The Discipline of
Philosophy in Strength
and Conditioning
Brian Gearity, PhD, CSCS
School of Human Performance and Recreation, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/21/2020
SUMMARY
ALTHOUGH THE FIELD OF
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING IS
ABUNDANT WITH RESEARCH AND
COMMENTARY WITH RESPECT TO
THE EXERCISE OR SPORT SCIEN-
CES, LESS IS KNOWN ABOUT
PHILOSOPHY. THE PURPOSE OF
THIS ARTICLE IS TO REVIEW HOW
THE TERM PHILOSOPHY HAS
BEEN USED IN STRENGTH AND
CONDITIONING, TO CLARIFY ITS
USE, AND TO ARGUE FOR ITS
INCLUSION AS A DISCIPLINE IN
THE FIELD. FURTHERMORE, THIS
PAPER PROPOSES THAT PRACTI-
TIONERS ARE ‘‘USING PHILOSO-
PHY’’ WHEN THEY SYNTHESIZE
RESEARCH AND PRACTICAL
KNOWLEDGE IN THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF THEIR OWN PHILOSOPHY
OF TRAINING.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
o become a strength coach or
T a sport scientist, most in the
field of strength and condition-
ing would recommend a degree in
exercise science or a closely related
field. Research confirms the impor-
tance of strength and conditioning
coaches’ knowledge in exercise science
(25,31). The National Strength Condi-
tioning Association’s (NSCA’s) profes-
sional standards and guidelines and the
criteria for obtaining the CSCS certi-
fication also demand the candidate be
knowledgeable in exercise science (35).
110 VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010
In spite of this recognition and the
centrality of exercise science in
strength and conditioning, Kraemer
(21) points out, ‘‘The most common
question asked of a strength coach over
the years has been, ÔWhat is your
philosophy?Õ’’ Martens (24) also wrote
that developing a sound coaching
philosophy is the most important
factor in determining the success of
a coach. In the case of these 2 authors,
the difference of the value of philoso-
phy can be explained by recognizing
that the former was referring to a phi-
losophy of training based on un-
founded beliefs or unsubstantiated
theories about resistance training and
the latter was referring to a philosophy
of coaching based on proper beliefs and
virtues to guide a coach’s behavior. It
appears that the discipline of philoso-
phy has a place in the field of strength
and conditioning, and the role of
philosophy should be clarified.
If coaches or scientists were to speak of
the principle of overload, there would
probably be little confusion as to what
we were referring to. It may immedi-
ately evoke a mental image of Milo
lifting a calf until it becomes a bull.
Because of the centrality and impor-
tance of understanding physiological
adaptations of muscle and tissue in
response to training, it makes sense
that sport scientists take muscle bi-
opsies, draw blood, and use experi-
mental approaches to determine how
the body adapts to and is affected by
different stimuli. However, when we
speak of philosophy in strength and
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
conditioning, what are we referring to?
Although most coaches and sport
scientists have extensive education in
exercise or sport sciences (e.g., physi-
ology, biology, motor learning, and
sport psychology), regrettably, many
coaches and sport scientists have little
education in philosophy and in de-
veloping philosophical arguments. To
close this knowledge gap dilemma, it is
necessary to understand what philos-
ophy is and how it can be used (9).
Although strength coaches and sport
scientists have, at times, been perform-
ing philosophical functions, as will be
seen in this article, the use of the term
‘‘philosophy’’ in the field of strength
and conditioning has been less than
exact. To understand what philosophy
is and is not, we should seek to
understand how philosophy currently
informs the field of strength and
conditioning.
Although there currently exist either
none or only indirect sources for
strength coaches and practitioners to
build a philosophy of training, this
article closes the gap in the literature
by providing some guidance specifically
related to ‘‘using philosophy’’ as it
relates to strength and conditioning
programs. Sport scientists, coaches,
and practitioners are already using
philosophy in this sense, and this article
will clarify how. Obtaining knowledge
KEY WORDS:
philosophy; program design; science;
coach; training
in philosophy and learning how philo-
sophical thinking is practical have
several implications. Coaches who are
mentoring young coaches, and profes-
sors who are teaching students, should
be able to provide more instruction and
resources to their respective pupils to
assist them in developing their own
training philosophies. Furthermore,
coaching education should include
lessons on making philosophy practical,
less theoretical, and abstract, so coaches
are able to use this knowledge to
construct a well-reasoned and logical
training philosophy.
The purpose of this article is to review
how the term philosophy has been used
in strength and conditioning, clarify its
use, and argue for its inclusion as
a discipline in the field. After analyzing
the current use of philosophy and by
providing more examples of how
strength and conditioning professionals
use philosophy, its importance to the
field will become more apparent. Fi-
nally, this article will provide guidance
to strength and conditioning professio-
nals in helping them to develop their
philosophical thinking skills.
‘‘PHILOSOPHY’’ IN THE STRENGTH
AND CONDITIONING LITERATURE
A thorough and recent search of the
research and literature published by
the NSCA in the Strength and Condi-
tioning Journal, Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, and position
statements for the word ‘‘philosophy’’
returned 20 results (2,4–8,10–12,14–
19,21,22,26,33,37). None of these au-
thors defined philosophy or more
specifically, philosophy of training.
Some of the articles merely mentioned
the word philosophy, whereas others
used the term in connection with other
thoughts and research. This literature
was read, analyzed, and has been
categorized in roughly 5 ways: system
of training, specific method of training,
attitude or belief, theory of training,
and aim of training (Table).
Presented in the Table are the authors
and year the term was used, the
corresponding quote, and its semantic
meaning. Note that the purpose of
these articles was not to discuss the
role of philosophy as a discipline in
strength and conditioning. Rather,
these authors used the term philoso-
phy, sometimes in differing and in-
consistent contexts. For the purpose of
this article, a brief description of each
of the 5 categories is provided to
demonstrate how the term was used.
System of Training
The most common use of ‘‘philoso-
phy’’ in these articles was to connote
a system of training in which the
authors discuss the training program
in its totality (e.g., my philosophy, our
training philosophy). If an article had
the word ‘‘philosophy’’ in the title, then
that was a good indicator that the
author discussed the totality of their
training program (4,5). These coaches
wrote about the steps used to train
athletes and the most important areas
their system of training focused upon
(e.g., strength, power, and agility). A
similar and common example, outside
of this literature, of coaches using
philosophy to connote a system of
training occurs at conferences when
coaches discuss their respective train-
ing philosophy (e.g., training the Ten-
nessee way, philosophy of training for
Beachwood High School). At confer-
ences, it is common for coaches to
speak about the totality of their
training program usually touching on
concepts related to the annual plan, the
exercise selection, and the type of split
routine used.
Several authors use the term philoso-
phy to indicate that the system of
training varies according to the coach’s
beliefs and goals (e.g., ‘‘Depending
upon the coach’s philosophy.’’)
(18,21,22,37). When philosophy is used
in this way, the authors are attempting
to explain the differences in the
systems of training. For example, Iosia
and Bishop (18) wrote how a football
coach’s offensive philosophy (e.g.,
game tactics and strategy) varies from
coach to coach.
Sport scientists and strength and
conditioning professionals also use
the term philosophy when writing
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
about how a particular method of
training fits into their overall system
of training. For example, in discussing
the use of strongman exercises in his
collegiate strength and conditioning
program, Hedrick of Bennett (2) ac-
knowledged the usefulness of these
exercises; however, he also believed
that he could not build an entire
program—or system of training—solely
around these exercises.
Specific Method of Training
Another way philosophy was used in
the literature in strength and condi-
tioning was with respect to a specific
method of training. The use of philos-
ophy in this way is closely related to
the system of training but differs
because its use is more focused about
a specific method of training. The term,
method, is used here to mean any
mode of resistance training, agility
training, exercises, and so on. Methods
are the specific ways practitioners
implement their system of training.
It is commonplace for coaches to write
or talk about how a specific method
does or does not fit into their program.
For example, Hammer (15) wrote that
his philosophy of training does not
include weightlifting because he be-
lieves that the risk of injury takes pre-
cedent over the possible benefits of
performing these exercises. A slightly
different example comes from Burton
(5) who wrote that the Oregon phi-
losophy of training tries to incorporate
whole body movements when appli-
cable. In these examples, the coaches
are describing a specific method of
training (e.g., weightlifting and whole
body movements) in relation to their,
presumably larger, system of training.
Attitude/Belief
Another way the term philosophy was
used was to connote attitude or belief
(8,21,33). In all these cases, the term
philosophy can be easily replaced with
the word belief or attitude, which is
why it was categorized as such. For
example, Wallace of Chiu (8) used the
term philosophy as synonymous with
belief, or in this case, the mistaken
belief that simply passing the CSCS
111
112
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010
Author
Burton (5, p. 19)
Hammer (15, p. 80)
Williams (37, p. 51)
Chaouachi et al. (7, p. 1571)
Drinkwater et al. (10, p. 1182)
Hoffman et al. (16, p. S29)
Spaniol (33, p. 26)
Wallace of Chiu (8, p. 27)
Kraemer (21, p. 131)
Burton (5, p. 20)
Hammer (15, p. 80)
Judge (19, p. 34)
Iosia and Bishop (18, p. 337)
Kraemer et al. (22, p. 8)
Bennett (2, p. 43)
The Discipline of Philosophy
Table
Use of the term philosophy in strength and conditioning
Corresponding quote Semantic meaning
‘‘The reasons for this [shot put success at Oregon] impressive record, I feel, is not only quality Aim or mission
technical coaching, but a philosophy of power, and agility primarily and strength, secondly.’’
‘‘My philosophy in regard to training our baseball players is directed toward gaining size, strength, Aim or mission
and power utilizing a concurrent conjugated method of periodization.’’
‘‘Along with the basic idea of supporting athletes, coaches and athletic programs, it should be a part Aim or mission
of the strength and conditioning program’s philosophy to develop a total athlete and to leave the
development of sport-specific players to the coaches of the respective programs.’’
‘‘In accordance with contemporary fitness profiling research philosophy, the present study was Attitude/belief
performed using elite male professional basketball players, all of whom were current members
of the Tunisian national team.’’
‘‘Because the ’more is better’ philosophy in (sic) common in the club sport coaching community Attitude/belief
and training players to high levels of fatigue is often thought to be always beneficial, the purpose
of this study is to assess voluntary and evoked muscle characteristics to gauge the neuromuscular
impact of a non-exhaustive but high-volume bout of plyometric exercise.’’
‘‘These [results of research] results provide fuel to the more is better philosophy employed by many Attitude/belief
athletes using performance-enhancing drugs.’’
‘‘This ’excellence does not occur by accident’ philosophy can be utilized by strength and conditioning Attitude/belief
professionals to measure and evaluate physiological, athletic, and sport specific skills that can be
predictors of successful baseball performance.’’
‘‘Thus, the philosophy that simply passing the CSCS is ’good enough’ to be a performance coach Attitude/belief
should be rejected.’’
‘‘Rather than having a training philosophy, it might be more productive to have a training approach Attitude/belief
based on facts and critical monitoring of test variables representative of the physical development
possible through strength and conditioning programs.’’
‘‘Thus our philosophy is to train the whole body whenever possible.’’ Specific method
‘‘It should be noted that my philosophy does not include weightlifting.’’ Specific method
‘‘The vehicle to achieving this goal for my athletes has been a throw training philosophy involving Specific method
the use of strength-power potentiating complexes (SPPCs).’’
‘‘The offensive philosophy may be based on quick-hitting plays in which undersized offensive System
lineman only have to engage, influence, cut, or get in the way of a defender vs. attempting
to dominate him one on one.’’
‘‘The volume of contact can be excessive in some weeks, depending on a team’s win-loss record System
and coaching philosophy.’’
‘‘In terms of different philosophies, when training untrained athletes, everything works, System of training
but nothing works forever.’’

Author
Burgener (4, p. 50)
Burton (5, p. 19)
Chandler (6, p. 12)
Faigenbaum et al. (11, p. S69)
Gilson et al. (12, p. 1170)
Hedrick of Bennett (2, p. 43)
Hedrick of Bennett (2, p. 43)
Kraemer (21, p. 133)
Kraemer (21, p. 131)
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
Mediate (26, p. 66)
Williams (37, p. 51)
Williams (37, p. 55)
Greer (14, p. 32)
Kraemer (21, p. 131)
Kraemer (21, p. 132)
113
Kraemer (21, p. 133)
Table
(Continued)
Corresponding quote Semantic meaning
‘‘[Title] A high school strength coach’s philosophy.’’ System of training
‘‘[Title] The Oregon weightmen: A power philosophy.’’ System of training
‘‘I encourage you to respect the opinions of other professionals as you develop your philosophy System of training
of training and conditioning athletes and clients.’’
‘‘Moreover, teachers, personal fitness trainers, and youth coaches should develop an appropriate System of training
philosophy about training youth that is consistent with the needs, goals, and interests of children
and adolescents.’’
‘‘All strength training sessions were under the direct or indirect guidance of the head strength System of training
and conditioning coach so that the strength training philosophy was consistent among all sports.’’
‘‘My point is that while we do use implements in the strength and conditioning programs of our athletes System of training
that are traditionally thought of as strongman training tools, we only use those tools that fit into our
overall training philosophy and never at the expense of enhancing athletic performance.’’
‘‘I believe there is a place for strongman type activities in our training, but I do not believe we System of training
can build an entire program or philosophy on these exercises.’’
‘‘The most common question asked of a strength coach over the years has been, ’What is your System of training
philosophy?’ Rather than, ’What is the factual basis for the training program each athlete is performing?’’
‘‘It is important to briefly discuss the evolution of strength training in American football and its impact System of training
on the context of training philosophies in the sport.’’
‘‘The implementation of game and skill analysis, along with training guidelines that focus on running System of training
mechanics and training protocols, has given our high school coaches a research-based philosophy to help
our athletes reach their potential and improve performance.’’
‘‘The wide range of coaching styles, philosophies, and beliefs will also make it very difficult to commit System of training
to sport specific off-season lifting programs.’’
‘‘Although often there is a difference in the individual philosophies of coaches, most would agree that System of training
having better athletes with which to work, increases the chance for success in sport.’’
‘‘In fact, the Superslow philosophy regards traditional aerobic training as a health risk related to Theory of training
musculoskeletal disorders and sees it as ineffective at reducing chronic disease risk.’’
‘‘Many theories about resistance training have been proposed, yet there has been little if any research Theory of training
on some of these training philosophies.’’
‘‘In the 1970s the pseudo science and marketing claims about weight training equipment and the Theory of training
associated philosophies to sell that equipment started to influence the decisions of strength coaches
hungry for information.’’
‘‘One philosophy that started in the 1970s was the idea that a person can only perform one set to Theory of training
failure or with maximum effort.’’
The Discipline of Philosophy
exam qualified the athletic trainer to be
a performance coach. Similarly, Span-
iol (33) used the term philosophy to
indicate the mistaken belief that base-
ball players succeed by accident.
Rather, it seems clear that he believes
that success on the baseball diamond
can be measured and evaluated, which
has implications for designing strength
and conditioning programs for baseball
players.
Kraemer (21) used the term ‘‘philoso-
phy’’ to indicate that strength and
conditioning programs should be de-
signed based on facts and monitoring
training variables, instead of beliefs:
‘‘Rather than having a training philos-
ophy, it might be more productive to
have a training approach based on facts
and critical monitoring of test variables
representative of the physical develop-
ment possible through strength and
conditioning programs.’’ The intent of
the article is clear; strength and condi-
tioning practitioners should base their
training programs using scientifically
justifiable methods. However, philoso-
phy is not a ‘‘mistaken belief.’’ Philos-
ophy does not disregard evidence-
based practice; in fact, a sound philo-
sophical approach would encourage
decisions based on scientific evidence.
Theory of Training
There are some who use the term
philosophy to connote a particular
theory of training (e.g., single-set
philosophy, Superslow philosophy).
These ‘‘philosophies,’’ or more aptly
put, theories of training, are often
purported to be superior to others
irrespective of empirical evidence. The
following quote demonstrates how one
author used the words theory and
philosophy to mean the same thing,
‘‘Many theories about resistance train-
ing have been proposed, yet there has
been little if any research on some of
these training philosophies,’’ (21).
Kraemer (21) was the first to use the
term philosophy in conjunction to
a theory of training in his review of
the literature related to the ‘‘theory’’ of
single-set with maximum effort train-
ing that was advocated by some in the
114 VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010
1970s. He accurately points out that
although some advocated that single-
set training was more effective than
multiple-set training, there was no
evidence to support this claim. Indeed,
research consistently demonstrates
that in trained individuals or athletes,
multiple-set training is more effective
in producing strength gains than
single-set training (21,23). The second
example where the term philosophy
was used in conjunction to a theory of
training was in the thorough review of
literature by Greer (14) and research
related to the ‘‘philosophy’’ of Super-
slow training. The mention of the term
philosophy in both of these articles is
limited, but philosophy is used as
synonymous as theory of training—a
guide or explanations on the best way
to train.
Aim of Training
Finally, there are those who discuss
philosophy in relation to the aims or
mission of their training program.
Some authors are specific about the
aims of their program, whereas others
are more general. For example, Burton
(5) wrote that the Oregon training
philosophy focused on training power
and agility first and strength second. It
appears that the aim of his training
program is power, agility, and then
strength. Williams (37) stated that the
aim of his philosophy of training is to
‘‘develop a total athlete,’’ but he also
believes that the development of sport-
specific adaptations should be left,
respectively, to those coaches. Still,
Hammer (15) stated that his philoso-
phy of training baseball players is
directed toward achieving size,
strength, and power. He also wrote
that although empirical research had
demonstrated the usefulness of weight-
lifting as a means to gain strength and
power, he did not incorporate them
into his training regimen because of his
perceived risk associated with these
exercises. Although not explicitly
stated, it appears then that one of the
aims of this training program is to not
injure athletes or to reduce the possi-
bility of injury.
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
Although all the ways that philosophy
has been used have some merit, there is
something awry with the use of the
term philosophy in this way. The field
of philosophy can be seen as an
approach to studying and understand-
ing just as physiology is an approach to
studying and understanding things
(e.g., muscle fibers, enzymes, and
physical processes). Philosophers write
philosophical arguments to develop
norms and standards for what should
be, not what is—that is the work of
empirical research (34,36). Philosophy
does not refer to a distinct body of
knowledge as do the fields of history or
biology, and to narrowly define, phi-
losophy does not speak to what
philosophers actually do (1,13,27).
Philosophy is a diverse and rich field
that is comprised of branches such as
ontology, epistemology, axiology, and
aesthetics. The most prudent action
here is not to narrowly define philos-
ophy, which most philosophers would
probably argue against, but rather, the
argument being made here is that
strength and conditioning professio-
nals are using philosophy, or philo-
sophical thinking skills, when
designing and implementing a strength
and conditioning program (30).
Philosophy is not, per se, a system of
training, a specific method of training,
an attitude or belief, a theory of
training, or an aim of training—it is all
of them. A thorough philosophy of
training speaks to, at least, the (a) aims
of training, (b) methods of training, (c)
beliefs and values of the practitioner,
(d) research and practice, and (e) what
we know and do not know. Sound
philosophies, or philosophical argu-
ments, contain lucid, logical, and
thoughtful reasons to support their case.
For example, one author argues against
the use of weightlifting exercises for
baseball players (15). The 2 reasons he
provided were that the aim of his
program was to not injure athletes and
that he felt there were other, safer ways
to develop a baseball player’s ability. It
is noteworthy here to point out that
this valuing statement establishes the
norm and standard of safety, which is
a function of philosophical arguments.
Another practitioner may be comfort-
able using weightlifting exercises and
feel that they could be implemented
without increasing the risk of injury.
One of the major functions of articu-
lating a philosophy of training is for the
practitioner to become aware of how
his beliefs and values, derived from
knowledge of research and practice,
lead him to choose certain aims,
methods, and systems of training.
When somebody asks, ‘‘What is your
philosophy?’’ they are not asking you
to respond with empirically unproven
research about physiology or your
attitude toward a particular exercise
(method). Unfortunately, the less than
precise use of the term ‘‘philosophy’’ to
connote an attitude or belief serves, in
one sense, to subordinate the discipline
of philosophy into something less
rigorous than the natural sciences that
conduct empirical research. When
somebody asks, ‘‘What is your philos-
ophy of training?’’ simply put, they
want to know everything about how
you design and implement a strength
and conditioning program. Strength
and conditioning professionals do not
design programs, but rather, they de-
velop a philosophy of training. In the
field of strength and conditioning, to
have, develop, or modify a philosophy
of training means for the practitioner to
wisely and responsibly choose all
aspects of the training program.
We need to be concerned when practi-
tioners can offer no good reasons as to
the design of their program. We also
need to be concerned about a practi-
tioner overusing aerobic training for
a strength/power sport as much as we
would be about a practitioner blindly
using the same research as good
reasoning to implement exercises that
may not be safe or effective. Good
reasons not only come from more than
just empirical research and facts but also
come from the practical experience and
the practitioner’s values. To use philos-
ophy in strength and conditioning is to
become aware and conscious of why we
choose to train a particular way, to be
knowledgeable of research and what
works in practice, and to be responsible
for the safety and development of
athletes. For a practitioner to think
philosophically would mean to truly
reflect about what it means to design
a quality strength and conditioning
program and reflect on what we think
we know and what we do not know,
although recognizing that certainty is
not always possible (13,30).
WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS NOT
Philosophical arguments are not a the-
ory in the sense that philosophy does
not predict relationships among varia-
bles that may be tested through the
generation of hypotheses or empirical
research. For example, one cannot test
certain philosophies of ethics such as
Kant’s (20) categorical imperative,
Buber’s book (3) I and Thou, Sartre’s
(32) call for responsibility, or Nod-
ding’s (29) care theory. They cannot be
tested in a lab; rather, their merits must
be judged by other philosophical
criteria. These examples are not exper-
imental lab testable theories but rather
are examples of philosophers who
thought about a topic to construct a
philosophy, or more aptly put, a phil-
osophical argument. This type of
theorizing is a cognitive exercise rather
than a prediction of the relationship
among variables.
It would have been more accurate for
some authors to use theory or method
rather than the term ‘‘philosophy.’’ For
example, Greer (14) called Superslow
training a ‘‘philosophy’’ when it would
have been more accurate to label it as
an untested method (e.g., using long
eccentric muscle actions). Similarly, in
the 1980s when single-set training was
advocated, it was at this time an
untested method (a particular way to
train) in spite of one author calling it a
‘‘philosophy’’ (21). The author went
on to argue that there are too many
mistaken ‘‘philosophies’’ of training
that have relied on anecdotes, pseudo-
science, marketing, and untested
claims. Herein lies one of the problems
with using philosophy to connote a
theory or method of training. Philos-
ophy has nothing per se to do with
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
pseudoscience, marketing, and weight
training equipment. Philosophical ar-
guments do not test the efficacy of
various resistance training programs—
that is the work of empirical research.
This is why researchers have set up
testable hypotheses based on the prop-
osition, ‘‘single-set training is more
effective than multiple-set training in
developing strength’’ or ‘‘long eccentric
contractions are more effective than
faster contractions in developing
strength.’’ Indeed, research suggests
that both Superslow training and
single-set training are not, by them-
selves, the most effective method to
gain strength or maximize caloric
expenditure (14,17,23). Because philos-
ophies are not testable in an empirical
sense, sport scientists mistakenly
stated that they were testing philoso-
phies when it would have been more
accurate to state that they were testing
propositions related to a theory or
method of training.
To use the term philosophy to credit or
discredit a particular way to train
creates 2 consequences. First, it limits
the potential for the discipline of
philosophy to provide insight and
clarification into numerous aspects
related to strength and conditioning.
Philosophy has already provided some
guidance in strength and conditioning
as can be found in the NSCA’s pro-
fessional standards and guidelines,
which reveal a ‘‘philosophy’’ or belief
in providing proper supervision, keep-
ing athletes/clients safe from harm,
and having knowledgeable coaches or
trainers. Second, it ignores the premise
that philosophical arguments are dif-
ferent from scientific arguments. Sci-
entific arguments use verifiable and
observational methods to support their
claims, whereas philosophical argu-
ments use logic and reasoning (34). If
one wanted to speak about a particular
exercise or a particular variation of
training, it would be more accurate to
call this a method. If we wanted to
critique, debate, or discuss someone’s
philosophy of training, it would be
more fruitful to address his/her flaws in
reasoning and logic rather than placing
115
The Discipline of Philosophy
unwarranted fault on the field of
philosophy.
At this point, one recommendation for
future use of the term philosophy is to
consider not using ‘‘philosophy’’ when
another word (e.g., belief, attitude,
proposition, theory, opinion, and
method) would be more appropriate.
All forms of research, empirical and
philosophical, should strive to define
terms and use clear language, as is the
case in many studies that use opera-
tional definitions.
USING PHILOSOPHY
Using philosophy is inherent to de-
signing strength and conditioning pro-
grams, and there are some advantages
to recognizing this occurrence. Should
the strength and conditioning profes-
sional prescribe the snatch or a medicine
ball throw? While the former may elicit
greater gains in strength, the latter is
arguably safer, easier to learn, and offers
a similar movement pattern. What are
the most important goals of the pro-
gram? What does evidence-based re-
search not tell us? Making decisions like
this are not neutral, but rather, they
indicate which values are most impor-
tant to the strength and conditioning
professional and his or her organization.
Identifying these questions may help
coaches become more aware of why
they do what they do. Furthermore,
coach educators or coach mentors can
use these questions, and others, to
stimulate critical thinking skills and
assess what reasons professionals pro-
vide based on evidence-based research
and practical knowledge.
Other considerations will also warrant
the use of philosophical thinking. For
example, practitioners will need to
consider their own unique situation
to address issues related to, but not
limited to, the coach/athlete ratio,
space and time, and equipment avail-
able. Many large universities have
several strength coaches. Although it
may be appropriate for them to
implement programs using highly
technical exercises, it may not be
responsible for high schools, or even
some professional teams, where the
116 VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2010
staff and facility may be much smaller.
Because most practitioners work in
schools and report to a sport coach, it
is also appropriate to consider the
coach’s aims for the strength and
conditioning program. If the head
sport coach was also the head strength
coach, then he would have to choose
between practicing the team longer or
halting practice because he feared that
they may be overtraining.
Thinking philosophically may be
thought of as one, perhaps, the bridge
between research and practice. To use
philosophy (as a verb) is the process by
which practitioners synthesize, evalu-
ate, and connect research with prac-
tice, beliefs and attitudes, and aims and
methods into every facet of designing
a strength and conditioning program.
To have a philosophy (as a noun) of
training means the strength and con-
ditioning professional has constructed
an end product, a guide to training,
which should be flexible and subject to
change based on current research and
practical knowledge.
Finally, by including the discipline of
philosophy into strength and condi-
tioning, it may permit us to further our
understanding of other issues where-
upon philosophical thought may be
better suited. For example, empirical-
based research demonstrates the per-
formance-enhancing effects of anabolic
steroids, but yet, the NSCA, and
probably most strength and condition-
ing professionals, disapprove their use.
In this case, the ethical belief of safety
and long-term health apparently out-
weighs performance enhancement.
Other ethical questions abound such
as ‘‘What is the responsibility of the
strength and conditioning professional
in helping athletes detrain after their
athletic career? or What should the
strength coach do when the sport
coach directs them to do something
morally questionable?’’ Similarly, the
NSCA’s certification commission uses
philosophy (under the branch of
epistemology) when they delineate
what a strength and conditioning pro-
fessional should know, which speaks to
the ideal or educated professional. Still,
at other times, strength and condition-
ing professionals may draw upon the
work of philosophers to help motivate
athletes. For example, although often
taken out of context, the German
philosopher Nietzsche (28) is credited
with having said, ‘‘Whatever does not
kill me makes me stronger.’’ The point
of these questions and examples is not
to fully espouse on them here but to
acknowledge how a broader, and more
truthful, acceptance of the discipline of
philosophy into the field of strength
and conditioning would be beneficial.
Brian Gearity is
an assistant
professor in the
School of Human
Performance and
Recreation at
the University
of Southern
Mississippi.
REFERENCES
1. Audi R. Philosophy: A Brief Guide for
Undergraduates. Available at: http://
www.apaonline.org/publications/texts/
briefgd.aspx. Accessed: December 16,
2009.
2. Bennett S. Using ‘‘strongman’’ exercises in
training. Strength Cond J 30: 42–43,
2008.
3. Buber M. I and Thou. Smith RG, trans. New
York, NY: Macmillian, 1971. pp. 27–29.
4. Burgener, M. A high school strength
coach’s philosophy. Strength Cond J 14:
50–51, 1992.
5. Burton R. Oregon track part III the Oregon
weightmen: A power philosophy. NSCA J
2: 19–20, 1980.
6. Chandler TJ. Editor’s note: Baseball special
edition. Strength Cond J 31: 12, 2009.
7. Chaouachi A, Brughelli M, Chamari K,
Levin GT, Abdelkrim B, Laurencelle L, and
Castagna C. Lower limb maximal dynamic
strength and agility determinants in elite
basketball players. J Strength Cond Res
23: 1570–1577, 2009.
8. Chiu LZF. Dual role athletic trainer/strength
coach. Strength Cond J 30: 26–28,
2008.
9. Davis EC. The philosophic process in
physical education. Philadelphia, PA: Lea &
Febiger, 1961. p. 90.
10. Drinkwater EJ, Lane T, and Cannon J. Effect
of an acute bout of plyometric exercise on
neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in
recreational athletes. Strength Cond J 23:
1181–1186, 2009.
11. Faigenbaum AD, Kraemer WJ, Blimkie CJR,
Jeffreys I, Micheli LJ, Nitka M, and
Rowland TW. Youth resistance training:
Updated position statement paper from
the National Strength and Conditioning
Association. J Strength Cond Res 23:
S60–S79, 2009.
12. Gilson TA, Chow GM, and Ewing ME.
Using goal orientations to understand
motivation in strength training. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 1169–1175, 2008.
13. Greene M. Teacher as Stranger:
Educational Philosophy for the Modern
Age. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1973.
pp. 3–25.
14. Greer BK. The effectiveness of low velocity
(Superslow) resistance training. Strength
Cond J. 27: 32–37, 2005.
15. Hammer C. Preseason training for college
baseball. Strength Cond J. 31: 79–85,
2009.
16. Hoffman JR, Kraemer WJ, Bhasin S, Storer T,
Ratamess NA, Haff GG, Willoughby DS,
and Rogol AD. Position stand on androgen
and human growth hormone use.
J Strength Cond Res 23: S1–S59, 2009.
17. Hunter GR, Seelhorst D, Snyder S.
Comparison of metabolic and heart rate
responses to super slow vs. traditional
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res
17: 76–81, 2003.
18. Iosia MF and Bishop PA. Analysis of
exercise-to-rest ratios during division IA
televised football competition. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 332–340, 2009.
19. Judge LW. The application of postactivation
potentiation to the track and field thrower.
Strength Cond J 31: 34–36, 2009.
20. Kant I. Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals. Ellington JW, trans. Indianapolis,
IN: Hackett, pp. 23–25, 1993.
21. Kraemer WJ. A series of studies—The
physiological basis for strength training in
American football: Fact over philosophy.
Strength Cond J 11: 131–142,
1997.
22. Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Martin GJ,
Howard RL, Ratamess NA, Hatfield DL,
Vingren JL, Yu Ho J, Fragala MS, Thomas GA,
French DN, Anderson JM, Hakkinen K, and
Maresh CM. Recovery from a national
collegiate athletic association division I
football game: Muscle damage and
hormonal status. J Strength Cond Res 23:
2–10, 2009.
23. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of
resistance exercise: A meta-regression.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 1890–1901,
2009.
24. Martens R. Successful Coaching.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
pp. 1–16.
25. Martinez DM. Study of the key determining
factors for the NCAA Division I head
strength and conditioning coach.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 5–18, 2004.
26. Mediate P. Speed training concepts for the
high school coach and athlete. Strength
Cond J 31: 65–66, 2008.
27. Morgan W. The Philosophy of Sport: A
Historical and Conceptual Overview and
a Conjecture Regarding its Future. In:
Handbook of Sports Studies. Coakley J
and Dunning E, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2007. pp. 204–212.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
28. Nietzsche F. Twilight of the Idols, or How to
Philosophize With a Hammer. Large D,
trans. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 1998. p. 5.
29. Noddings N. Caring: A Feminine Approach
to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 2003.
pp. 26–20.
30. Ozman HA and Craver SM. Philosophical
Foundations of Education (7th ed).
Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall, 2003.
pp. 1–13.
31. Pullo FF. A profile of NCAA Division I
strength and conditioning coaches. J Appl
Sport Sci Res 6: 55–62, 1992.
32. Sartre JP. Existentialism is a Humanism.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2007. pp. 23.
33. Spaniol FJ. Baseball athletic test: A
baseball-specific test battery. Strength
Cond J 31: 26–29, 2009.
34. Thayer-Bacon BJ, Moyer D. Philosophical
and historical research. In: Doing
Educational Research. Tobin K and
Kincheloe J, eds. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense, 2006. pp. 139–156.
35. Triplett NT, Williams C, McHenry P,
Doscher M. National strength and
conditioning association: strength and
conditioning professional standards and
guidelines. Strength Cond J 31: 14–38,
2009.
36. Vandenberg D. Being and Education: An
Essay in Existential Phenomenology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
pp. 3–12.
37. Williams CA. Program development for the
multisport high school athlete. Strength
Cond J 30: 51–55, 2008.
117