Sports Science has to Change

Over the past 20 years I have had the fortunate experience of working with some of the leading sporting nations in their quest for elite sporting excellence.

I write this article as a plea to all sports scientists, regardless of discipline, to evaluate what they are doing and think about being more innovative and creative in their methods and practices.

In each nation I have visited, the rhetoric is the same:

• Coach driven programs
• Athlete focussed programs
• Administratively supported programs.

This philosophy has been adopted and embraced by the high performance sporting systems of the USA, UK, New Zealand and Australia.

Regardless of the merits of this philosophy, as it is the dominant ideology of the major elite sports funding agencies in these nations, sports scientists must adapt and learn to work effectively within these systems.

Many institutions appear to be struggling to truly embrace this focus on practical, applied sports science – sports science that can be clearly shown to have a direct measurable impact on sports performance.

Sports scientists have a passionate belief that they make a difference.

One can surmise that if leading high performance coaches were asked about how much the input and advice of their key sports science staff has influenced their own thinking and therefore by inference the performances of their athletes there is little doubt that sports science is a contributing factor in the search for better performances.

Add to that the other services provided by sports science professionals, eg testing, athlete monitoring, measurement activities, research and education and it can be suggested that sports science does make an impact on high performance sport.

However, with economic rationalism and the need to quantify if not qualify the impact of every dollar spent in the high performance sporting environment, sports science around the world is under increasing pressure to justify its existence and to be accountable for its impact.

A leading decision maker in one of the world’s top sporting nations asked me recently: “Can you clearly demonstrate that sports science makes a measurable difference in elite sports performance?”

Perhaps this is a good place to start…………………….

Does Sports science make a difference?

• How can one determine the impact of sports science to high performance sport?
• What percentage of a gold medal is exercise physiology?
• How much of a grand final win is biomechanics?

These questions are difficult and perhaps even impossible to answer.

In sports like cycling, rowing and swimming for example, which sports science discipline is the most important? Physiology impacts on all areas of training and competition but so does biomechanics and psychology and nutrition and technological development of equipment.

If the coach “puts all his eggs in one basket” and relies on a totally physiological answer to all performance issues, then he is likely to overlook another important element with disastrous consequences.

There are the obvious developments in technology and equipment (eg faster bike designs, more hydrodynamic hull designs for watercraft, hydrodynamic swimming costumes and aerodynamic running outfits). There is more accessible testing and athlete monitoring with heart rate monitors, digital video cameras and lactate analysers all widely commercially available at affordable prices.

But does any of this make a measurable impact on competition performances?

Moreover does sports science make more of an impact on competition performances than for example international competition, more effective time management, a balanced lifestyle and more satisfying personal and family relationships?

And this is the challenge facing sports science around the world at the moment.

There is increasing pressure in some of the world’s leading high performance sports systems for sports science to justify itself.

Once testing for testing sake was acceptable. Now sporting organisations and coaches are looking for “value added” testing. Testing that adds something to the overall program and is an integral aspect of the program rather than a peripheral one.

In current times, testing needs to be looked at as a total package of activities and interventions that make a measurable contribution to the performance of the athlete.

For example:

Traditional Model: Test the athlete and provide the coach with results.

Value added model:

• Test the athlete
• Provide results to the coach and athlete within a short time
• Discuss the results with the coach
• Assist the coach with advice on how to best impact on the performance issues measured in the test through the appropriate training intervention
• Arrange for a follow up test to determine the impact of the training interventions
• Arrange to measure the performance issues at a competition
• Assist the coach with advice on how to further develop these issues with subsequent training interventions.
• Repeat the above process until the ultimate goal is achieved.

In this model, testing is not a one off activity, it is an ongoing logical sequence of coach, athlete and sports scientist interactions designed to make an impact on competition performances.

And this is crucial. Major funding agencies in high performance sport across the world use competition results at major international events like the Olympic and World Championship to measure the effectiveness of their programs. This means that the ability of sports science to clearly demonstrate its ability to make a direct measurable impact on competition performance is vital if the sports science industry is to survive.

A changing economic climate also necessitates the “selling of sports science”. If the high performance sporting programs of the world persist with the “coach driven” philosophy and coaches are the key decision makers in the process, sports scientists need to be able to clearly identify their ability to make an impact and convince coaches of their value to the high performance program.

In programs where coaches are given a limited budget and are asked to spend money based on the priority of importance, eg, on the capacity of the activity to make an impact on athletic performance, how does the coach determine which aspects of the program are the most important?

Education comes the standard reply!

The Impact of Coach Education

Coach education throughout the world has largely been focused on the application of sports science to athletic performance. In Canada, the USA, the UK and Australia, sports science constitutes the core elements of most coach education programs. Basic physiology, basic biomechanics, nutrition, psychology, skill acquisition and other sports science disciplines are taught at most of the coach education programs throughout the world at various levels of complexity.

In addition, the all administrations of the leading sporting nations, national and international federations, academies and institutes of sport and other similar high performance sporting organisations conduct regular education and development activities like conferences, clinics, workshops and training.

Many sports also offer coach development activities at team camps where coaches are exposed to sports science staff in a practical performance focused environment.

An elite coach who over a period of ten years has experienced two or three “levels” of coach education, attended several conferences and workshops and been invited to work at some national team camps has been exposed to as many hours of sports science education as many first and second year university students.

Add to this the fact that many coach education resources are written largely by academics and / or sports scientists working in sporting academies and institutes or with national sporting teams who are arguably up to date with developments in the industry and current research findings.

In other words, the leading sporting nations across the world have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and energy giving coaches the best possible applied sports science education.

The end result is that many elite coaches are now more than capable of performing basic sports science activities that only a few years ago were the exclusive domain of post graduate trained specialist sports science staff.

It is not unrealistic that a well trained coach can take heart rates, perhaps even lactates and put the data into a spreadsheet.

It is not unrealistic that a well trained coach can take a group of young athletes and their families to a supermarket and teach them how to read labels, how to select nutritious food, how to decrease fat in their diet and so on.

It is not unrealistic that a well trained coach can use a video camera and capture digital stills and slow motion footage directly into their home personal computer.

It is not unrealistic that a well trained coach can sit with a group of athletes and discuss goal setting, motivation and arousal.

And why?

Because this is precisely what we (the high performance sports industry) have taught them to do. What did we all think coaches were going to do with all this knowledge?

• Coaches working with elite athletes are focused on one objective – getting results. They look for information, ideas, technology and innovations that will provide them with an edge or a breakthrough performance.
• Coaches care little for the political hurdles and stifling traditions that hinder free and open inter disciplinary practices and information exchange often found in the sports science community.
• Coaches have no respect for the political lobbying and single disciplinary empire building that limits the effectiveness of many of the academic and sporting institutions around the world.

They don’t care who publishes the most papers or who’s department has the most staff – they want to know what works!

Their focus is on helping their athletes achieve their goals to limits of their talent and the extent of their dreams.

Is it realistic to ask a coach working with elite athletes not to discuss nutrition principles with his team because he is not a member of the International Society of Sports Dietitians or similar professional membership organisation?

It is realistic to tell a coach they cannot help kids with goal setting strategies because they lack a PhD in Sports Psychology and 1000 hours of training under a qualified mentor?

We (the sports science community) trained coaches to do these things – now they are doing it.

In simple terms, you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Sports scientists who complain about coaches not understanding sports science or not being sports science “literate” and then go about educating the coaches to be more literate, can not then complain when they actually apply what they have learnt to the improvement of athletic performance.

Successful high performance coaches think in a multi disciplinary manner. They understand the importance of training physiology and how it can impact on and be impacted by technical changes. They understand how mental skills impact on the athlete’s ability to maintain technical precision when pain and fatigue set in at the end of races or in the final minutes of a game.

In many ways high performance coaches are ahead of the sports science industry, not in terms of scientific knowledge, but in the practical ability to integrate knowledge from a range of sources into a multi disciplinary strategy to impact on athletic performance.

If you are an exercise physiologist who believes that a heart rate, power output graph is still a pretty cool thing to do, think again. Not only is the science 60 years old, many Level one coaches can not only do this, but they are thinking way past this basic physiology and looking for more.

The challenge is……can you provide it?

It is true that “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. It is common sense to say that coaches should not be involved in some of the more clinical elements of sports science, eg psychological counselling, nutritional counselling for eating disorders, injury treatment and management etc.

The intelligent coach is also astute enough to develop a team of support staff that he / she can manage and direct to assist with issues and problems that require the unique training and skills of a professional in the sports sciences.

However, as with the rest of the world, knowledge shared may be knowledge used. If coaches learn it and understand it – they will use it.

Coaches and Sports Scientists: Developmental Differences

Coaches and sports scientists learn and develop through very different and separate pathways.

Typical Sports scientist development pathway:

• High School: Wide perspective (maths, science, English, history, sport, languages etc)
• Undergraduate University: The perspective narrows Science only
• Final Year University: The perspective narrows again Physiology only
• Post Graduate University: A further narrowing Muscle Physiology only
• PhD and Post-Doctoral Study: Focus on minute detail of one aspect of muscle physiology only.

Typical High Performance Coach Development Pathway:

• Level one coaching: Beginners, kids. focus is on Fun, skills, and enjoyment.
• Level two coaching: All the above plus working with state level athletes. Focus is on learning to train, how to compete.
• Level Three Coaching: National / international level coaches. All the above plus a focus on winning, on training, on mental skills development, on biomechanics, on nutrition, on dealing with pressure etc.

And it at this final point, where the sports scientist’s focus is at its most narrow and the coaches perspective is at its widest, the two come together either through a research project funded by an academic institution or through a national team sports program.

Is it surprising then that the two groups of professionals find it difficult to effectively work together?

This same model can also explain why the various sports science disciplines have difficulty working together in a multi disciplinary environment. By the time most sports scientists are at PhD level, they have been exposed to an ever narrowing focus and ideology – an ideology that perpetuates a single discipline approach to explain and enhance elite sports performance.

Sports scientists, like all other professions in society are a product of their environment and training. If a sports physiologist has spent ten years learning about mitochondrial volume density and its impact on performance it is likely that the answer to most performance problems will be, to their mind – somewhere in aerobic metabolism.

The arguments between the various sports science disciplines are similar to the arguments that separate the world’s major religions.

The ultimate goal of each religion is the life time development of the individual under the direction and guidance of one particular ideology. Most believe in some sort of divine power and resist challenges to that divinity.

For example, if one is raised Catholic, in a household and family and community of other Catholics, chances are that you believe that this particular religion holds all the answers. However, Protestants feel the same way about their religion. So do Moslems. So do people of the Jewish faith.

Chances are, people with an open minds and a sense of common respect can learn from each other for mutual benefit.

The influence of being exposed to one ideology has with it the inherent risk of blinding the person to the limitless possibilities that exist from being open to new ideas and the opinions and input of others.

The Real Nature of Multi Disciplinary Sports Science

Successful sporting Performance is multi disciplinary. This is undeniable.

Regardless of the perspective of the various sports science disciplines –performance is not the exclusive domain of physiology OR biomechanics OR nutrition etc etc

• An elite athlete with a VO2 max of 78 mls/kg/min but with a poor technique and very low self esteem does not win.
• An elite athlete with a “perfect” diet but a poor technique, is carrying an injury and who only trains three times each week does not win.
• An athlete with a great sense of self esteem and a high VO2 max but it overweight and has a poor technique does not win.

It is only when the numerous elements that make up a successful elite sporting performance come together at the right time that an athlete will be successful.

Coaches know this. Their challenge is to balance the various perspectives being sold to them from the sports science / sports medicine practitioners and manage this information into the best possible balanced approach to helping athletes.

The challenge is to convince sports scientists that this approach, whilst it may not stand up to the rigours of scientific reliability and validity, in this results based, coach driven, performance focussed, economic rationalist environment, it is a very effective practice.

Multi Disciplinary Approach: Example 1 – Problem Solving

How do the disciplines work together?

Scenario A: Athlete A is complaining of pain in the calf muscle when running at high speeds.

Traditional approach: Treatment by a sports medicine practitioner who prescribes pharmacological approach, perhaps physiotherapy and rest and recovery. The Physiotherapist works with aiding in the recovery process and rehabilitation with some treatment and preventative measures to avoid a recurrence.

Multi Disciplinary Approach: Problem solving team: Medical practitioner, physiotherapist, coach, athlete, biomechanist, strength and conditioning coach.

With all the practitioners in the one room, the athlete’s case is discussed. The medical practitioner discusses the diagnosis. The physiotherapist discusses the injury based on what they see and feel. The biomechanist adds that from their analysis, there are technical issues that need to be addressed around the knee, ankle and foot. The strength and conditioning coach comments that their observation of the athlete in the gym is that they lack strength, balance and co-ordination of movements when running.

The coach, listening to the input from each expert and with their intimate knowledge of the athlete then determines a course of action to best utilise the skills and knowledge of the team.

It is in this diagnosis, treatment, preventative action, technique modification, training adjustment and management process that the most effective answers can be found. The exchange of knowledge from several perspectives and the interaction of feel, observation, analysis, measurement and diagnosis come together to provide the coach and athlete with an effective way forward.

The sports science and sports medicine team learn from each other and to respect the skills and abilities of their respective disciplines. Their minds become open to other possibilities.

Scenario B: The development of testing protocols.

The coach determines that a test is needed to ascertain the athlete’s ability to compete at race specific speeds.

Traditional Approach: The coach ask the advice of a physiologist on the most effective way to measure speed, lactate, heart rate, power output etc.

Multi Disciplinary Approach: Problem solving team: coach, athlete, physiologist, psychologist, biomechanist, nutritionist.

• Coach raises the issue. The team brainstorm.
• Physiologist suggests protocols based on heart rate, lactate, power output and exertion level at the specific race speeds.
• Biomechanist suggests looking at technical issues under the same conditions.
• Psychologist suggests a measurement of mood or attitude prior to the testing might be of use.
• Nutritionist suggests that the athlete should have a standardised approach to hydration and eating for the 24 hours prior to the testing.

Coach poses the problem: Can I measure the impact of physiological fatigue on the athlete’s technique?

Team develops a multi disciplinary approach to solve the problem.

In this example, the unique skills and expertise of the sports scientists are utilised and their specialist knowledge provides a unique perspective of the problem. However, the solutions are multi disciplinary in nature and the problem solving environment encourages thinking outside the traditional boundaries of each sports science area.

Summary

Sports scientists are very much an integral aspect of high performance sport. Their training, their knowledge, their qualities in the areas of research and objective analysis are highly valued.

However, people are people. Tradition, habit, politics and personalities are limiting factors in all fields of endeavour.

The sports science industry has made some significant contributions to high performance sport. Now is the time to look to the future and determine how that contribution can continue.

The high performance sporting systems of some of the world’s leading sporting nations are looking to invest in things that will make an impact on the performance of the athletes and teams in their programs.

The coaches who are the driving forces of these programs are seeking people and ideas who can also make a measurable impact on the performances of their athletes.

The challenge for the sports science disciplines is to build on their legacy of , to be more innovative and creative and learn to work together as industry not against each other politically and divisively.

Some Possible Solutions:

• The High performance sporting systems of the world need to look closely at their current practices and ask if they are truly embracing “best practice” principles. Coaches are looking for the best way, not the best way from one perspective or limited point of view.
• The single discipline approach to effective sports science needs to be re evaluated. It is not logical to suggest that successful high performance sport is exclusively the domain of one sports science discipline.
• In the development of effective high performance systems, administrations need to focus on building inter disciplinary sports science and sports medicine teams who are capable of working together, ignoring political boundaries and professional jealousies to provide the best possible service to coaches and athletes.
• Academic institutions should consider the development of true multi disciplinary sports science courses at under graduate and post graduate level. Even better, they should consider introducing a five year degree with a double or triple major across several sports science disciplines and include an “apprenticeship” where the student is required to work with a leading coach and / or sporting team.
• Academic institutions should re evaluate their research projects and focus them on the needs of coaches and athletes. Research questions should be generated to meet the needs of the high performance team not the publication demands of academia.

Wayne Goldsmith