In the complex landscape of sports training, motor preferences offer an approach that challenges beliefs, concepts, theories, dogmas, and methods. However, this approach is rooted in a profound understanding of human movement. Contrary to some critiques that view these frameworks as limited or reductive systems, the motor preference approach relies on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) to create tailored and personalized solutions. Let’s explore why this approach deserves particular attention and how it avoids the pitfalls of a compartmentalized view of training.
1. A Holistic, Evidence-Based Approach
EBP is the cornerstone of the motor preference approach, combining three fundamental elements:
- Scientific data: Data come from 20 years of validated research in neuro-biomechanics, muscle chains, and neuro-motor interactions. Tools like the Swiss Vibe provide objective measurements of motor profiles by assessing individual tendencies with precision.
- Practitioner expertise: Coaches use their expertise to interpret results, adapting training plans to the unique needs of each athlete. Whether working solo or supported by a competent team, practitioners continuously expand their knowledge to enhance their coaching skills.
- Athlete feedback: Athlete input is central to the process, enabling co-construction of training strategies and fostering maximum individualization. The athlete’s well-being, sensations, emotions, and results are at the core of attention: Because, ultimately, it is the athlete who performs, no one else!
2. Horizontal Thinking: Integrating Athlete Feedback
Unlike vertical thinking, which imposes top-down solutions, horizontal thinking emphasizes collaboration with athletes. Athletes actively participate in adjusting their training protocols by sharing their sensations and experiences.
This approach offers several advantages:
- Increased adaptability: Listening to athletes reveals subtle elements that may elude purely theoretical analysis.
- Enhanced engagement: When athletes feel their feedback is valued, their motivation and commitment increase.
- Injury prevention: Athletes more easily identify compensatory patterns or accumulated tension, enabling early adjustments.
3. Managing Asymmetries: Balancing Optimization and Realism
A common critique of motor preference systems is their tolerance for asymmetries. Yet, not all asymmetries are necessarily harmful. Some reflect deep, stable neuro-motor preferences that, when respected, can enhance performance.
However, distinguishing between types of asymmetries is essential:
- Functional asymmetries: Beneficial and natural, they allow athletes to perform optimally within their unique framework.
- Compensatory asymmetries: Stemming from injuries or unbalanced movement patterns, they should be addressed to prevent overload and injuries.
Training within the framework of motor preferences seeks to optimize natural motricity while considering movement variability and global adaptability. This reduces dependency on compensations and ensures long-term efficiency.
4. Toward Dynamic and Contextual Application
Rather than imposing a rigid model, the motor preference approach promotes contextual adaptation of principles based on the specific needs of athletes and training situations. This includes:
- Ongoing monitoring of individual needs: Athletes evolve over time, requiring regular revision of strategies.
- Flexibility in applying tools: For example, adjusting exercises or methods based on the athlete’s skills and responses (respecting sport needs if necessary)
- Expanding motor possibilities: Instead of eliminating tendencies, the goal is to provide more adaptive and efficient motor solutions.
This dynamic approach ensures that principles remain relevant and focused on sustainable performance.
5. A Continuously Evolving Framework
The motor preference approach is not static. It evolves with scientific research, technological tools, and feedback from practitioners and athletes. This adaptability is its strength:
- Frameworks are starting points, not endpoints. They provide a foundation for exploring personalized solutions.
- Practitioners constantly enrich their perspective. Unlike reductionist marketing approaches, this perspective emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration and permanent learning process.
- An inclusive educational system: Educational programs offered by MPE and Volodalen address the complexity of motor preferences while integrating biomechanical, energetic, and biological concepts. While these contents are not meant to be exhaustive, they aim to sensitize coaches to the organic and complex nature of athletes. This pedagogical model, though criticized by some, successfully offers a coherent learning progression and a uniquely holistic vision.
Conclusion
The motor preference approach, rooted in Evidence-Based Practice, goes far beyond simplistic classification systems. It offers an adaptive methodology that respects individuality and is oriented toward sustainable performance. By expanding the conversation to include science, experience, and feedback, this approach pushes the boundaries of modern training.