEXTS, A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH REMAINS RECOMMENDED AS DEGREE OF TRANSFER TO TARGETED ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE APPEARS AS DEPENDENT ON ATHLETE STATUS AS IT IS ON THE SPECIFICITY OF THE TRAINING TASK. INTRODUCTION I n strength and conditioning (S&C), the concept of training transfer is a highly debated topic. Training transfer refers to the degree of crossover from a training means to the desired outcome or task (27), for example, the extent to which a power clean impacts 5-m sprint performance. Transfer ultimately determines the worth of training programs and their exercises in the context of improving athletic performance (27). Although training programs are likely to be more general in nature during the early stages of training (10,25,27,31,37,54), as athlete preparation approaches competition time, transference to the target task (sporting movement) becomes a priority, and therefore, training tasks commonly become increasingly similar (11,55). Various models of organizing training into an effective performance outcome have been proposed within the literature over the past 3 decades. Bondarchuk (11) developed a system of exercise classification, where based on their characteristics, exercises fell into 1 of 4 categories: general preparatory exercises (GPEs), specific preparatory exercises (SPEs), specialized developmental exercises (SDEs), and finally, competitive exercise (CE). Their characteristics were determined by Siff and Verkhoshansky’s (45) 5 laws of dynamic correspondence; a criterion proposed to determine an exercise or training program’s ability to positively affect the athletes’ sporting performance. These were (a) amplitude and direction of movement, (b) accentuated region of force production, (c) dynamics of the effort, (d) rate and time of maximal force production, and (e) regime of muscular work. Within the system, CE would be the target task itself or very minor variations, and SDE would be akin to the traditional notion of the “sports-specific” exercise—mechanically overloading 1 or 2 aspects of the target task and similarity at recruitment level (local specificity). SPE would be chosen for its local specificity too, but the movements may not necessarily resemble even part of the target task, while GPE disregard the specificity principle all together. Bosch (12) recently added a further layer of rigor to these laws with amodel heavily underpinned by motor learning principles. His 3-layer model of specificity proposes that, for a target task to transfer to a training task, the 2 movement patterns must have similarity of (a) intramuscular and intermuscular coordination, similar excursion of the joints (outer movement resemblance) and associated energy production, (b) sensory input about both the environment and their own body (proprioception) and, (c) similarity of intention. The first layer will be familiar to most exercise scientists, whereas the final layers may not. These will be explained further in the subsequent section that will use ecological dynamics to connect motor-learning theory to exercise science. To avoid confusion around Address correspondence to Simon Brearley, SLB@cranleigh.org.