Has Exercise Become To Scientific?

     In today's strength and conditioning community, there seems to always be a debate, discussion, or even heated argument about something. This could be about technique, programming, periodization, or development theories. I am fully aware that this is not isolated to strength and conditioning, as this applies across sports coaches as well however, I have noticed that strength and conditioning researchers and coaches seem very set in their specific beliefs or methods. Though this may not be a bad thing, failure to grow or evolve in the face of new theories or research is a recipe for failure or stagnation. 

     I am currently pursuing my Ed. D in kinesiology so I want to state that I fully support scientific processes, research, and application to strength and conditioning as well as human performance. Understanding scientific principles are essential to efficiently move weight and improve performance while reducing the risk of injury. Scientific studies and research have pushed perceived limits of strength, power, and speed. This has elevated sports performance and skill feats beyond what seemed impossible only a few decades ago. 

    All of that being said, there is magic in the old ways. There is so much talk about the latest technology, or system, or the latest "athlete performance" recipe. At the end of the day, athletes need only a few things; power, strength, speed, mobility, and motor control. Developing these things is actually rather simple, yet in its simplicity, coaches often overcomplicate the process. Realistically, athletes need to move heavy things at varying speeds, run at varying speeds and coordinate these movements in a sequential pattern. In the past, this was accomplished through simple, relatively linear periodization, focused on eating high protein foods and lifting weights. This worked to check the boxes mentioned above. 

    Currently, there are a large number of coaches (and influencers) on both sides of the argument. With S&C coaches being from a diverse range of backgrounds, there are, of course, a wide range of applications for every theory. I am not here to say these theories are wrong or do not work, I am simply asking if they're necessary. 

    I am currently working as a high school S&C coach that has to manage a large number of multi-sport athletes, some of which play multiple sports in the same season (ie. track/softball). I am sure there is a scientific, data-driven formula to manage this and track a bunch of metrics, but at the end of the day, the thing these athletes need most is proper stimulus in order to prevent injury. Strength and power can be developed over the summer to whatever degree that athlete progresses, however, this is not a priority with these athletes. At larger schools, with single sport athletes (which also should not really be a thing in high school) a periodized approach to training that follows the overload principle is really all high schoolers need. They will develop stronger and be as explosive as they need to be going into college. 

    At the end of the day, with all the newest books and theories and coaches with opinions, the only thing athletes need is a progressive, periodized overload. This applies to running and lifting but keeping the focus on keeping athletes healthy and wanting to be involved in the weight room and their sport. If the athlete doesn't want to be there, they will underperform and potentially get hurt or quit altogether, neither of which helps the athlete. Again, science has taken this field beyond limits previously placed on the human body, but let's make sure we are starting with the basics of S&C before we start getting too advanced. In reality, a lot of the newest tech and theories only apply to the highest caliber of athletes, and the regular college/high school athlete just needs to move various loads at various speeds.