The point to the article was not that all research is bad but that training studies when conducted from a single discipline point of view are ridiculous.

We test. We change one thing. We re-test and find some sort of effect. Then we make outrageous claims about the impact of the measured effect on competition performance.
For example. We test an athlete’s power. We add in some power exercises to their gym work. We re-test and find an increase in power. Then a sports scientist gets up a conference and says, “Our results suggest that doing these exercises will improve competition performances” – it is insane.
It is like telling someone that reducing their salt intake will increase their life expectancy when they are 200 pounds over weight, smoke, have high levels of stress, suffer from depression and do no exercise. Everything is connected, inter-related and multi-factorial.

It does not make any sense yet I have received more negative emails from this post than any other I have ever written – all the negatives coming from either Academics or institutionalised sports scientists. No big surprises there!

As for the “hole” comment – I don’t dare do anything like that. There is a group of Zealots in the south of the US who monitor the internet and send me a rude email threatening to blackball me anytime I use words they don’t like so it was unintentional.

WG

The big hole…”

Not sure that was an intentional transition but it made me shot Dr. Pepper out my nose.

Great points – There is so much good that research can do and at times they put time and energy trying to reinvent the wheel.

I think we agree to disagree on this.

More than once I have listened to researchers present claims about their research and its capacity to enhance the competition performance of athletes. Yet, most of the time, they lack the understanding of the multi disciplinary nature of competition performance and are coming at it from such a narrow perspective that what they present is of little relevance.

Everything is linked and inter-related: a change in technique might be supported by the findings of a research paper to increase speed in athletes, but all it takes is for the athlete to have a few nights of poor sleep, an emotional disturbance, a family issue, poor nutrition or some other complication and the benefits of the technique change are negated.

This is what the single discipline researchers don’t get – when it comes to competition performances, everything is inter-related and dependent on everything else.

Thanks again ben – I value your contribution.

WG

I am a huge fan of research, innovation, creativity and new ideas in the pursuit of excellence in sport but some stuff I read is of such limited value to athletes and coaches I can not believe it has been published or funded. Research for research sake which aims to increase the knowledge base of humanity should be done – but in a University setting. Research which aims to enhance the competition performance of athletes should be practical, applied, commonsense and relevant and targeted at solving performance problems quickly – so that the athletes gain a competitive advantage over their opposition. Isn’t that what it’s all about?

WG

As a track coach, most of what I know and practice is based on trial and error and I´ve made a mess of many athletes along the way. However, evaluation has lead me to my current beliefs and anything I “add on” taken from research has to concure with my value system. Not to say that I hold universal truth. But my truth is still my own.

can’t say i agree with much here. rarely does research make wild claims, the media interpretation of them however often twists and sensationalises, as do many of the less informed coaches/practioners/athletes(similar to what you have just done). I don’t think the research is bad at all, the communication of it is no doubt crappy most of the time.