Read at your own risk
Navigating the Intersection of Coaching and the Biopsychosocial Model: A Revolutionary Approach or Just Good Coaching? In 1977, George L. Engel and Jon Romano from the University of Rochester introduced the biopsychosocial (BPS) model, marking a significant departure from the traditional biomedical approach.
Engel advocated for a holistic view of patient care, emphasizing the integration of physical, psychological, and social factors—challenging the long-standing separation of mind and body, a concept dating back to René Descartes. This model criticized the biomedical approach’s limitation, arguing that understanding illness requires more than just a physical examination.
Originally conceived for the medical field, the principles of the BPS model have profound implications for the realm of sports coaching, particularly in swimming. The model sheds light on the often-misunderstood or ignored psychosocial aspects of tapering and peak performance. Just as Engel critiqued the biomedical focus for overlooking the complexity of human health, I argue that a purely physiological approach to swim training is similarly narrow, missing the broader spectrum of challenges athletes face as they prepare for championship meets.
Coaches who consistently lead their teams to excel at crucial moments likely understand and apply the BPS model, whether they realize it or not, from the very first practice. Recognizing that we can’t control everything, it’s vital to manage what we can and leave the rest to the visionaries.
In the coaching world, we often encounter distinct personas, each embodying a different aspect of the BPS model. “The Trainer” is well-versed in energy system training, holding certifications and often engaging in technical debates. However, this coach may distance themselves from poor performances with excuses rooted in training specifics. Then there’s “The Guru,” known for their enigmatic communication and unconventional methods, attracting a following with the promise of elusive success. Despite their charisma, their methods may not always lead to lasting achievement. “The Motivator” pushes athletes to their physical limits, often emphasizing mental strength over comprehensive training, attracting naturally gifted individuals who thrive on short-term challenges.
These archetypes, while exaggerated for effect, highlight a common shortfall: a singular focus on one aspect of the BPS model without integrating the others, leading to inconsistent results. As coaches, our goal should be to foster an environment that supports physical effort through a deep understanding of each athlete’s individual needs, creating a safe and challenging space for growth.
To truly excel, coaches must become proficient in all three areas of the BPS model, recognizing their strengths and weaknesses. The quest for balance—though often clichéd—is crucial in developing a coaching philosophy that embraces the full spectrum of athlete development. This balance doesn’t imply equal parts focus but rather a tailored approach that meets the diverse needs of athletes.
As we reflect on our coaching practices and conduct a thorough self-assessment, incorporating the BPS model can offer a comprehensive framework for improvement. This process may not only enhance our coaching strategies but also lead us to discover our full potential. Embracing the BPS model is not just about adopting a new coaching methodology; it’s about committing to a journey of continuous learning and self-discovery, ensuring our athletes achieve their best when it truly matters.