As sport science progresses in research, the common belief is that athlete performance will follow in coaching practice later. So, when new research is published, the expectation is that the information will be both novel and useful immediately in training. Unfortunately, a lot of research is collecting dust digitally, having fallen victim to the next study popularized either on social media or in conference proceedings. I am a huge fan of sport scientists; many of them are my heroes. Still, I always think of the athlete and coach first, as much of the work I see is more about demonstrating intellectual ability than being effective.
In this article I will defend the need for sport scientists now more than ever, and I will be firmly critical of the investigations that come out of academia or even team research. This is not a revolt or rejection of science—it’s a call to get research to be more practical and nimbler with coaches.
Science Is the Backbone of Coaching Progress
What is disturbing today is the polarized world of either data hype (going full “new age”) or the mindset of logic and reason being replaced with cargo cult science. I strongly believe that coaches need to be competent in the core sciences, but not at the expense of the ability to instruct an athlete to follow directions and guide them forward. It’s not that good coaching and good science are mutually exclusive, but skills are skills, and we need to use our time wisely. I have a stern warning: Without respect for science, training becomes a helpless victim of self-bias and ego.
Most of the research today is explanatory and not innovative, and this is not the fault of sport scientists; it’s just a reflection of the hard work of the past. In no way am I saying we are hitting a ceiling in knowledge, but conversational experience with athletes still matters. Today, many great coaches work in concert with amazing sport scientists—how is it making athletes faster? Will we see more Usain Bolts and faster athletes in team sport? I think we will see continual improvement in science in general, but not so much in absolute performance.
Models, Models, Everywhere
I take some of the blame for hyping modeling in sports, as I actually presented on the topic during an NHL conference years ago. Luckily for me, the professionalism in hockey is usually outstanding, and many bright coaches were already doing fine work in this area. Fast forward to 2020, and every day we see the promotion of online calculators by coaches. Some of the work is stellar, and some of it is useful, but much of it is just self-promotion.
Without question, every coach should use their own sprint model based on existing research and past coaching experience, says @spikesonly. Click To TweetWithout question, every coach should use their own sprint model based on existing research and past coaching experience. It’s not hard, and it’s likely you are already doing this in some form. You don’t need to code or use some statistical analysis package to model; you just need a plan that uses inputs you know work time after time. In short, coaches should have a plan that uses a combination of simple math and training concepts.
The tragic irony is the modeling and correction formulas we see for starting a sprint are likely the most important part of team sports generally. The first step, while the slowest, usually has the most impact in game situations, especially one-on-one scenarios. In addition to the conundrum of how to determine initiation of sprinting, the variability of human movement also makes it hard to determine if an athlete is getting faster if coaches only look for best performances in a few sprints. Using trending functions with foundational training sessions, you can see if an athlete is improving or if the coach needs a second pair of eyes.
Finally comes training over the years and placing all the pieces together to form a plan to help athletes improve over time. To me, research lags here, as sports scientists are typically hopelessly limited to 8- to 12-week training periods. It’s fine to create a simple model for acceleration and speed development to determine how an athlete runs a sprint, but it isn’t really a training model.
You can profile all you want, but when we have case studies of NFL athletes accelerating more slowly after two months of training “front-side mechanics” for peak velocity, I believe we blew it. What about years of training? Training models need huge amounts of time and large quantities of data points to be really robust; hence my affinity for coaches who have a steady system that constantly produces athletes with significant parametric changes.
Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?
A lot of science is hard work, and many of the advancements in technology enable coaches to have the applied and useful science instantly and affordably available to them during practice. In all honesty, a lot of the applied sciences still need to improve in both workflow and actual impact to get athletes faster. Measuring is sometimes a burden, but as we increasingly streamline training, data collection becomes embedded or can be a competitive game if used properly. Athletes don’t need to feel like lab rats to leverage good sport science anymore.
Science comes with the responsibility of time, discipline, and cost. When testing athletes, you must balance the expense of technology, the necessary prerequisite knowledge and training, and the ability to make the experience rewarding to those involved. When sport science is a chore, we all lose.
When sport science is a chore, we all lose, says @spikesonly. Click To TweetHow do you know sport science is working? The athletes get better, and they thank you for the effort you put in. Athletes don’t often see the conferences you attend, books you read, or numbers you crush. My high school coach wrote in spiral-bound notebooks for years, and I had the luxury of reading them years later when I started coaching. He always added to and refined his program and was a national coach of the year, and his model was a few pens and good record-keeping.
-
- A good model is easy to explain to someone else, so they can refine it or understand it as an athlete or assistant coach.
-
- The number of inputs is minimal and flexible, so you can follow or use the model throughout the season and the career of an athlete.
-
- Models should be elegant and devoid of excessive calculations and demanding measurement burdens in general.
-
- The greater the number of staff using the model, the better the teamwork required, or the model will break down.
-
- You must update and revisit your model annually, as models are prone to breaking down and are still theoretical.
As I stated in the modeling section, no magic formula exists for determining the optimal balance or structure for using sport science in training. The above suggestions are just off the top of my head, and you should be dedicated to finding more and better recommendations. Each year I add to, subtract from, and modify what I do.
No magic formula exists for determining the optimal balance or structure for using sport science in training. Each year I add to, subtract from, and modify what I do, says @spikesonly. Click To TweetRead the Research with Caution
I recommend reading the sprint training and analysis research weekly or even daily. This sounds like a chore to some, but it’s disrespectful to the athlete not to be informed. You don’t need to use or even agree with everything that is printed. Be vigilant now more than ever, as conflicts of interest are usually not reported outside of funding.
Sport scientists are great people and extremely dedicated and generous, but they are also still human. Read the research and ask the tough questions first. Example questions are: What populations? What are their training ages? What comparisons are they making to the training interventions?
If the study is observational and not an actual training study, be even more skeptical. Sport scientists are not only helping with performance and reducing injuries, they are also helping society fight lifestyle diseases and saving lives. Let’s use science better so the whole world can get better, not just elite athletes.
Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF
Just got my first ever free lap timing system. Used it twice since receiving it two days ago. My athletes are loving the accurate data and it gets to them to sprint even harder at training. Very happy with it !
Even with notable improvement, its hard to say if that science is training or more drug induced. *Negative tests don’t mean athletes are clean. They simply mean they possibly aren’t definitely taking something that’s tested for… at that moment.
Based on the article, it seems sled runs are not useful in sprint training, are there other alternatives that are effective?
Sleds are effective, including heavy loading if carefully prescribed. You just need to have a very good idea of what factors you need to manipulate and know what you are doing over long periods of time.
Is it wise to have sleds in the training regime for an entire season?
How are they not useful?
Can you tell the source about the NFL Athletes who became slower in acceleration due to working on front side mechanics?
In my opinion, science is extremely useful when creating a training schedule (periodization), and knowing; if there will be positive adaptations, how long from the training stimulus it will take for positive adaptations to occur, when to de-load, how to peak at the right time, what to do when a very important competition is a month or so after you peaked the athletes out of necessity for a qualifying competition, etc… For team sport speed athletes, however; catering to the needs of the sport adds more to the plate, ie; planning the building of the endurance required for the athletes to repetitiously and effectively sprint or burst, and also be able to peak at the right time.
Among the top speed coaches/trainers, I believe there is a lot of commonality in regards to knowledge of mechanics, what differentiates some at the top, however; is the ability to adapt the training to the needs of the athletes, as cookie cutter approaches don’t work for everyone, ie; seeing behind the results of a movement screen to understand why an athlete is moving the way that he/she is, and strategically proceeding from there.
It is my hope that advancements in science will help reduce non-contact injuries that disrupt; training, seasons, and even threaten careers. Having said that, an important element is that the coach will need to work with the science. If a coach’s bottom line is that, he/she will use the athletes in any way necessary to win the competition, regardless of what the level of conditioning dictates, then at some point something has got to give.
As far as training front side mechanics for max velocity, and acceleration declined, in my mind that is far more an understanding of the mechanics of sprinting than science. Although max velocity is a primary speed training focus, understanding how certain very important fundamentals of acceleration fit into that puzzle is critical, and should be trained along with max velocity.
On a side note, the premise that “the first step has the most impact on game situations, especially one on one scenarios”, in my opinion can lead to training that will miss the target that it should be shooting at. Training to quickly and explosively launch up and out is one thing, but capitalizing on that momentum, and hopefully the good body positions created by that first step to successfully execute a second step to continue the acceleration, is another. In his book, “The Mechanics of Spring and Hurdling” Ralph Mann considers the first three steps as the start, and the second step as the most difficult, and most dangerous, because poor execution can result in stumbling and will affect the rest of the race. See “The First Three Steps of Sprinting” >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNEhcma7oAo&t=7s<