I’m trying to figure out the same thing!

How do I opt-in to receive the Gatorade welcome kit?

Go back to your original email and click the link again. It should take you back to this site BUT to a point where it asks for your certification info and address to mail you the kit

I cannot speak much about the professional setting, but in the collegiate setting, the sports I have worked with typically concluded their seasons at the start of an extended break from both academic and sport-related activities. Given that mandatory time off, this allowed for a natural restoration period for the athlete before getting into the true off-season phase. Each athlete is different, and if an athlete needed time off mentally and physically, then that is what they needed. If an athlete wanted to train, I typically kept the training very simple, low intensity, and non-sport specific. Typically, how I have balanced programming from general to sport-specific training is that the athlete is going to get their sport-specific skill training and conditioning from playing the sport. In my opinion, you cannot fully replicate the demands of a sport outside of practicing and playing it. From a general preparation standpoint, this is where we can supplement the athlete’s performance on the court and improve their overall athletic capabilities through strength, speed, power, mobility, and general conditioning. I do include more sport-specific conditioning leading into preseason to prepare athletes for the practice demands they will encounter, as well as plyometric training that is more demanding of the sport. Basketball is not my main background, but what I have noticed in other plyometric-heavy sports, such as volleyball, is a tendency to implement a high volume of plyometric work early in the off-season. I do believe we need to build a plyometric base to prepare athletes for the demands of practice and competition, but I also think the time off after a long, demanding season needs to be considered before immediately increasing plyometric volume. Gradually rebuilding that capacity seems to be a better approach than trying to make up for lost time early in the off-season. I also think another mistake that may be common in basketball is placing too much emphasis on conditioning too early in the off-season. I think developing a general aerobic base is important, but considering the demands of a long basketball season, I would place more emphasis early on rebuilding size, strength, and general physical qualities. As the athlete gets closer to preseason, I would then begin shifting the emphasis toward more sport-specific conditioning and preparing them for the demands they will encounter in practice and competition.

Good morning, I would like to use this space as an opportunity to have more open and meaningful conversations about the topics that impact our profession, our athletes, and the people we work alongside. I’m interested in getting involved in discussions that go beyond simply agreeing with one another. I want to explore ideas that challenge conventional thinking, spark healthy debate, and encourage us to look at issues from different perspectives—even when those perspectives may challenge my own beliefs. I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I think some of the best professional growth comes from being willing to say, “I hadn’t thought about it that way.” My hope is that we can create conversations where people feel comfortable asking difficult questions, respectfully disagreeing, and considering viewpoints they may not have previously considered. For me, the value of these discussions isn't necessarily in reaching the same conclusion. It’s in being willing to listen, challenge our assumptions, and leave the conversation with something new to think about. As athletic training continues to evolve as an autonomous healthcare profession, how should our regulatory and clinical models evolve with it? If athletic trainers are educated, certified, licensed, and accountable for their clinical decisions, how might physician standing orders evolve in determining what we are permitted to do? This is something I've been thinking about and is based on my personal experience, so would love to hear from others on their experiences too.

I think “lead by example” is necessary, but not sufficient for great leadership. Leading by example shows people what you expect through your own actions, but leadership also requires intentionally bringing people along with you. A person can have an incredible work ethic and be highly competent, but if they don't communicate, develop others, create trust, or make the people around them better, I’m not sure I would call them a great leader. To me, leadership is ultimately about influence and responsibility, not position or title. You can absolutely lead from middle management. In fact, I think that can be one of the most challenging and important leadership positions because you have to effectively lead in both directions—supporting those above you while advocating for and developing those below you. Some of the best leaders I've been around have had a few common qualities: they listen, communicate clearly, hold people accountable, admit when they're wrong, give credit to others, and make you feel like your development actually matters to them. On the other hand, some major red flags are leaders who need to be the smartest person in the room, take credit when things go well and assign blame when they don't, micromanage, avoid difficult conversations, or create an environment where people are afraid to disagree with them. Ultimately, I think the true measure of leadership isn't what you accomplish personally—it's what happens to the people and organization around you because of your leadership. So yes, lead by example. But don't stop there. Set the example, communicate the vision, develop your people, create accountability, and then give others the opportunity to lead as well.

Ashley, welcome to the community! Your experience across collegiate athletics, tactical performance, and the private sector brings a really valuable perspective. I especially connected with your point about the communication gap between performance and medical staff. In my experience, some of the best outcomes happen when athletic training, strength and conditioning, physical therapy, and coaching are communicating consistently and working from the same plan. Return-to-play can’t just be about whether an athlete is medically cleared; we also have to consider whether they are actually prepared to meet the demands of their sport. I also agree with your perspective on technology. Force plates, GPS, and other performance technology can provide great objective information, but they should complement—not replace—clinical judgment, coaching observation, and athlete feedback. Sometimes the athlete telling you, “I just don’t feel right today,” is just as important as what the numbers are telling you. I'd be interested to hear how your interdisciplinary teams within AFSOC approach that communication and transition from rehabilitation back to full performance. It seems like there are a lot of similarities between tactical populations and collegiate athletics when it comes to managing readiness, workload, and long-term performance.

Hi Elbert! I totally agree with you that, as Strength and Conditioning Coaches, we need to know when to implement stress and when to pull back, and this becomes even more intricate during in-season. In the sports world, the game is the priority, and training should supplement the athlete’s ability to perform at their best. Some weeks will naturally be lighter, while others may allow us to push a little more when the competition schedule provides the opportunity. As you mentioned, training should also be differentiated between high- and low-minute players. This allows high-minute players to prioritize recovery and be ready for the next game, while keeping low-minute players strong, conditioned, and prepared to contribute when called upon. I understand professional sports can look different from the collegiate setting, and each sport has its own demands, but I’m curious what metrics or KPIs you have used in-season to track readiness and help decide what type of training an athlete should do? When I’ve worked in environments with limited technology resources, I typically relied on game statistics, athlete feedback, and coach input to help guide training decisions. In environments with more technology resources, I’ve been able to incorporate those factors along with force-plate data and GPS tracking. I’ve found that having multiple data points can provide a much better picture of what an athlete may need on a given day. I’d be interested to hear how you weigh those different metrics when making in-season training decisions.

Hey Ashley! Such a great point extreme changes in training and competition environments can be really tough on athletes (especially if their competition is not having to experience a huge change in environment). I like what you mentioned about hot water immersion and sauna - these can be really helpful tools for acclimatization if done properly! From a hydration perspective, you may want to check out this article GSSI put out : Hydration and Aerobic Performance: Impact of Environment .

On 8/26/2026 at 10:15 AM, rcampbellat said: Hey Katie, For collegiate basketball, I think the biggest issue is that supplements have become part of the daily performance culture. Our athletes are constantly exposed to products through social media, outside trainers, teammates, and commercial gyms, so by the time they ask the athletic training staff, they may have already purchased or started taking something. The products we see most often are probably creatine, protein, pre-workout, caffeine, electrolyte products, and recovery supplements. Creatine and protein are generally easier conversations because there is a much stronger evidence base. The bigger concern is the pre-workout, fat-burner, testosterone-booster, and "proprietary blend" products where we may not know exactly what the athlete is consuming or whether the product has been appropriately tested. For basketball, I think the "Safe, Legal, Effective" framework is particularly useful. We have to consider not only whether something works, but whether it is appropriate for an NCAA athlete and whether there is any contamination or banned-substance risk. A product that is completely legal for the general population can still create an eligibility problem for a student-athlete. I also think this is an area where the AT, sports RD, strength staff, and team physician need to have a unified message. If an athlete gets one answer from the athletic trainer, another from strength and conditioning, and another from an outside trainer, we're creating unnecessary risk. For my team, I think we do a great job of communicating and funneling our message to our student-athletes instead of having different voices and the student-athlete choosing what answer they want. One thing that has helped in basketball is trying to move the conversation from "Can I take this?" to "Let's evaluate it before you take it." If an athlete sends us a picture of the product and the full ingredient label before purchasing it, we can determine whether it is worth considering, whether it is third-party tested, and whether we need to involve the sports RD. Ultimately, I don't think our job is to know every supplement on the market. Our job is to recognize the risk, know where to verify the information, and know when to refer. With collegiate basketball players having access to so many different training environments and outside performance professionals, having that process in place is becoming increasingly important. Thanks so much for sharing your perspective and for checking out the paper! Your last paragraph is spot on!