How Can We Make Research More Relevant for Sport Practice?

Thomas Haugen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0230
IF: 4.211
2024-06-27
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Abstract:Sport scientists tend to design studies in which varying training forms, methods, or session models are regarded as competitive and contrasting, and countless publications have concluded that approach A is more effective than B. For example, the search term "interval vs. continuous exercise" generates more than 700 results in PubMed (per May 2024). Other similar comparisons and research questions have remained the subject of considerable debate: What is most effective of polarized versus pyramidal endurance-training intensity distribution? Altitude versus sea-level endurance training? Traditional versus block periodization? Early versus late specialization? Resisted versus unresisted sprint training? While these studies provide important understanding of underlying mechanisms, sport scientists often end up with definitive conclusions and practical applications in favor of one approach. In contrast, leading practitioners consider most of the above-mentioned features as complementary tools that can be employed when necessary. Indeed, elite endurance athletes typically apply both interval and continuous exercise, polarized and pyramidal intensity distribution, traditional and block periodization, and perform training both at altitude and sea level. 1,2 Similarly, high-level sprinters perform both resisted and unresisted sprinting, 3 and both early and late specialization have produced world-leading athletes. 4
physiology,sport sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?