Coaches and athletes aim to enhance performance. Performance in sport is determined by a complex interaction of numerous underlying variables that require various stimuli. Application of fundamental training principles, training forms, and training methods and manipulation of loading factors constitute the cornerstones of most training philosophies. Coaches apply a holistic and athlete-centered approach wherein planning and execution of training take individual predispositions and environmental factors into account.5 Through trial and error, they possess in-depth knowledge related to what kind of training should be performed at a given time or situation for each particular athlete, without necessarily possessing in-depth knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms. Academic sport scientists, on the other hand, are generally concerned with research projects and publishing papers. Most researchers study isolated variables under highly standardized settings to ensure internal validity. Within this context, there is limited or no room for application of fundamental training principles such as individualization and variation, and most scientific interventions are funded on a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Over the years, sport scientists have been criticized by practitioners for paying more attention to the underlying mechanisms than the sport-specific demands and practical applications to achieve improvements. For example, numerous studies have explored the physiological determinants and responses of repeated-sprint exercise in team-sport athletes, although the applied test protocols have not necessarily reflected the demands of the game. Indeed, differences in mindsets largely explain the gap between science and best practice. To decrease this gap, modifications must be undertaken by both sides. Sport scientists must also explore research problems that to a larger degree aim to describe and understand best practice, including more multidimensional research designs and study cohorts that more closely resemble real-life situations. In addition, we need more scientists who provide complementary information by investigating athletes` holistic and complex long-term development process. Leading practitioners, on the other hand, must challenge scientists on research questions in terms of what training concepts are both effective and sustainable from a longitudinal perspective. This approach requires well-educated coaches who can relate to and interpret scientific papers. Practitioners must also make themselves more available as study participants through the life cycle of a project. This does not necessarily have to involve time-consuming interventions that contradict with individually tailored and optimized training. In our most recent research project, our team used world-leading coaches as key informants, involving questionnaires of training characteristics, quality assurance of data through cross-referencing with historically reported training logs from some of their most successful athletes, in-depth and semistructured interviews to obtain supplementary information related to the qualitative aspects of training, and an extensive review process and follow-up interviews to clarify and ensure that our findings reflected the coaches` perspectives.5,6 Other sport scientists and leading practitioners are hereby encouraged to journey along the same route, in accordance with the editorial mission of IJSPP.
© Copyright 2024 International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.