International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0367
© 2023 Human Kinetics, Inc.
First Published Online: Oct. 4, 2023
Rethinking Sport Science to Improve Coach–Researcher
Interactions
Irineu Loturco
Federal University of São Paulo and Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, São Paulo, Brazil
A typical comment made by coaches in high-performance sport is
“I avoid interactions with researchers because they often fail to
effectively address the issues that impact my daily work.” More-
over, it is not uncommon to hear statements like “I don’t utilize the
scientific services offered by my club because conclusions and
recommendations are vague and abstract” or “Results lack clarity
and the methods employed are too complex to be implemented at
the speed and scale required in my professional context.” In
contrast, it is also common to come across sport scientists expres-
sing concerns regarding the limited openness exhibited by practi-
tioners. Complaints such as “Coaches appear resistant to adopting
new concepts” or “Despite being informed, they continue to use
inappropriate techniques” are frequently reiterated. Notably, these
critiques have endured since my early days as an undergraduate
student, and they still seem to be far from resolved. This is why
coach–scientist relationships remain a key issue to be tackled and
overcome.
A first step in this direction is to acknowledge our limitations
as researchers. Science is essentially reductionist. In our experi-
ments, we break down complex processes into simpler elements in
order to explain a certain phenomenon. In sport science, to assess
the efficacy of a given intervention, it is necessary to isolate the
independent variable of interest (eg, exercise or relative load) to
examine its effects on the dependent variable (eg, muscle strength
or power). However, in real-world situations, coaches combine
multiple stimuli into a single session, often adjusting training
content according to subjective factors and unforeseeable events
(eg, perception of effort, muscle soreness, changes in match or
training schedule), which drastically limits the relevance of highly
controlled studies.
A similar rationale may be applied to repeated studies on
validity and reliability, comparing measurements and measures
that already exhibit elevated levels of precision and consistency.
Does it make sense to continue carrying out these highly special-
ized studies under these complex and ever-changing circum-
stances? The real challenges faced by coaches still revolve
around the ability to establish simple and effective forms of control
over the whole training process, enabling them to make prompt and
well-informed decisions under highly demanding scenarios, where
slight variations in performance are expected and usually found.1–3
A good example is the topic of sprint performance. While
many discussions about the most effective sprint-training methods
persist within our community, the challenges faced by coaches in
the real world seem to be quite distinct. In an insightful commen-
tary, Haugen4 sheds light on this topic by questioning whether we
The author (irineu.loturco@terra.com.br) is an Associate Editor for IJSPP,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-2568
EDITORIAL
should train elite soccer players to become faster or we should
simply “buy faster players.” After listing a number of complexities
related to this matter, the author draws attention to the fact that the
proper development of sprinting skills not only includes aspects
related to coaching and training techniques but also involves
making critical decisions on the extent to which soccer-specific
training can be “sacrificed”—which is always a problem in elite
sports.
The pursuit of speed enhancement not only presents an intri-
cate challenge for soccer players but also emerges as a significant
limitation for sprinters. One study2 revealed that, from their early to
mid-20s, the annual improvements in sprint speed in world-class
sprinters were estimated to be ≤0.2%. In addition, in the 5 years
preceding peak performance, sprinters from various countries (data
gathered from a sample of the top 100 athletes worldwide in each
season, extracted from the statistical section of “World Athletics,”
between 2002 and 2016)2 exhibited improvements of <2% in
comparison to their personal bests. This perspective indicates that
the results achieved by young sprinters in the early stages of their
competitive participation will significantly shape their performance
in the senior categories. Furthermore, it suggests that the extensive
support available to these athletes during their professional careers
will have a very limited impact on performance progression.
Equally interesting is the observation that this sample com-
prises sprinters from various countries, training under the guidance
of multiple coaches, influenced by a variety of training cultures.
Curiously, these athletes have access to highly contrasting eco-
nomic, technical, and scientific resources, yet these differences do
not appear to influence their evolution over time. In the same vein, a
recent study3 revealed that male and female 100-m sprinters of
varying competitive levels (personal bests ranging between 10.07–
10.61 s and 11.03–11.61 s, respectively) and trained by different
coaches exhibited an average variation in sprint times not exceed-
ing ±1.4% (CV = 1.3%) during the annual season. Collectively,
these factors reinforce the notion that the distinct—and potentially
divergent—training approaches adopted by coaches make only
modest impacts on the competitive performance of their athletes.
In light of these thought-provoking data, some questions arise:
Do these results contradict the ongoing advancements in sport
science? Is there a gap between scientific principles and their
application in high-performance sport? Or perhaps, as researchers,
are we not adequately addressing the issues that coaches encounter
in their daily routines? The simplest way to explain these results is
to attribute them to the limited trainability of elite athletes and the
limitations of human performance. But if this fact is already as well
established as it seems to be, why do we continue to invest research
efforts into exploring new training methods instead of seeking new
avenues for research? The phenomena and responses surrounding
these issues are incredibly complex and influenced by various
1
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/06/23 08:32 PM UTC
2 Loturco
perspectives. Nevertheless, to maintain our momentum in generat-
ing knowledge and insights in this field, it is crucial to consider the
following: Perhaps the knowledge we are producing might not be
as effective as presumed or might not be applicable at the level of
high-performance sport. Alternatively, there might be a combina-
tion of both scenarios. This questioning is vital to ensure that our
research remains relevant in actual training settings, prompting us
to reconsider our approaches, methodologies, and viewpoints.
Maintaining a balance between rigorous research and practice
requires constant reevaluation of our methods and an understand-
ing of the needs and concerns of those who apply our findings. As
researchers and sport scientists, we need to be aware of these issues
and consider that meticulous studies, including those with great
potential for citation, are not necessarily the most accessed by
practitioners. This shortcoming occurs because most of these
studies, given their uniform and highly controlled nature, fail to
identify and address the real challenges faced by coaches in their
daily practices. In general, coaches are constantly striving to adopt
simple and time-efficient methods, capable of producing and
detecting even the slightest changes in performance. Many of
these methods and their particularities cannot be easily tested by
rigorous studies. These circumstances lead us to an important
reflection and place us face to face with a crucial decision: What
(Ahead of Print)
direction do we want to take as a community? Reflecting on these
issues goes beyond boosting the number of citations of our papers
and the impact of our journals. This reflection is directly associated
with improvement in athletic performance and, more important,
with the future of sport science. In this context, we hope that IJSPP
will make a difference by publishing high-quality, practically
relevant research in the field of elite sport.
References
1. Hopkins WG. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance
test. Sportscience. 2004;8:1–7.
2. Haugen TA, Solberg PA, Foster C, Moran-Navarro R, Breitschadel F,
Hopkins WG. Peak age and performance progression in world-class
track-and-field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2018;13(9):1122–1129. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0682
3. Loturco I, Fernandes V, Bishop C, et al. Variations in Physical and
competitive performance of highly trained sprinters across an annual
training season. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(5):1104–1110. doi:10.
1519/JSC.0000000000004380
4. Haugen T. Sprint conditioning of elite soccer players: worth the effort
or let’s just buy faster players? Sport Perform Sci Rep. 2017;1:1–2.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/06/23 08:32 PM UTC