By Ian Kadish, CSCS, RSCC
Senior Director, Player Performance | Minnesota Twins
In high-performance sport, exercises, techniques and methodologies are often labeled good, bad, outdated or ineffective. But every time we eliminate a tool simply because we don’t like it, don’t believe in it or don’t use it, we make our professional toolbox smaller. The tool isn’t the problem. Context determines whether it belongs.
Context Changes Everything
Almost every exercise, technique and methodology can be viewed as both good and bad. Not because the tool itself is necessarily flawed, but because its effectiveness depends on the situation in which it is used.
Consider the bench press. Is it a good exercise? Is it a bad exercise?
The better answer is: It depends. Its value depends on:
- The athlete — Who is in front of you?
- The goal — What adaptation are you trying to create?
- The training phase — Where are you in the training process?
- The injury history — Are there limitations or considerations?
- The sport demands — What is the athlete preparing to do?
Only after considering those factors can you determine whether the bench press belongs in the program. The same reasoning applies to manual therapy, blood-flow restriction training, high-velocity sprinting, plyometric progressions, strength exercises, conditioning methods and recovery strategies.
Instead of asking: “Do I like this?” Ask: “When, why and for whom might this be useful?”
How Big Is Your Toolbox?
Compare two practitioners. One says: “I don’t use that.” The other says: “I understand when that works, when it doesn’t and why.”
The second practitioner has a larger toolbox. That doesn’t mean using every available exercise, technique or methodology. It means understanding enough about each tool to recognize when it might—or might not—have value.
The more environments, sports and athlete populations you work with, the more important that becomes. Different athletes present different problems. One philosophy, one methodology or one favorite exercise won’t solve all of them.
Don’t Back Yourself into a Corner
When practitioners repeatedly eliminate exercises, techniques and methodologies, their toolbox gets smaller. Eventually, the toolbox can become a corner. And corners are difficult places from which to operate in high-performance sport. Operating from a corner creates blind spots and can make collaboration more difficult.
Today’s high-performance environment often brings together strength and conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, physical therapists, physicians, sport scientists, nutrition professionals and skill coaches. Each professional may see the same athlete or problem through a different lens.
A larger toolbox makes collaboration easier.
You don’t have to use every tool another professional uses. But understanding why a qualified colleague might choose a different approach creates better opportunities to work together and solve problems. That’s an important part of a transdisciplinary high-performance model.
Don’t Confuse Preference with Evidence
Statements such as:
“I don’t like that exercise.”
“That methodology is outdated.”
“That technique doesn’t work.”
can become problematic when they’re made without considering context. They turn a context-dependent decision into a context-free judgment. High-performance sport requires more critical thinking than that.
The objective isn’t to defend or attack a particular exercise or methodology. It’s to understand its potential benefits, limitations and costs well enough to determine whether it fits the athlete and situation in front of you.
Personal preference shouldn’t determine programming. Athlete needs should.
Ask Better Questions
Professional growth requires intellectual honesty. It requires being willing to revisit an exercise, technique or methodology you’ve previously dismissed and ask: “Under what conditions could this be the right tool?”
That’s a very different question from searching for information that confirms what you already believe. The best practitioners don’t build programs around favorite exercises.
They understand:
- What the tool is designed to accomplish.
- What it demands from the athlete.
- What physiological or biomechanical adaptations it can produce.
- What risks or limitations it carries.
- Where it fits within the training process.
- When another tool might be more appropriate.
The exercise isn’t the program. It’s one tool within the program.
Before You Choose—or Eliminate—a Tool
- Ask three questions:
- Does it fit the athlete?
- Does it fit the goal?
- Does it fit right now?
If the answer is yes, the tool might have a place. If the answer is no, choose another tool. But don’t eliminate it from your toolbox simply because it wasn’t appropriate today.
The Takeaway
High-performance sport is too complex for absolutes.
Different athletes have different needs. Training phases change. Injury histories differ. Competitive demands evolve. New evidence emerges.
The best tool for one athlete might be completely inappropriate for another. And the best tool today might not be the best tool tomorrow.
The goal isn’t to use everything.
The goal is to understand the available tools well enough that your decisions are driven by the athlete and the context, not by personal preference, training background or what you’ve decided to stand against.
Don’t defend exercises. Don’t attack exercises. Understand them. Then apply them in context.
The best practitioners aren’t defined by the tools they use. They’re defined by knowing when, why and for whom to use them.
Don’t Villainize the Tool: Context Drives High-Performance Decisions
By Ian Kadish, CSCS, RSCC
Senior Director, Player Performance | Minnesota Twins
In high-performance sport, it is easy to label an exercise, treatment technique, or training methodology as either “good” or “bad.” The bench press is bad for athletes. Manual therapy doesn’t work. Blood flow restriction (BFR) is overused. Sprinting is too risky. Certain plyometrics are unsafe.
These statements might sound decisive, but they overlook one of the most important principles in high performance:
A tool cannot be judged without considering the context in which it is used.
Every time we villainize an exercise, technique, or methodology, we remove a tool from our toolbox. Remove enough tools and eventually we back ourselves into a corner. In high-performance sport, that is a difficult place from which to operate.
It also creates blind spots and can limit the transdisciplinary collaboration required to solve complex performance problems.
The Tool Is Not the Decision
Every exercise, technique, and methodology has the potential to be both good and bad. Not because the tool itself is flawed, but because its value depends on the athlete, the objective, and the situation.
Consider the bench press.
Is it a good exercise?
The better answer is: It depends.
It depends on the athlete in front of you, the adaptation you are trying to create, the phase of training, injury history, training age, available equipment, and the demands of the athlete’s sport and position.
Under the right conditions, the bench press can be an effective tool. Under different conditions, another exercise might be a better choice.
The same principle applies to manual therapy, BFR, high-velocity sprinting, plyometric progressions, strength exercises, conditioning methods, recovery strategies, and almost every other intervention used in high-performance sport.
The question should rarely be:
“Is this good or bad?”
A better question is:
“Is this appropriate for this athlete, for this purpose, at this time?”
Avoid Context-Free Judgments
Statements such as “I don’t like that exercise,” “that methodology is outdated,” or “that technique doesn’t work” can become context-free judgments about decisions that are inherently context-dependent.
That is not critical thinking.
It is dogma wearing the costume of expertise.
There is an important difference between the practitioner who says:
“I don’t use that.”
and the practitioner who says:
“I understand when that works, when it doesn’t, and why.”
The first practitioner has voluntarily reduced the size of the toolbox. The second has expanded the ability to solve problems.
That distinction becomes especially important when working with different sports, positions, age groups, injury histories, competitive schedules, facilities, coaching staffs, and organizational philosophies.
High-performance environments rarely present identical problems. Practitioners need enough knowledge and flexibility to adapt when the environment changes.
Build a Bigger Toolbox
Having a large toolbox does not mean using every tool.
It means understanding enough tools to make informed choices.
The best practitioners don’t necessarily have favorite exercises or methodologies. Instead, they understand:
- What each tool is designed to accomplish.
- What it demands physically and psychologically from the athlete.
- What physiological and biomechanical adaptations it can produce.
- What risks, limitations, and tradeoffs accompany it.
- Where it fits within the training or rehabilitation process.
- When another tool might accomplish the same goal more effectively.
This approach changes programming from exercise selection to problem solving.
The exercise is not the program. The technique is not the philosophy. The methodology is not the goal.
The athlete is the focus, and the tool is simply one option for helping the athlete move toward the desired outcome.
Context Supports Collaboration
This mindset also supports a transdisciplinary approach to athlete development.
High-performance sport requires input from strength and conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, physical therapists, physicians, sport scientists, dietitians, mental-performance professionals, skills coaches, and sport coaches.
When professionals become overly attached to their own methods—or automatically dismiss the methods used by another discipline—collaboration becomes more difficult.
Instead of asking, “Whose method is right?” the staff should be asking:
“What does this athlete need, and which combination of tools gives us the best opportunity to provide it?”
That requires communication, intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to consider perspectives outside our primary area of expertise.
Intellectual Honesty Drives Growth
Developing this level of understanding requires intellectual honesty.
It means occasionally revisiting an exercise or methodology you previously dismissed and asking:
“Under what conditions might this be appropriate?”
That is a very different question from searching for evidence that confirms what you already believe.
Experience should improve our ability to recognize nuance, not make our thinking more rigid.
High-performance sport continues to evolve. Research changes. Technology changes. Athletes change. Competitive demands change. Our understanding of training, rehabilitation, recovery, and performance changes with them.
Practitioners must be willing to evolve as well.
Athlete First, Method Second
The goal is not to use everything.
The goal is to understand enough about everything available to make better decisions.
Exercise selection and treatment strategies should not be determined primarily by personal preference, professional background, social-media trends, or what a practitioner has decided to stand against.
They should be driven by the athlete, the desired adaptation, and the context.
Before eliminating a tool, ask:
What does it do? Who might benefit from it? When is it appropriate? When is it inappropriate? What are the alternatives?
Then make the decision.
High-performance practitioners should not be defined by the tools they refuse to use. They should be defined by their ability to understand the problem, evaluate the context, collaborate with others, and select the right tool at the right time.
Don’t defend exercises. Don’t villainize them. Understand them.
Because in high-performance sport, context drives the decision.