Training Principle #1: Specificity

Key Takeaway Points:

1.   Specificity is the #1 physical training principle. Despite this fact, most coaches/athletes will get this wrong.

2.   Specificity refers to the SAID principle which states that physical improvements from exercise are directly linked to the exercise variables applied.

3.   Specificity should always be viewed through two separate lenses, skill-related and ability-related.

4.  Sport-Specificity simply means carryover to sport. This can also be referred to as “dynamic correspondence” or “transference.”

5.   The most common error committed when attempting to be sport-specific is utilizing skill-related demands to produce ability-related adaptations. Demand-adaptation coupling should be either ability-specific or skill-specific and any erroneous crossover is a failure to understand this most basic principle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Specificity is at the bedrock of the strength and conditioning world. It is the training principle that precedes all other training principles. And yet, so many coaches and trainees get it all wrong from the start. The principle of specificity dictates that there are specific adaptations gained from the specific demands applied to the physiological system. Therefore, specificity is also known as the SAID (Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands) principle. This is very important because this requires the correct set of demands to be selected and applied to achieve the adaptations that are most desirable for the relevant goal. This selection process of innumerable variables can be substantially nuanced and is often misunderstood.

The greatest source of confusion comes from a simple lack of fundamental understanding. Specificity should always be viewed through two separate lenses. This is to say that from a practical standpoint, there are two sub-categories of specificity, skill-related and ability-related. Skill-related specificity is the more obvious type which involves motor learning and neurological adaptations. This is hyper task-specific. For instance, if the goal outcome is for a basketball player to become a better 3-point shooter, then he/she must spend large amounts of time practicing and drilling 3-point shots. Contrastingly, ability-related specificity involves the development of physical attributes such as strength characteristics (e.g., power and speed) and bioenergetic pathways (e.g., aerobic conditioning). In this case, the training stimulus might not (and probably should not) look like the sport at all.

This brings us to sport-specificity. Sport-specificity is very simply the carryover that an exercise produces towards the performance of one’s sport. This idea can also be referred to as “transference” or “dynamic correspondence.” As viewed with our two lenses, this means that practicing shooting 3-pointers is sport-specific for basketball (skill-related) while squatting and lunging in the weight room are sport-specific for developing the strength aspects required for an improved vertical jump (ability-related). Both examples aim to produce outcomes that carry over to basketball performance. However, the latter example is much more difficult to quantify and takes a science-savvy coach to determine. A coach would first have to understand the scientific literature that connects the sport to the appropriate list of key performance indicators (KPI)—in this case, the vertical jump is a known KPI for basketball. Then, he/she would have to know what exercise variations, techniques, and programming prescriptions optimize the development of the specified KPI. Simply:

Exercise Selection -> Improved KPI -> Improved Sport-Specific Ability

(verified with the available scientific literature)

This leads us to the most common mistake made while attempting to improve ability-related sport performance in the weight room. Selecting exercises that look like the sport are usually a large waste of time and do not improve sport performance on any significant metric. Again, while skill-related sport-specificity should yield exercises and drills that look like the sport (e.g., dribbling, passing, shooting, small-sided games, scrimmage, etc.), ability-related specificity should yield exercises that best improve the underlying abilities which will not look like the sport at all (e.g., squatting, lunging, pressing, etc.). This is because the goal in the weight room is to indirectly improve sport performance by directly improving the KPI’s that have been scientifically selected to be specific and beneficial to performance outcomes.

Interestingly, I would propose that this mistake is subconsciously known by most, despite it being a commonly implemented mistake. Logically, if the sport itself was enough to produce optimal increases in strength, power, speed, or any of the corresponding KPI’s, such as 40-yard spring times, agility tests, vertical jump heights, or bat speeds/velocities, then there would be no use for the weight room at all, or any strength and conditioning staff for that matter. An athlete would simply continue to play their sport to improve these attributes. However, we know that this is not the case. Playing baseball does not optimize an athlete’s 40-yard sprint time. Playing football does not optimize an athlete’s vertical jump height. Playing basketball does not increase the strength or injury resilience of an athlete. The list goes on and on to describe how simply playing a sport fails to fully serve an athlete’s performance needs. We have known this since 1970 when strength training programs first started being credited for winning championships.

Because all these abilities/physical qualities are best improved off the field/court, then it becomes an obvious mistake to recreate the sporting behavior in the weight room/gym. This continues to be true even under increased loaded conditions. Weighted medicine ball throws, cable exercises designed to look like swinging a bat/club, or banded circus tricks aimed to look like throwing or striking all fail to produce meaningful, long-term progress or enough transfer to sport to improve performance outcomes. Weighted bats, clubs, and racquets have long been used to attempt to improve striking power/velocity. Similarly, weighted baseballs and basketballs have long been used to improve throwing power/velocity. These often not only fail to produce meaningful improvements, but they also tend to deteriorate the original skill leaving you with a less skilled/coordinated athlete.

In conclusion, the principle of specificity pairs exercise-induced adaptations with the demands that create them. Sport-specificity is dictated by whether these adaptations benefit the performance and outcomes of the focused sport. This is achieved by a combination of skill-related and ability-related sport-specific exercises. Using skill-specific demands to produce ability-specific adaptations is a misuse of the concept of specificity and is a waste of time. It should be considered a big red flag if a personal trainer, strength coach, or physical therapist attempts to use strength training “exercises” that simulate or imitate sporting skills. They simply don’t have a fundamental understanding of the principles of strength and conditioning.