Scientific Studies VS Practical Experiences
Download our free sports training reports. Enter your email address below: (As a bonus, we'll start sending you our free weekly newsletter, Sports Performance Bulletin.)
There has always been excellent discussions within this community regarding sports performance and its relevent scientific sub-disciplines. We have discussed various topics backed up by scientific evidence only for there to be someone with practical evidence working succesfully within the field of sports performance contradicting this research.
This lead me to question. What furthers/enhances our knowledge of sports performance?
Is it scientific evidence that we use to base our plans upon and implement into programmes?
Or is succesful practical experience with none or very little scientific evidence (which then eventually become scrutinised by the scientific community)?
Essentially what I'm getting at is, which leads? Science or Practice?




Scientific Studies VS Practical Experiences
MartinM
4th Jul '06, 10:23pm
Practice IMO.
Good topic alan :)
Scientific Studies VS Practical Experiences
Rehabuk
5th Jul '06, 12:36am
Of course practice and experience improves our knowledge of performance but the question you have to ask is if we do implement something and get results.......... Why did this happen
Where do we find the answers have to say its normally scientific evidence.
So the evidence gives us the power to understand why we are doing something.
Can't have great practise without understanding of what we are practising thus i believe you can't have one without the other!!!
Rehabuk
Scientific Studies VS Practical Experiences
10th Jul '06, 6:13pm
I think it varies depending upon what is being studied/practiced and the sport. Many sports have little specific scientific attention focused upon them in which case practice and experience predominates. Although the practices in these sports may have been drawn from other sports that have had scientific validation.
In other sports the opposite can be seen. A more science based approach to training with application of theories from many disciplines.
I think to the two are intimatley linked. Which leads? In most cases practice, validated by science.
Scientific Studies VS Practical Experiences
AlexWolf
10th Jul '06, 8:59pm
Agree that application and scientific evidence are linked and both are important and cant have one without the other.
Although some sports dont have much research based on them but the fundamental physical characteristics of these sports have. You dont need research on kayaking strength training when there is no shortage of excellent research on the development of strength and its related properties. Where the practice becomes important is the understanding and then applying this evidence specific for that athlete. In this case, understanding the huge upper body and trunk demand. There maybe little research on the area but practical experience and understanding of the sport will help the application of other research.
One point that needs to be made with research evidence is that if we wait for research to prove/disprove a method, then we could be waiting a long time! As a applied practitioner, I know there are several areas of my training methods that probably have not be proven/disproven but I know have positive affects on performance and will continue to use them. I am not going to wait 5 years for a piece of research supporting me or knocking me down. Even then, one piece of evidence is not enough to sway me!