The tactical strength and conditioning field is evolving each year. Because of the experience of those in the field, as well as the growing body of research, we are gaining a better understanding of what it actually means to work within the tactical field.

In order to develop athletes who can move optimally in multiple planes of motion, training should include elements that can challenge them in multiple planes while providing various resistance and proprioceptive challenges.

This excerpt from NSCA’s Essentials of Sport Science describes strength as a velocity-dependent concept.

C. Keith Harrison, Associate Program Director and Associate Professor of Sport Business Management for the University of Central Florida, talks at the 2015 National Conference about coaching and training in a multicultural environment. Harrison discusses his background and diversity in society, and engages the audience on diversity within the coaching and training environment.

This career series article focuses on the calling of the tactical strength and conditioning facilitator. It touches on the drive, commitment, and dedication necessary to work with tactical populations.

Colin Wilborn and Bret Contreras are elected to the NSCA Board of Directors. Joining the Nomination Committee are Shawn Arent and Jenevieve Roper.

NSCA has a network of volunteer leaders who direct NSCA’s efforts at the state level. NSCA’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Coordinator provides oversight and training to local state directors. Members in the Mid-Atlantic Region can connect at local and regional events as well as on Facebook to others in this area.

This article is part of a continuing series of tactical strength and conditioning (TSAC) research reviews. It is designed to bring awareness to new research findings of relevance to tactical strength and conditioning communities.

A common obstacle to achieving recommended physical activity and desired training goals is time. This is true for recreationally trained adults and athletes, particularly at the collegiate level, where greater restrictions on practice time and training are in place. One possible solution is to implement time-saving and time efficient training routines and methods that may limit the amount of time needed to attain desired physiological adaptations—by decreasing the time needed to train and/or by increasing the frequency with which brief workouts are completed throughout the week (e.g., “microdosing”). To provide the most optimal training stimulus, the correct method must be used. Unfortunately, numerous terms describe routines and methods discussed in the current body of available literature, many of which may seem similar and lead to confusion. The purpose of this article is to outline the similarities and differences of the numerous timesaving and time-efficient training routines and methods. Ultimately, this article synthesizes the current research into practical recommendations as programming options for strength and conditioning coaches and personal trainers. The information provided may also serve as a foundation for future research opportunities in time-saving and time-efficient training.

Resistance training or strength training has become one of the most popular forms of exercise, because it is the only method capable of improving physical fitness and increasing muscle mass simultaneously. Among the variables of training, the relationship between intensity and volume has been extensively addressed to enhance exercise induced muscular hypertrophy. For many, mechanical stress is seen as a factor of greater relevance and, because high loads promote greater mechanical tension and high intensities are traditionally used to increase muscle mass. However, evidence has shown greater safety and similar results through training based on lower intensities and increased training volume. Thus, this narrative review aimed to search the current literature for evidence on using different training loads to promote muscle hypertrophy. An extensive nonsystematic literature review was conducted in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Scielo databases. It was possible to conclude that the use of high and low intensity promotes similar results in muscle hypertrophy in all groups, leading to the belief that there is greater safety and adherence to the use of lower intensities compared with close effort to concentric failure.