Is it
evidence based? Do you have peer-reviewed research to back that up? These are
questions I get constantly. I certainly understand that point of view, but
coaching is about performance. I know the science, I study the research but coaching is about producing measureable results
in the competitive arena. I do not know a coach who is worth their salt who
will wait for peer-reviewed research to design their training programs. The
ultimate validation of training is: Does it work, Does the athlete improve and Are they injury free? Science and research are important, don’t get me wrong,
but in my experience they follow, they do not lead. So much of what happens in
development and preparation of the athlete is not quantifiable; it is a
subjective process, a nurturing to get the athlete ready. Just
because you can
count it or measure it does not mean it counts. Without the context the coach can provide so much of sport science research and monitoring are random numbers. Coaches and athletes lead
change out of necessity to stay on top of their game. We can learn the science
but we must practice the art to make our athletes better. Each has a place.
Winston Churchill summed it up quite succinctly: “Science should be on tap, not
on top.”
5 Comments
Dave
Agree but feel there is a lot of real estate between you going with “what works”
and the average coach. Perhaps too much latitude for someone to rationalize processes.
James Marshall
I think it comes down to the quality of the research process and the quality of the coach.
Evidence based can come from research or practice: it is important to qualify either one and make sure it is applicable or transferable to your current athlete or team,
Mr. K
I agree with Vern for the most part, but good peer-reviewed research is still VERY important. It was not too long ago that people believed, if you wanted to run fast like a horse, you should eat horse meat. In fact, people in many parts of the world still believe these kinds of things. SCIENCE has dismissed many of these myths. Without science, we would still believe that the world was flat. What most coaches don’t realize is that when you do pre-season testing, when you keep track of sets/reps/weight, and when you keep track of 100m times, etc., you ARE doing science. You are collecting data, and you subject your athletes to a training regimine, and you hope you see improvements in time, body composition, weight lifted, etc. Granted, it’s not peer-reviewed science, but it’s still science.
Paleo Nouveau
We need to differentiate between bad science and good science. A lot of research is done by those that are unfamiliar with true exercise and performance protocols. The outcome is as good as the methods and practical knowledge of those doing the research. Sometimes you may know that doing a particular protocol works without knowing why it works. The fact you do not know why it works does not invalidate the fact that it does. That is where science can step in. They can figure out the why while we try to keep finding different ways to push the envelope (within bounds.)
Online Diploma
nice & impressive you have posted..Your post have the information that is helpful for me.I would like you to keep up the good work.Thanks