Sport Specific Testing and Training?

[Guest guest]

Someone anonymously wrote:

<Today numerous coaches and athletes want more 'sport specific testing

and training'

However, in my opinion due to this ever increasing focus and

concentration on the sport, the coaches and the athletes sometimes

are misleaded by the specifity.

For example, Paracelsus stated:

'Some specialists can do one thing and other specialists can do

something else, but none of them has any real knowledge, as those

who only know part of an entirety, know nothing at all!'

Cycling is a activity which requires the concentric muscle action

throughout the motion. Therefore, coaches and athletes believe that training

should only

involve the concentric muscle actions.??

What are people's views on sport specific testing and training?>

[Guest guest]

>

> <Today numerous coaches and athletes want more 'sport specific

testing

> and training'

>

> However, in my opinion due to this ever increasing focus and

> concentration on the sport, the coaches and the athletes sometimes

> are misleaded by the specifity.

>

**** I have spent some time doing sport performance testing for

athletes ranging from youth to Olympians to Professional teams in

several sports. I do believe there can be important value to testing

athletes, however, I think it is often applied poorly.

POSSIBLE BENEFITS:

Motivation for inseason and offseason physical training

Identify individual strengths and weaknesses

Create more specific training programs

Educate athlete

Educate coaching staff

SPORT SPECIFC? Here is a major starting problem. What does this

mean? There are so many sports where there are many questions about

what is truly " specific " to the sport that can be tested. The only

truly specific thing is playing the sport. In many sports, there is

little data about what is really important and how it should be

measured.

However, many sports have tests that have become " standard " . Often

its tradition or what the coaches were asked to do when they played.

Are they neccesarily valuable tests? Not always.

Look at several examples in pro sports. The NFL combine is so far

from being about football its at time ridiculous, but many coaches

may think it is " sport specific " becuase thats what the pros do.

Training for football performance and combine performance are two

very different things.

In the NHL the importance of VO2 max tests at the start of the season

is dogma. Players spend inordinate ammounts of time on stationary

bikes training for the test. Some teams and coaches really place a

high value on this test for selecting players.

I recently saw a professional soccer player being told he was getting

sports specific tests that would help them design a training

program. The test was valued at ~$1000 The coach doing the test

knew little about soccer and threw together a few tests at the last

minute. Wingate, 40 yd dash, t-test, vertical jump on force

platform, & bench press.

What did this likely accomplish? I doubt it provided much useful

information to the player or really helped in a better design of a

training program. It usually been my experience that most players

don't like tests. They often don't see the relation to perform on

the field. You better convince them its important and relevant,

otherwise you wont get accurate values. A test like this one

probably helps reinforce the idea that testing is a waste of time.

APPLICATION: Even if applicable tests are done, tests that may show

where a player currently stands and/or help illustrate some strengths

and weaknesses, they are useless if nothing is done with them. If

the coaches use that info to help design better training and

conditioning programs, thats beneficial. I've seen too many cases of

pro teams spending time and money putting their athletes through

tests and then doing absolutely nothing with the data. Not even

giving the players feedback.

I do believe that testing is important. After all, how do you devise

an appropriate training program for a higher level athlete without

knowing the starting point and needs? Its too bad its done so poorly

in most cases.

Ken Vick

Director of Sports Performance

HEALTHSOUTH

Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Guest guest]

In responds to sports Specific Testing and Training.

Sport Specific testing becomes invalid during any extended length of time if

the test is practiced. If the coaches I deal with want a certain test to go

well, It's as simple as writing the training protocol to correlate with the

test. IF you take the NFL 20 yard pro agility test. It becomes invalid if

the practices it many times in between testing dates. It becomes a learned

skill and not a testing tool. This goes from VO2 max testing to standing

long jump.

Sport Specific Training comes from the complete evaluation of the sport and

then writing the protocol on with the intention of making your athlete or

teams weakest points the strong points. Then reevaluate the team or athlete

and write other program, with the plans of making the weak points the strong

point. Followed by another evaluation.

Cal Dietz

Minneapolis, MN

USA

Sport Specific Testing and Training?

Someone anonymously wrote:

<Today numerous coaches and athletes want more 'sport specific testing

and training'

However, in my opinion due to this ever increasing focus and

concentration on the sport, the coaches and the athletes sometimes

are misleaded by the specifity.

For example, Paracelsus stated:

'Some specialists can do one thing and other specialists can do

something else, but none of them has any real knowledge, as those

who only know part of an entirety, know nothing at all!'

Cycling is a activity which requires the concentric muscle action

throughout the motion. Therefore, coaches and athletes believe that

training should only

involve the concentric muscle actions.??

What are people's views on sport specific testing and training?>

Modify or cancel your subscription here:

mygroups

Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

> **** I have spent some time doing sport performance testing for

> athletes ranging from youth to Olympians to Professional teams in

> several sports. I do believe there can be important value to

testing

> athletes, however, I think it is often applied poorly.

>

I have also spent some time performing physiological testing with high

level athletes, and agree with you entirely.

It seems to me as though most of the coaches we have worked with come

in requesting 'sports science support' without really knowing

themselves what it is that they really require. This usually ends up

with athletes performing a battery of tests, with the results being

filed away until the next time and never being used in the

prescription of training.

I think a good case could be stated for only performing tests where it

can be clearly demonstrated that 'an improvement in this test will

lead to improved performance'. If you were to work by this rule then

I think you would actually find that there are very few tests which

are of real value, and that more specific measures such as times

actually achieved on the track, in the pool or wherever are much more

usefull.

With reference to the use of VO2 max testing on NFL players at the

start of the season, we commonly see a similar situation with football

(soccer) teams here in the UK, who use the multistage shuttle run test

in predicting VO2 max. As thousands of junior players could probably

outperform some members of senior international squads in this test,

improved performance cannot directly result in improved football

performance and the testing is therefore of dubious benefit.

Andy Renfree

Edinburgh

[Guest guest]

I thought it was a given that testing was always needed and done. In track

and field we start out performing a variety of tests, usually during the

first week of Gen. Prep Phase. Prior to doing the test we teach the athletes

the mechanics of the tests. We do a standing 30, Fly 30, Standing 150,

Standing Long Jump, Overhead Med Ball Toss, Standing 300, and Vertical Jump.

The results provide guidance to me as a coach where to place an athlete and

what his/her relative weaknesses are to aid in design of the season plan.

As we move out of the Gen. Prep Phase into the Specific Prep Phase we will

test again, using the same tests. We can check the validity of our training

plans by checking the results. If we make improvements in all areas (rarely

happens) then all our plans are right on. When we see more improvement in

one area than another we tweak the underachieving area. We will test one

more time, using only some of the tests as we move into Gen. Comp. Phase.

Our testing plans have correlated very well with what we see on the track in

meets. We do find real value in testing and will continue to use it.

Patrice A.

Hinsdale, IL

Re: Sport Specific Testing and Training?

> **** I have spent some time doing sport performance testing for

> athletes ranging from youth to Olympians to Professional teams in

> several sports. I do believe there can be important value to

testing

> athletes, however, I think it is often applied poorly.

>

I have also spent some time performing physiological testing with high

level athletes, and agree with you entirely.

It seems to me as though most of the coaches we have worked with come

in requesting 'sports science support' without really knowing

themselves what it is that they really require. This usually ends up

with athletes performing a battery of tests, with the results being

filed away until the next time and never being used in the

prescription of training.

I think a good case could be stated for only performing tests where it

can be clearly demonstrated that 'an improvement in this test will

lead to improved performance'. If you were to work by this rule then

I think you would actually find that there are very few tests which

are of real value, and that more specific measures such as times

actually achieved on the track, in the pool or wherever are much more

usefull.

With reference to the use of VO2 max testing on NFL players at the

start of the season, we commonly see a similar situation with football

(soccer) teams here in the UK, who use the multistage shuttle run test

in predicting VO2 max. As thousands of junior players could probably

outperform some members of senior international squads in this test,

improved performance cannot directly result in improved football

performance and the testing is therefore of dubious benefit.

Andy Renfree

Edinburgh

[Guest guest]

> I thought it was a given that testing was always needed and done.

In track

> and field we start out performing a variety of tests, usually

during the

> first week of Gen. Prep Phase. Prior to doing the test we teach the

athletes

> the mechanics of the tests. We do a standing 30, Fly 30, Standing

150,

> Standing Long Jump, Overhead Med Ball Toss, Standing 300, and

Vertical Jump.

> The results provide guidance to me as a coach where to place an

athlete and

> what his/her relative weaknesses are to aid in design of the season

plan.

> As we move out of the Gen. Prep Phase into the Specific Prep Phase

we will

> test again, using the same tests. We can check the validity of our

training

> plans by checking the results.

***** This brings up another point of debate when it comes to

testing. Evaluating training results through testing is a reasonable

goal. To many training programs assume what they are doing is

helping. You also mentioned teaching the test technique before

testing, this is really important and will help you to measure a

training effect rather than a learning effect.

The question is the validity of using a single " test day " to base

your judgement on. A single day of testing may or may not provide an

accurate picture of the athletes state or of changes that may have

taken place. You may just be measuring the short term state rather

than changes in capability.

In track & field or another " closed " sport, this may be more

appropriate because that " single day " factor is part of the sport.

In team sport this is not so. There are of course possible

logistical reasons for a single test day and there also could be

psychological reasons.

What if you're in a workout and its one of those days that everything

is clicking for the athlete. Do you maybe go for the new max on that

day? What about when you know the athlete has improved parameter X,

but on test day they don't perform well? Do you then assume the

training didn't work?

Over the years of seeing this, I have come to pefer a system that

provides an entry test at the beginning, but then has types of

continuous measurements built into the training program. This can

provide a more valid picture because of increased sampling and the

ability to look at trends. Now you start o have something that can

be useful in manipulating training variables.

Ken Vick

Director of Sports Performance

HEALTHSOUTH

Los Angeles, CA USA

[Guest guest]

Ken,

First, we test over a couple of days and not a single day. Second we try to

test after an unloading (regeneration) week when an athlete should be

freshest. We do look at test results versus observed performance in meets.

We note an athlete’s physical as well as mental condition prior to testing.

Say you note an improvement in the standing 30, but not in the fly 30. You

also note that you observe great starts in the 55 but they are getting

caught in the race. The parameter you need to work on is the athletes max

velocity phase. Would you have known that without testing? Maybe, but it

took guess work out of the equation. If an athlete comes in flat, (you can

usually tell in the warm-up) it’s real simple, don’t test on that day. Go

to plan B.

Keep the results from year to year and compare. In my case as a high school

and club coach I am able to measure improvement for their school career. I

am able to change their training focus from year to year based on testing

and actual performance. It is an oversimplification to say I will change

things completely based on a single test. I look at the big picture, but

the test makes me look harder at certain pieces of that picture.

Patrice

Hinsdale, IL

The question is the validity of using a single " test day " to base

your judgement on. A single day of testing may or may not provide an

accurate picture of the athletes state or of changes that may have

taken place. You may just be measuring the short term state rather

than changes in capability.

In track & field or another " closed " sport, this may be more

appropriate because that " single day " factor is part of the sport.

In team sport this is not so. There are of course possible

logistical reasons for a single test day and there also could be

psychological reasons.

What if you're in a workout and its one of those days that everything

is clicking for the athlete. Do you maybe go for the new max on that

day? What about when you know the athlete has improved parameter X,

but on test day they don't perform well? Do you then assume the

training didn't work?

Over the years of seeing this, I have come to pefer a system that

provides an entry test at the beginning, but then has types of

continuous measurements built into the training program. This can

provide a more valid picture because of increased sampling and the

ability to look at trends. Now you start o have something that can

be useful in manipulating training variables.

Ken Vick

Director of Sports Performance

HEALTHSOUTH

Los Angeles, CA USA

[Guest guest]

Patrice,

I didn't orignally mean it as a direct criticism. Sorry if it came

across that way. It does sound like you're doing some good things.

The longitudinal tracking over time is important, but most of all it

sounds like you are looking at more than just test results. You're

also willing to plan recovery and change the test assignment if the

athlete is unready. Thats more than most conditions I've seen. Keep

up the good work.

Ken Vick

Los Angeles, CA USA