Browse

Background: University rankings often serve as benchmarks for excellence in academic evaluation. For example, ShanghaiRanking data from 2016 to 2023 for the Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments reveal consistent dominance by Australia (23.1%), Canada (18.0%), and the United States (12.0%), collectively counting over half of the top 50 universities worldwide. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty about how the methodology behind these rankings shapes a reality as much as it reflects one. Purpose: Our intention is to discuss the complexity of university rankings, using ShanghaiRanking as an example, to highlight how these rankings reflect academic excellence within the field of sport science. Current Evidence: When ranking universities in sport science, several aspects of academic excellence could be considered in addition to research metrics currently considered in ShanghaiRanking (publication, citation, citations per publication, top 25% journal publications, and internationally collaborated publications). These aspects may include (1) teaching quality, (2) practical training, (3) industry links and employability, (4) support services, (5) facilities and equipment, (6) international network, (7) community engagement, (8) sustainability and ethical practices, and (9) interdisciplinary approach. Altogether, they could provide a more comprehensive view of the quality and effectiveness of a sport-science program. Conclusions: The ranking of sport-science institutions poses a complex challenge due to diverse factors influencing academic excellence. Engaging in a broader dialogue and refining internationally relevant evaluation methodologies are crucial. These steps enable comparability between countries and provide a holistic understanding of the multidimensional nature of academic excellence in sport science.

Background: In high-performance sport, the support provided by sport scientists and other staff can be a valuable resource for coaches and athletes. Purpose: We propose and detail here the approach of “minimal, adequate, and accurate” sport-science support to ensure that programs of work and solutions are both economical and effective. Methods: Our support provision advocates for utilization of “minimal” resources (employing the least amount of time, tools, and funding) necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. We strive for “adequate” information that fulfills specific objectives without excess and with the requirement that methods and data used are “accurate” (valid and reliable). To illustrate the principles of this approach, we outline a real-world example of supporting 100-m track (athletics) sprinters preparing and competing in an international competition. The provision of performance support emphasizes an integrated approach, combining knowledge and insights from multiple sport-science disciplines. The key facets managed under this approach are (1) neuromuscular readiness, (2) wellness monitoring, (3) movement observation, (4) motivation, (5) biomechanics and performance analysis, and (6) qualitative feedback. These facets are based on the specific performance determinants and influencing factors of an event (100-m dash). Conclusions: Application of this quantitative and qualitative approach can enhance the ability to make informed decisions. Nevertheless, the approach must be planned, evaluated, and refined on a regular basis to enable effective decision making in sport-science support. The 3-element approach of “minimal, adequate, and accurate” should be codesigned and supported by the athletes, coaches, and staff to ensure successful implementation.

Background: The optimization of athlete training load is not a new concept; however in recent years, the concept of “load management” is one of the most widely studied and divisive topics in sports science and medicine. Purpose: Discuss the challenges faced by sports when utilizing training load monitoring and management, with a specific focus on the use of data to inform load management guidelines and policies/mandates, their consequences, and how we move this field forward. Challenges: While guidelines can theoretically help protect athletes, overzealous and overcautious guidelines may restrict an athlete’s preparedness, negatively influence performance, and increase injury risk. Poor methods, wrong interpretation of study findings, and faulty logic do not allow for systematic scientific evaluations to inform guidelines. Practical Solutions: Guidelines and mandates should be developed through a systematic research process with stronger research designs and clear research questions. Collaborating with statistical and epidemiological experts is essential. Implementing open science principles and sharing all sports training load data increase transparency and allow for more rapid and valid advancements in knowledge. Practitioners should incorporate multiple data streams and consider individual athlete responses, rather than applying broad guidelines based on average data. Conclusion: Many current training load guidelines and mandates in sports come from good intentions; however, they are arbitrary without sound knowledge of the underlying scientific principles or methods. Common sense guidelines are helpful when there is sparse literature, but they should be careful to avoid arbitrarily choosing findings from weak research. Without precise scientific inquiries, implementing training load interventions or guidelines can have negative implications.

Background: Efforts are needed to improve antidoping procedures. The widespread use of power meters among cyclists could help in this regard. However, controversy exists on whether performance monitoring through power-output data could be of help for antidoping purposes. Purpose: The objective of the present study was to provide insight into the feasibility and utility of implementing power-based performance monitoring in elite cycling. An expert panel of 15 applied sport scientists and professional cycling coaches were asked for their opinions and perspectives on incorporating power data into the antidoping risk-assessment process. Results: Two different viewpoints were identified from the responses provided by the experts. Some believed that power monitoring could be implemented as an antidoping tool, provided that several surmountable challenges are first addressed. These authors provided suggestions related to the potential practical implementation of such measures. Others, on the contrary, believed that power meters lack sufficient reliability and suggest that the professional cycling world presents conflicts of interest that make this intervention impossible to implement nowadays. Conclusions: The debate around the utility of power-meter data in the antidoping fight has been ongoing for more than a decade. According to the opinions provided by the experts’ panel, there is still no consensus on the real utility and practical implementation of this intervention.

Background: Female-specific science, medicine, and innovation have grown steadily since the turn of the decade as the focus on female sport continues to advance. While this growth is welcome, and despite the best of intentions, it is not always coupled with valuable application. Purpose: This commentary discusses barriers faced when developing and applying sport-science research and innovation activities in female sport. We offer several practical solutions to help safeguard the progress of female athlete health and performance support. We make 3 suggestions: (1) multicenter studies to increase the number of elite athletes participating in research and enhance statistical power, which is often lacking in sport-science research; (2) further acceptance of case studies in elite sport research, as they can include context alongside athlete data that more traditional research designs perhaps do not; and (3) collaborative, codesigned approaches to research and innovation, wherein researchers, practitioners, and athletes all contribute to balancing scientific rigor with applied “real-world” understanding, which may result in the generation of richer, more meaningful knowledge for the benefit of female athletes and their environments.

Background and Purpose: Cross-country skiing, biathlon, and Nordic combined are Winter Olympics sports that involve cross-country skiing in undulating terrain, characterized by various subtechniques and repeated intensity fluctuations. The stochastic interval profile of these sports necessitates the continuous regulation of work and energy expenditure throughout training sessions and competitions, a concept known as pacing. With the advent of technological advancements that allow for the measurement of these features during training and competitions, scientific studies have broadened our understanding of the associated racing and pacing demands. We provide the current scientific overview of pacing demands in competitive cross-country skiing, biathlon, and Nordic combined and propose guidelines for how performance can be enhanced by adjusting pacing behavior. Conclusions and Practical Applications: The study of pacing in skiing has evolved from basic lap-to-lap, or segment, analyses to detailed insights into micropacing strategies. This includes analysis of speed, internal and external power, subtechnique distribution, and associated temporal patterns, combined with subjective ratings of effort. While several objective tools such as heart rate, blood lactate concentration, and speed measurements are widely used in practice, current understanding suggests that these measures should supplement, rather than replace, the use of perceived effort (eg, rating of perceived exertion) to regulate intensity during training and competition in undulating terrain. Therefore, the ability to self-regulate effort appears to be an important performance characteristic and should be developed in adolescents and systematically used to optimize and evaluate the training process and race performance throughout athletes’ careers.