The Meaningful x Necessary Axis in Strength & Conditioning

Zone I.

Zone I is what I primarily had in mind when creating this. I refer to it as "garbage time" because in my own training I am in Zone I. when I overprescribe volume, try to do too many things at once, or do an exercise because I saw somebody else doing it. Zone I. in strength and conditioning can essentially be anything that is neither necessary for the trainee to do and will not drive any useful adaptation. Often times, effort spent in Zone I. won't even yield any adaptation at all, be it chronic or acute. The picture I provided show's one of Dr. Joel Seedman's many unique creations as shown on his social media. He is an easy target here and a cheap shot from me, although it is a pretty perfect example. This is performative garbage that is a waste of time for everyone involved that is typical of this zone. I am guilty of spending time here in both my own training and that of my athletes, clients, and patients; the most important thing I am looking for in drafting this is being able to develop an ability to detect when I see training in Zone I. and subsequently moving away from it ASAP. 

Zone II.

Moving on, Zone II is training that will certainly generate adaptation (whatever that desired adaptation may be) although that adaptation generated will be superfluous to the training needs of the trainee. It's hard to find a useful picture that shows what I mean by this although I'm sure they're out there. A super accessible and overly tangential example could be a 100m sprinter going for timed 10 mile runs three times a week. While this isn't strictly a complete waste of time since there may be some adaptations gained from distance running (mental, physical, or otherwise) that can carry over into better 100m sprint performance these adaptations are very few and far between and also not likely to be worth the time and effort spent in running that much. A piece of training can move from Zone II. to Zone III. if the cost-benefit analysis essentially shapes out better once some variables are changed, i.e. the cost drops and the benefit rises. 

Zone III.

Now we're getting closer to where we want to be. Zone III training is training that is the confluence of peak meaningfulness and necessity. This area of training drives adaptation that is relevant to the needs of the trainee. I included a picture of the "big three" (squat, bench, deadlift) although this is certainly not to say that these are the only things that belong in this zone. Any piece of training that will both 1. drive chronic adaptation to exercise and 2. yield adaptation that is relevant to the needs of the trainee belongs in this zone, be it plyos, resistance training, BFR, electrical stimulation, mental resiliency training, or anything else that the trainee needs. This is where strength coaches reside, or at least the ones who are intentional in their prescription. 

Zone IV.

While my description of Zone III. may have sounded like it is the only place one should spend time in training I do not believe that is the case. Zone IV. is training that will not lead to adaptation and yet is still important. For example, a warm up before a resistance training session may not yield any chronic adaptations directly although it will improve a trainees performance in session and lower the risk of injury, thus making it necessary while not entirely meaningful. I suppose what I mean by that is that nobody is getting vastly stronger from two sets of ten reps of single leg glute bridges that are quickly done at the start of a session along with a bunch of other parts of a warmup although if those glute bridges do anything to support the trainee once they commence the body of the training session then they should be done. I also included a picture of game form in this zone because I am a proponent of finding new ways to keep people mentally stimulated in training and games/competition are a fantastic way to do that. In particular, I have used the Teaching Games for Understanding framework frequently in my teaching and coaching despite the fact that this typically isn't a useful way to drive adaptation. What it can give trainees (or students, athletes, etc.) in terms of tactical awareness, social learning, or any other desired change as a result of playing is just as important.