How Can We Make Research More Relevant for Sport Practice?

Contrasting Approaches in Research: Sport scientists often design studies that compare different training methods or models (e.g., interval vs. continuous exercise, polarized vs. pyramidal intensity distribution). These studies tend to conclude that one method is superior, but leading practitioners view these methods as complementary tools rather than mutually exclusive.

Complexity of Athlete Development: No single type of training is universally superior for long-term athletic development. Successful athletes often use a combination of different training methods, contradicting the conclusions of many one-dimensional, short-term studies.

Gap Between Science and Practice: There is a notable gap between the controlled, isolated research favored by sport scientists and the holistic, athlete-centered approach taken by coaches. Scientists often focus on underlying mechanisms without considering sport-specific demands, while coaches prioritize real-world performance enhancement.

Need for Holistic Research: To bridge the gap between science and practice, sport scientists should focus more on holistic and complex long-term development processes in athletes, using research designs that reflect real-life situations.

Collaboration and Education: Coaches need to challenge scientists with research questions that consider effective and sustainable training concepts. Both scientists and practitioners must collaborate more closely, with coaches contributing their practical insights to scientific research. Educated coaches should be able to interpret scientific findings and integrate them into training.

Practical Application in Research: The article advocates for research methods that involve practitioners more directly, such as using questionnaires, training logs, and interviews to gather data that accurately reflects the practical aspects of training.