In the years that I’ve spent coaching and managing a weightlifting club, I noticed that most athletes that I end up working with, tend to train year-round. As an athlete myself, I too have followed this pattern year after year, hopping from competition to competition, peaking for the big meet, only to start the cycle all over again. While I was able to do that for some years, I have noticed that it has led to burnout, both physically and mentally, whereby injuries recur like clockwork, and my desire to compete waxes and wanes. I’ve noticed this pattern in many of the athletes that I have trained and worked with; many of them end up leaving the sport altogether when they have so much untapped potential left. In my youth, I’ve chalked that up to be lack of discipline or motivation, but it was only when I was faced with the same did I start to question where the sudden drop of discipline and motivation comes from.

I then started to notice that this isn’t just something that happens to competitive weightlifters, but it happens in all sports. Many friends of mine who played at very high levels of collegiate hockey or football have quit the sport and can’t even stand the thought of re-entering the sport even at a club or hobby level, and I know for a fact that these individuals are some of the most disciplined and motivated athletes I’ve ever known. The issue of psychological burnout is very real, and when you go from training block to training block, compete for the sake of competition, the very sport in which you fell in love with can become a Sisyphean burden.

To me, the culprit is that the importance of off-seasons or transition periods are often overlooked. After all, it was structured training that got us to where we are from a performance perspective. If structures are what got us to where we are in the first place, why wouldn’t more be better? For the answer, I always turn to established academic research to support why coaches must give athletes the opportunity for unstructured training and play.

The first reason is physiological. In a 2016 study by Silva et al, they found that by transition programs that provide “minimum effective dose” can have the best effects for the maintenance of performance related parameters, but more importantly, it allows for the restoration of strength profiles and adequate recovery so that athletes are better equipped to cope with the training demands of the pre-season or season. A 2018 study conducted by Jensen et al showed that deconditioning and detraining is NOT a significant concern for athletes under given a period of unsupervised and unstructured training, provided that they are given a minimum level of guidance and direction. In fact, athletes returned from the period of unstructured training showing moderate improvement in their athletic parameters.

The second reason is psychological. The same study by Silva et al finds that unstructured play gives players the ability to think flexibly and creatively, in organic situations arise that aren’t conceived or foreseen by the coaches and players, and adapt accordingly. This finding was also confirmed by Greco et al, for finds that athletes that have engaged in unstructured play demonstrate significant training improvement in tactical creativity as well as tactical intelligence than players who have not.   

The last and arguably most important reason, is emotional. A 2017 article by Barreiro and Howard succinctly outlines the empirical evidence on emotional health of unstructured play: without the pressure of performance, evaluation, and competition, athletes experience an INCREASE in intrinsic motivation, and enhance social-emotional learning. Unstructured play can promote innovation, creativity, adaptability and flexibility, as confirmed by a myriad of studies, some of which cited above, which helps build a sense of mastery and pleasure with engaging in the sport. Above all, unstructured play provides a well needed mental break for them to self-regulate emotional well-being. More importantly, they argue that without providing opportunities for deliberate, unstructured play, sports participation itself will be diminished.

As coaches, this is the reason that we have to get athletes to take off-seasons, and moreover, it’s crucially important that we need to get off-seasons right. Athletes will still need some guidance and direction during this period of unstructured training, but we have to be able to give them the latitude and flexibility to fall in love with the sport again. We have to strike the balance between rigid training blocks and regimens to keep the athletes on track for competition peaking, and a total laissez-faire attitude by which anarchy prevails. It’s necessary for this to be built into any good periodization scheme. This is especially true for youth athletes, who while needing structured guidance to develop the necessary skills, also need the unstructured play time to flourish creatively, psychologically, and emotionally. Too often, I see athletes and coaches overcorrect towards structure and regimen. After all, our instincts as coaches and our training have taught us that success doesn’t come without preparation, but there is such a thing as overpreparation, and that can often crush our athletes’ love for the sport.

In order for athletes to derive the maximum benefit out of deliberate unstructured training and play during their transition period, there needs to be a minimum level of trust between the coach and the athlete. Coaches must trust athletes to continue to work and engage in the sport without totally falling off the rails, and athletes need to trust the coach who is not abandoning or shirking their responsibilities. The outcome in the end is a better overall experience and performance for the athletes, and importantly, long term participation and athletic development in the sport free from resentment and burnout.