Skip to main content

Table 5 Responses to statements in the creating an inclusive deloading training environment dimension

From: Integrating Deloading into Strength and Physique Sports Training Programmes: An International Delphi Consensus Approach

Creating an inclusive deloading training environment

Round 2 (n = 29)

Round 3 (n = 21)

Agreement (%)

Disagreement (%)

Agreement (%)

Disagreement (%)

Creating an inclusive deloading training environment

Deloading may be easier to implement when the sport has infrequent competitions.

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Deloading may be easier to implement when it can be integrated around sport competitions

85.7

14.3

90.5

9.5

Deloading may be harder to implement when the sport has frequent competitions

96.4

3.6

100.0

0.0

Deloading may be harder to implement as athletes find it boring

62.1

37.9

66.7

33.3

Deloads may be hard to implement as athletes love to train

69.0

31.0

76.2

23.8

Deloading could allow coaches to identify the needs analysis of new athletes

92.3

7.7

100.0

0.0

Deloading may be harder to implement due to athlete perspectives on what a deload is, versus what it actually includes

88.0

12.0

100.0

0.0

Deloading may be harder to implement due to the coach’s perspectives on what a deload is, versus what it actually includes

84.0

16.0

100.0

0.0

Members of a coaching team not working in collaborative way could be a barrier to integrating deloading

96.2

3.8

100.0

0.0

Lack of athlete education and understanding on a deloading could be barrier to integration

92.9

7.1

95.0

5.0

Lack of coach education and understanding on a deloading could barrier to integration

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Age may be a barrier to deloading integration

65.2

34.8

61.1

38.9

Training culture may be a barrier to deloading integration

96.6

3.4

100.0

0.0

Illness could be a barrier to deloading integration

65.4

34.6

58.8

41.2

Athlete lifestyle could be a barrier to deloading integration

79.3

20.7

81.0

19.0

Deloading should be different for males and females

20.0

80.0

15.4

84.6

Developing coach education could resolve barriers for integrating deloading

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Developing athlete education could resolve barriers for integrating deloading

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Working a multi-disciplinary team could reduce barriers for integrating deloading

96.0

4.0

94.7

5.3

Involving athletes in decision making on deloading could aid its integration

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Research informed practice could aid the integration of deloading

96.6

3.4

95.2

4.8

Communication between parties may be key to integrating deloading

100.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Athlete autonomy may be key for integrating deloading

76.9

23.1

90.0

10.0

Coaches could focus on relaying the concepts and foundations of deloading to athletes

93.1

6.9

100.0

0.0

Coaches could focus on encouraging deloading as a training tool rather than a ‘fad’

96.4

3.6

100.0

0.0

Deloading could be integrated in moderation based on the athlete/client training goal

96.6

3.6

100.0

0.0

Using consistent terminology when disseminating information on deloading could aid its integration

96.4

3.6

100.0

0.0