Search Results

Despite evident differences between approaches to talent development, many share a set of common characteristics and presumptions. We call this the Standard Model of Talent Development (SMTD). This model is articulated and the relevant literature drawn out to highlight the model's strengths and weaknesses. The SMTD has been enormously influential, in terms of both policy documentation and practice, and it retains an obvious common sense appeal. However, we will argue that not only is its attractiveness illusionary and inconsistent to the emerging evidence base from research, but it is also undesirable from a variety of perspectives and desired outcomes. In short, we suggest that the most common system for identifying talent is unsubstantiated from both a process and an outcome perspective.

Despite the fact that physical activity is universally acknowledged to be an important part of healthy functioning and well-being, the full scope of its value is rarely appreciated. This article introduces a novel framework for understanding the relationships between physical activity (and specifically sport-related forms of physical activity) and different aspects of human development. It proposes that the outcomes of physical activity can be framed as differential ‘capitals’ that represent investments in domain-specific assets: Emotional, Financial, Individual, Intellectual, Physical, and Social. These investments, especially when made early in the life course, can yield significant rewards, both at that time and for years to come. The paper presents a new model—the Human Capital Model—that makes sense of these effects, outlines the different capitals, and briefly articulates the conditions necessary for the realization of Human Capital growth through physical activity.

There are no previous reports of energy expenditure and perceived effort during brisk-walking and running at speeds self-selected by young children. Fifty four participants (age 8–11 years old) performed 1500 m of brisk-walking and running in a marked school playground, and were given simple instructions to either ‘walk quickly’ or to ‘jog’. During the running the children achieved higher mean speeds and a greater total energy expenditure (p < .001). However, there was no difference in the perceived effort between the two activities (p > .05). These findings suggest that under certain conditions children find it just as easy to run as they do to walk briskly, even though the speed and energy expenditure is significantly higher.

Although differences in daily activity levels have been assessed in cross-sectional walk-to-school studies, no one has assessed differences in body composition and dietary energy intake at the same time. In this study of 239 primary school children, there were no significant differences in daily activity levels, body composition, or estimated dietary energy intake between those who walk to school (WALK) and those who travel by car (CAR; p < .05). WALK children were more active between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. than CAR children (p < .05). In addition, there were no significant differences in the main analysis when participants were subgrouped by gender and age.