Training-Load Management Ambiguities and Weak Logic: Creating Potential Consequences in Sport Training and Performance

Le résumé fourni par la source

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.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.