<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' standalone='yes'?>
<rss version='2.0' xmlns:media='http://search.yahoo.com/mrss' xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
	<channel>
		<generator><![CDATA[NextGEN Gallery [http://alexrabe.boelinger.com]]]></generator>
		<title>ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education</title>
		<description>The Leader in Sport Science Education</description>
		<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com]]></link>
		<atom:link rel='previous' href='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/plugins/nextgen-gallery/xml/media-rss.php?show=10&amp;page=0&amp;mode=last_pictures' />
		<atom:link rel='next' href='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/plugins/nextgen-gallery/xml/media-rss.php?show=10&amp;page=2&amp;mode=last_pictures' />
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 36]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide36.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide36.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 36]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide36.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 35]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 35 and 36: Bill Sands, Meg Stone and I wrote an article dealing with the demise of sport science in the USA in 2004.  In this article we point out that, although sport is immensely popular, scientific study of sport is nearly non-existent in the USA. The reasons for this are multifaceted but basically revolve around money. Currently there are no direct sources of funding solely for sport science. However, there are sources for basic and exercise science, especially if there is a health aspect to the research (i.e. NIH, CDC, AHA, DARPA, NASA etc. etc .) Universities strongly encourage young researchers, including those wishing to study sport, to move into fundable areas, in fact some universities have actively discouraged moving into sport science. One could kill a number trees writing about the ethics of forcing research into narrow channels for the sake of money but that topic will be saved for a later discussion.  The bottom line is that most potential sport scientists become basic or exercise scientists as a result (i.e. little or no funding for research). 

It has been suggested that sport science should move into more fundable areas and then money will be available for sport science. For example: those who might normally study the effects of strength training on athletic performance could now study the effects of strength training on cardiovascular disease or diabetes; both highly fundable areas. Assuming you could procure these types of grants, there would be money to support graduate students or post-doctoral positions and perhaps partially fund your own position and there would be money for research and the university would receive considerable overhead, money for instrumentation, etc.    There are several problems with this solution.  First when grant funding is received most of your focus and that of your laboratory turns to the specific problem for which you received money. This means that laboratory staff (students and faculty) would be busy carrying out specific research projects associated with the grant (e.g. resistance training and diabetes) – this also means these same staff members will not have time to carry out service (e.g. monitoring or training athletes) or research projects associated with sport science. Thus the focus of your lab will shift from sport science toward more typical (but more fundable) exercise and basic science.  This scenario occurs often in the academic setting. While this does support graduate students and makes the university happy as it brings in money, it makes the faculty and students largely unhappy as now they have moved away from the very reasons that attracted them. 

This does not mean that faculty/staff that are primarily sport scientist cannot be engaged in exercise science – it does mean great care should be taken so that a sport science focus is not lost.  Indeed working with exercise and particularly basic scientists allows for mutually beneficial learning situations. The bottom line is that new and creative methods of raising money for sport science must be found.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide35.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide35.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 35]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 35 and 36: Bill Sands, Meg Stone and I wrote an article dealing with the demise of sport science in the USA in 2004.  In this article we point out that, although sport is immensely popular, scientific study of sport is nearly non-existent in the USA. The reasons for this are multifaceted but basically revolve around money. Currently there are no direct sources of funding solely for sport science. However, there are sources for basic and exercise science, especially if there is a health aspect to the research (i.e. NIH, CDC, AHA, DARPA, NASA etc. etc .) Universities strongly encourage young researchers, including those wishing to study sport, to move into fundable areas, in fact some universities have actively discouraged moving into sport science. One could kill a number trees writing about the ethics of forcing research into narrow channels for the sake of money but that topic will be saved for a later discussion.  The bottom line is that most potential sport scientists become basic or exercise scientists as a result (i.e. little or no funding for research). 

It has been suggested that sport science should move into more fundable areas and then money will be available for sport science. For example: those who might normally study the effects of strength training on athletic performance could now study the effects of strength training on cardiovascular disease or diabetes; both highly fundable areas. Assuming you could procure these types of grants, there would be money to support graduate students or post-doctoral positions and perhaps partially fund your own position and there would be money for research and the university would receive considerable overhead, money for instrumentation, etc.    There are several problems with this solution.  First when grant funding is received most of your focus and that of your laboratory turns to the specific problem for which you received money. This means that laboratory staff (students and faculty) would be busy carrying out specific research projects associated with the grant (e.g. resistance training and diabetes) – this also means these same staff members will not have time to carry out service (e.g. monitoring or training athletes) or research projects associated with sport science. Thus the focus of your lab will shift from sport science toward more typical (but more fundable) exercise and basic science.  This scenario occurs often in the academic setting. While this does support graduate students and makes the university happy as it brings in money, it makes the faculty and students largely unhappy as now they have moved away from the very reasons that attracted them. 

This does not mean that faculty/staff that are primarily sport scientist cannot be engaged in exercise science – it does mean great care should be taken so that a sport science focus is not lost.  Indeed working with exercise and particularly basic scientists allows for mutually beneficial learning situations. The bottom line is that new and creative methods of raising money for sport science must be found.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide35.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 34]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 34:  This statement was made by Marco Cardinale and describes that state of academic training for sport science in the United Kingdom – this same situation exists in the USA.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide34.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide34.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 34]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 34:  This statement was made by Marco Cardinale and describes that state of academic training for sport science in the United Kingdom – this same situation exists in the USA.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide34.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 33]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 33:   In interacting with sport scientists around the world, one factor relating to research that consistently stands out deals with problems in getting data published in “good” journals.  When working with athletes, particularly advanced athletes, the numbers available as ”subjects” are rarely large.  Thus one factor that often curtails publishing data in sport science deals with subject number. Another factor is that when using small numbers there are some statistical procedures that can be appropriate, however, most reviewers, who are rarely sport scientists themselves, are unfamiliar with these techniques.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide33.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide33.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 33]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 33:   In interacting with sport scientists around the world, one factor relating to research that consistently stands out deals with problems in getting data published in “good” journals.  When working with athletes, particularly advanced athletes, the numbers available as ”subjects” are rarely large.  Thus one factor that often curtails publishing data in sport science deals with subject number. Another factor is that when using small numbers there are some statistical procedures that can be appropriate, however, most reviewers, who are rarely sport scientists themselves, are unfamiliar with these techniques.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide33.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 32]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 32: It should be noted that very very small differences in performance may have large consequences. Furthermore, unlike typical scientific studies that usually measure group means and then attempt to make inferences, individual differences (case studies) can be as important to the coach as group differences. For example: in a group of 12 athletes all but one appears to be adapting well to a specific training program and this one athlete is the best of the group, a former world champion.  By tracking/monitoring  both single and groups of athletes interventions can be made on an individual or group basis. Additionally, for any program there can be individual athletes that respond or not respond, often this is a function of fatigue and good monitoring program can detect response and also provide insight into why a specific response or adaptation is occurring.  However, detection requires specialized statistical techniques.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide32.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide32.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 32]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 32: It should be noted that very very small differences in performance may have large consequences. Furthermore, unlike typical scientific studies that usually measure group means and then attempt to make inferences, individual differences (case studies) can be as important to the coach as group differences. For example: in a group of 12 athletes all but one appears to be adapting well to a specific training program and this one athlete is the best of the group, a former world champion.  By tracking/monitoring  both single and groups of athletes interventions can be made on an individual or group basis. Additionally, for any program there can be individual athletes that respond or not respond, often this is a function of fatigue and good monitoring program can detect response and also provide insight into why a specific response or adaptation is occurring.  However, detection requires specialized statistical techniques.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide32.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 31]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 31: The previous observations (i.e. the ability of the sport scientists to study athletes in their environment), brings up potential problems with manipulation of that environment.  Most often a coach will be very reluctant to allow much of a deviation from normal training. This is true even when the coaches trust the intentions of the SPEG. Part of the reason for this is that one of the methods of training being studies likely will produce an inferior result, thus one athlete group is (in a sense) behind. However, one must consider the positive outcome; the coach may find a better way to train. Ironically, it is often the coach that asked a question about methods of training initially. 

A confounding factor is that athletes usually present a more homogenous subpopulation compared to average. This makes group differences or training induced alterations quite difficult to detect compared to the general population. As a result specialize statistics are necessary.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide31.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide31.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 31]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 31: The previous observations (i.e. the ability of the sport scientists to study athletes in their environment), brings up potential problems with manipulation of that environment.  Most often a coach will be very reluctant to allow much of a deviation from normal training. This is true even when the coaches trust the intentions of the SPEG. Part of the reason for this is that one of the methods of training being studies likely will produce an inferior result, thus one athlete group is (in a sense) behind. However, one must consider the positive outcome; the coach may find a better way to train. Ironically, it is often the coach that asked a question about methods of training initially. 

A confounding factor is that athletes usually present a more homogenous subpopulation compared to average. This makes group differences or training induced alterations quite difficult to detect compared to the general population. As a result specialize statistics are necessary.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide31.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 30]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 30:   When Bill Sands and I worked together at the USOC we often discussed the remarkable abilities of world class athletes and how sad it was that students that were interested I sport science were often never exposed to high level performance or had opportunity to test advanced athletes.  It was not unusual to see astonishment on the faces of USOC interns the first time they saw a weightlifter squat 300 kg or more, a decathlete produce a 66 cm VJ from force plate or an endurance athlete produce a maximum  aerobic power of 80+ ml x kg-1 x min-1 with an RER of 1.3+. 

It is quite clear, as a result of the right genetics and appropriate training, that advanced and elite athletes are psychologically and physiologically different from the average person and that these differences produce performances that are not normal and far beyond the capabilities of most athletes, much less the average population. Furthermore, athletes do not exist in the same environment as people in the average population.  Athletes that are committed, train, sometimes many hours per day for years, many use specialized diets, they do not participate in the usual social functions that lesser and non-athletes take part in and generally lead relatively regimented lives. 

These observations dealing with athlete environment highlights one of the problems with typical scientific studies that isolate or control subject environments. While these studies are valuable, they do not typically reflect the real world of athletes.  Studies must be carried out in which the “complete” environment of the athlete is taken into consideration.  For example: observations on the effects of  two different strength training protocols may produce very different results if one study uses untrained subjects or even athletes but the training protocols were compared in isolation from other aspects of the athletes life (e.g. other aspects of training, practice etc.).  Even a cursory look through the scientific literature clearly shows that there is very little comparative research on athletes while functioning in their complete environment.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide30.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide30.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 30]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 30:   When Bill Sands and I worked together at the USOC we often discussed the remarkable abilities of world class athletes and how sad it was that students that were interested I sport science were often never exposed to high level performance or had opportunity to test advanced athletes.  It was not unusual to see astonishment on the faces of USOC interns the first time they saw a weightlifter squat 300 kg or more, a decathlete produce a 66 cm VJ from force plate or an endurance athlete produce a maximum  aerobic power of 80+ ml x kg-1 x min-1 with an RER of 1.3+. 

It is quite clear, as a result of the right genetics and appropriate training, that advanced and elite athletes are psychologically and physiologically different from the average person and that these differences produce performances that are not normal and far beyond the capabilities of most athletes, much less the average population. Furthermore, athletes do not exist in the same environment as people in the average population.  Athletes that are committed, train, sometimes many hours per day for years, many use specialized diets, they do not participate in the usual social functions that lesser and non-athletes take part in and generally lead relatively regimented lives. 

These observations dealing with athlete environment highlights one of the problems with typical scientific studies that isolate or control subject environments. While these studies are valuable, they do not typically reflect the real world of athletes.  Studies must be carried out in which the “complete” environment of the athlete is taken into consideration.  For example: observations on the effects of  two different strength training protocols may produce very different results if one study uses untrained subjects or even athletes but the training protocols were compared in isolation from other aspects of the athletes life (e.g. other aspects of training, practice etc.).  Even a cursory look through the scientific literature clearly shows that there is very little comparative research on athletes while functioning in their complete environment.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide30.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 3]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 3: the emergence of Exercise and Sport Science may be traced from a historical perspective. The ancients observed nature and tried to draw inferences from these observations as to how the world works. From these earliest observation and the advent of more modern scientific techniques the basic disciplines of Physics, Mathematics, Biology and  Chemistry were developed. From these basic disciplines interaction among scholars lead to the development of physiology, nutrition and engineering, and around the turn of the 20th century Exercise Science emerged as an interdisciplinary area of study.  However, it should be noted that much of the early writings of ancient Egyptians, Chinese and particularly Greeks also dealt with exercise, sport and nutritional aspects of physical training. Thus, there has been a keen interest in sport and competition from the earliest times. ]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide3.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide3.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 3]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 3: the emergence of Exercise and Sport Science may be traced from a historical perspective. The ancients observed nature and tried to draw inferences from these observations as to how the world works. From these earliest observation and the advent of more modern scientific techniques the basic disciplines of Physics, Mathematics, Biology and  Chemistry were developed. From these basic disciplines interaction among scholars lead to the development of physiology, nutrition and engineering, and around the turn of the 20th century Exercise Science emerged as an interdisciplinary area of study.  However, it should be noted that much of the early writings of ancient Egyptians, Chinese and particularly Greeks also dealt with exercise, sport and nutritional aspects of physical training. Thus, there has been a keen interest in sport and competition from the earliest times. ]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide3.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 29]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 29: Other important differences between exercise and sport science include data handling and ethical considerations.  Exercise science, as do most scientific endeavors, seeks to “create” new knowledge and present evidence as fast as possible. Publication and presentation are first steps in being recognized as superior scientist among peers. This process is also a primary step in obtaining grants and contracts which in turn fund more scientific projects.  This process is basic to higher research in education institutions.  However, in sport science “new knowledge” that could give your team an advantage is often hidden for a time.  This aspect alone makes sport science a unique and relatively rare phenomenon in colleges and universities. 
Confidentially of data is paramount to scientific and particularly medical endeavors, however, in sport science and sport in general, confidentiality cannot and should not always exist. For example: 1) data collected must be returned to the coaches and members of the SPEG, otherwise the annual plan or training alterations will not be possible, much less be possible in a timely manner. 2) Some data collected on a testing day is clearly visible at the time of collection; indeed coach and peer presence during collection can be a motivating factor in producing maximum efforts (i.e. strength tests, jumps, sprints etc.).  3) There are also record boards in which everyone sees the result. 4) Some data, arguably should be held in greater confidence than other types of data (e.g. body composition, results of clinical lab work such as blood lipids, hormones etc., injuries and some psychological data) however, even here this data should be shared with the SPEG in order to enhance performance and generally protect the overall welfare of the athlete.  These items of non-confidentially should be carefully outlined in the monitoring informed consent forms. 

One aspect of testing/monitoring that receives considerable attention and is the subject of much debate concerning ethics is what should be done with “surprising results”.  There are two aspects to this dilemma: first is the result that indicates a medical problem – should this be passed along to medical personal or should it be left to the athlete to take action. A complicating factor is that medical personnel will potentially be members of the SPEG and may have knowledge of the data.  A larger ethical problem occurs (especially as the result of measuring certain hormones) when results indicate that banned or illegal actions have been taken by the athlete (e.g. drug use) – should the athlete be automatically referred to drug control?  These questions must be addressed by the SPEG before testing is initiated and great care must be taken in crafting a consent form that spells out, clearly, what actions will be taken. 



The next few slides emphasize major essentially profound differences between sport and exercise science.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide29.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide29.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 29]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 29: Other important differences between exercise and sport science include data handling and ethical considerations.  Exercise science, as do most scientific endeavors, seeks to “create” new knowledge and present evidence as fast as possible. Publication and presentation are first steps in being recognized as superior scientist among peers. This process is also a primary step in obtaining grants and contracts which in turn fund more scientific projects.  This process is basic to higher research in education institutions.  However, in sport science “new knowledge” that could give your team an advantage is often hidden for a time.  This aspect alone makes sport science a unique and relatively rare phenomenon in colleges and universities. 
Confidentially of data is paramount to scientific and particularly medical endeavors, however, in sport science and sport in general, confidentiality cannot and should not always exist. For example: 1) data collected must be returned to the coaches and members of the SPEG, otherwise the annual plan or training alterations will not be possible, much less be possible in a timely manner. 2) Some data collected on a testing day is clearly visible at the time of collection; indeed coach and peer presence during collection can be a motivating factor in producing maximum efforts (i.e. strength tests, jumps, sprints etc.).  3) There are also record boards in which everyone sees the result. 4) Some data, arguably should be held in greater confidence than other types of data (e.g. body composition, results of clinical lab work such as blood lipids, hormones etc., injuries and some psychological data) however, even here this data should be shared with the SPEG in order to enhance performance and generally protect the overall welfare of the athlete.  These items of non-confidentially should be carefully outlined in the monitoring informed consent forms. 

One aspect of testing/monitoring that receives considerable attention and is the subject of much debate concerning ethics is what should be done with “surprising results”.  There are two aspects to this dilemma: first is the result that indicates a medical problem – should this be passed along to medical personal or should it be left to the athlete to take action. A complicating factor is that medical personnel will potentially be members of the SPEG and may have knowledge of the data.  A larger ethical problem occurs (especially as the result of measuring certain hormones) when results indicate that banned or illegal actions have been taken by the athlete (e.g. drug use) – should the athlete be automatically referred to drug control?  These questions must be addressed by the SPEG before testing is initiated and great care must be taken in crafting a consent form that spells out, clearly, what actions will be taken. 



The next few slides emphasize major essentially profound differences between sport and exercise science.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide29.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Slide 28]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Slide 28: The training process is more than simply determining sets and reps. Rather, training is a process which prepares an athlete, Technically, Tactically, Psychologically and Physically for the highest possible levels of performance. The sport training process attempts to take the athlete as close as possible to their genetic limits – thus training is not simply recreational exercise. This entails commitment of all of those involved. 
One of the most important aspects of sport science is the formation of a sport performance enhancement group (SPEG). This group typically consists of the head coach, assistant coaches and appropriate personnel from strength and conditioning, sport medicine and sport science. Theoretically the SPEG is “coach driven” and the exact make-up of the SPEG is largely up to the coach, but this make-up often depends upon availability of personnel.  Ideally, the SPEG works together (as a team) to formulate the training process for a specific sport. This concept is somewhat foreign to most coaches in the USA. 
The formation of a SPEG begins with initial contact between sport science and the coach(s). The SPEG should not be so large that making a decision necessitates an act of congress, but rather the staffing should reflect the needs of the sport.  This could include (in addition to the coaches) physiologists, biomechanics, psychologists, nutrition specialist, athletic trainers and medical doctors. 

At the first meeting an initial monitoring session, including the types of tests and the date, should be agreed upon. The data should be rapidly analyzed, a written report returned to the coaches and SPEG followed closely by an oral report.  During the 2nd meeting (and perhaps a subsequent meeting) an annual plan should be developed by the SPEG. The annual plan is a “road map” of the training process for the coming year. The annual plan explains how athlete development is to be carried out. Ideally, the annual plan not only includes the dates of competition but also the sets and reps, what types of exercises will be performed, when they are to be performed, when testing (monitoring) will be performed, how sport medicine should fit and a schedule of SPEG meetings. The SPEG should meet with each sport at least once per year to develop the annual plan. 

The basic process of the monitoring program is consistent (i.e. test > written> oral feedback ASAP). As new findings occur, the testing may be modified from time to time, but the process remains essentially the same.  This monitoring program can be quite time consuming. The testing, write-up and oral presentation is often the equivalent of a master’s thesis. In a college setting, both superior undergraduate and graduate students can be assigned to a sport and be responsible for getting this done (with supervision) – this process not only acquaints the student with the service aspects of sport science but serves to acquaint the student with a number of items necessary for good research, such as data collection and analyses, improves writing and oral presentation skills and helps prepare the student for a thesis/dissertation. Conceptually, in the college setting, this is an important idea in that Athletic Departments and sport strongly contribute to the academic process.]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide28.png]]></link>
			<media:content url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/slide28.png' medium='image' />
			<media:title><![CDATA[Slide 28]]></media:title>
			<media:description><![CDATA[Slide 28: The training process is more than simply determining sets and reps. Rather, training is a process which prepares an athlete, Technically, Tactically, Psychologically and Physically for the highest possible levels of performance. The sport training process attempts to take the athlete as close as possible to their genetic limits – thus training is not simply recreational exercise. This entails commitment of all of those involved. 
One of the most important aspects of sport science is the formation of a sport performance enhancement group (SPEG). This group typically consists of the head coach, assistant coaches and appropriate personnel from strength and conditioning, sport medicine and sport science. Theoretically the SPEG is “coach driven” and the exact make-up of the SPEG is largely up to the coach, but this make-up often depends upon availability of personnel.  Ideally, the SPEG works together (as a team) to formulate the training process for a specific sport. This concept is somewhat foreign to most coaches in the USA. 
The formation of a SPEG begins with initial contact between sport science and the coach(s). The SPEG should not be so large that making a decision necessitates an act of congress, but rather the staffing should reflect the needs of the sport.  This could include (in addition to the coaches) physiologists, biomechanics, psychologists, nutrition specialist, athletic trainers and medical doctors. 

At the first meeting an initial monitoring session, including the types of tests and the date, should be agreed upon. The data should be rapidly analyzed, a written report returned to the coaches and SPEG followed closely by an oral report.  During the 2nd meeting (and perhaps a subsequent meeting) an annual plan should be developed by the SPEG. The annual plan is a “road map” of the training process for the coming year. The annual plan explains how athlete development is to be carried out. Ideally, the annual plan not only includes the dates of competition but also the sets and reps, what types of exercises will be performed, when they are to be performed, when testing (monitoring) will be performed, how sport medicine should fit and a schedule of SPEG meetings. The SPEG should meet with each sport at least once per year to develop the annual plan. 

The basic process of the monitoring program is consistent (i.e. test > written> oral feedback ASAP). As new findings occur, the testing may be modified from time to time, but the process remains essentially the same.  This monitoring program can be quite time consuming. The testing, write-up and oral presentation is often the equivalent of a master’s thesis. In a college setting, both superior undergraduate and graduate students can be assigned to a sport and be responsible for getting this done (with supervision) – this process not only acquaints the student with the service aspects of sport science but serves to acquaint the student with a number of items necessary for good research, such as data collection and analyses, improves writing and oral presentation skills and helps prepare the student for a thesis/dissertation. Conceptually, in the college setting, this is an important idea in that Athletic Departments and sport strongly contribute to the academic process.]]></media:description>
			<media:thumbnail url='http://www.sportscienceed.com/wp-content/gallery/testin/thumbs/thumbs_slide28.png' width='128' height='128' />
			<media:keywords><![CDATA[]]></media:keywords>
			<media:copyright><![CDATA[Copyright (c) ETSU Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education (http://www.sportscienceed.com)]]></media:copyright>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->