Finding good quality research that is of
value to enhancing performance in sport is difficult, especially if we look for
ecologically valid studies where participants are assembled from an elite group
of athletes. This poses a problem for
applied practitioners who want to, as best they can, adopt an evidence based
approach to their work. In the relative
absence of such data we find ourselves using research that is within the chosen
area of interest however conducted with participants below the standard of
athlete with whom we are working. A
common reason cited for the lack of scientific investigation within elite
groups is an ethical one; exposing only half of the athletes to a potentially
beneficial type of training or intervention may be deemed as unfair. This of course is a significant deviation
from what we consider to be a central tenet of sound scientific investigation,
proving the null hypothesis to be true.
Whenever we are
interested in the effect of a new treatment (for the purposes of this blog
treatment encompasses a new training intervention/modality, nutritional aid or
piece of equipment) we should start with the premise that it will be no better
than what we currently have access to, representing the null hypothesis. The aim of the investigation then is to prove
this to be true. Taking this approach
turns the ethical question cited above on its head, as it infers no benefit of
the new treatment. If sufficient amounts
of data are collected to disprove the null hypothesis then we conclude the
alternative hypothesis to be true and can with confidence begin to prescribe
the new treatment. An example may serve
to clarify this point. We would all now
accept that training with a reasonable level of volume and intensity is
essential if we want to improve our VO2 max or lactate threshold. This is the result of both anecdotal
experience and scientific investigation revealing relatively high volumes of
training to be effective in improving these variables. Recent research however has suggested that
intense yet brief efforts, equivalent of 2 minutes duration (4x30s efforts) may
elicit similar responses. This is an
exciting finding, especially for those who have limited time to train. As yet however there is insufficient evidence
in elite level athletes to suggest that the null hypothesis (in this instance
that brief high intensity training alone is better than high volume training)
to be rejected. As we do not yet know
the potential benefits of this type of HIT training in athletes, withholding
its use as part of a randomized control trial so that it can be compared to
more traditional types of training should not be problematic.
We see similar problems in medical research
investigating the effectiveness of drugs.
Ben Goldacre’s recent book ‘Bad Pharma’ highlights the problem with prescription
medicines that have yet to be shown more effective than currently available
remedies. Some argue this in unfair as
patients are being denied access to drugs that will potentially cure or
alleviate their symptoms. This however,
as with our example from sport and exercise is not the case; since there is no
evidence that the new drug is more effective patients are no worse off.
Adopting an evidence based approach to
sport science provision is difficult, not least because of the dearth of data
compiled and collected within this heterogeneous group. Performing research within elite groups
however should not pose an ethical conundrum to the practitioner, instead it
represents an opportunity to understand with greater clarity the effect of
different and perhaps more effective treatments. Yes of course there are logistical
considerations; however with sound planning and organisation these can be
overcome as can the issue of timeframe and competitive advantage. Institutes and professional teams may not
want to publish their data whilst opponents can gain a competitive advantage. This is understandable however building in a ‘publication
threshold’ may solve the problem. For
commonwealth and Olympic sports this may be at the end of the training cycle
(every 4 years). If sport science is to
continue as a ‘science’ it must extend the same rigor that exists in academic
circles to the applied environment and commit to examining the effectiveness of
each type of treatment it adopts to impact upon performance.
So where does this leave us when attempting
to innovate within sport science?
Firstly all parties who engage in the physical and mental preparation of
elite athletes should commit to performing and publishing research. In doing this we can start to understand how
different treatments work amongst this specific group of people. We should also feel comfortable with
utilising control groups when working with elite athletes enabling the
assessment of new treatments against what is currently available or being
used. This approach should ensure we
feel comfortable in the veracity of our practices whilst not falling foul of
the many gadgets and fads marketed at giving our athletes the ‘edge’ they
desire.
