Training history appears to modulate recovery processes, but this interplay is not well appreciated in the research literature. In the American College of Sports Medicine position stand, the recommendations for rest period length and training frequency for power training are like those for novice, intermediate, and advanced athletes [90]. In contrast, the guidelines outlined by the UK Athletics state that duration, number of repetitions, and recovery time in sprint-specific training sessions should be adjusted according to training status and performance level [15, 16]. For example, an underlying assumption in high-performance environments is that each sprint performed by an elite athlete is more demanding on the entire neuromuscular system than for their lower performing counterparts, and hence, more recovery time between each sprint is needed [15, 16]. Future research should aim to verify this claim.
The reutilization of stored energy as a strategy for sprint performance has recently been questioned by Haugen et al. [24], as storage and release of elastic energy take time. Human tendons stretch under load, and sprinters should likely minimize the downside of having these elastic connectors. Adding to the argument, world-class performers sprint with considerably higher leg stiffness than their lower performing counterparts [24]. Based on these considerations, sprinters should focus on leg stiffness (e.g., short ground contact time) during plyometric exercises. Interestingly, this approach was utilized with seeming success by coach Carlo Vittori and the Italian School of sprint training already in the 1970s. The best athlete, Pietro Mennea, performed horizontal jumps and skipping exercises with a weight belt, and ground contact time during these exercises never exceeded 100 ms [12]. This contact time is very similar to those obtained by elite sprinters at maximal velocity [24]. Mennea also performed assisted sprints while equipped with a weight belt (weight vests serve the same purpose). Although these training methods offer strong leg stiffness stimulations, they are demanding and probably increase injury risk, particularly for the Achilles tendon. This may explain why most practitioners perform more traditional plyometric drills as bilateral obstacle (hurdle) jumps, multi jump circuits, medicine ball throws, and unilateral bounding exercises [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Although the highest volumes are accomplished during the preparation phase, some plyometric training is performed during the competition season [10, 11, 15, 16].
Play On: The New Science of Elite Performance at Any Age download.zip
A number of passive recovery modalities have also been applied by practitioners over the years, including massage, stretching, compression garments, cold water or contrast water immersion, cryotherapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and electromyostimulation [11, 13, 14]. While there may be some subjective benefits for post-exercise recovery, there is currently no convincing evidence to justify the widespread use of such strategies in competitive athletes [142, 146, 149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162]. Placebo effects may be beneficial, and at the individual level, certain recovery modalities may elicit reproducible acceleration of recovery processes. Future studies of experimental models designed to reflect the circumstances of elite athletes are needed to gain further insights regarding the efficacy of various recovery modalities on sprint performance.
This review has contrasted scientific and best practice literature. Although the scientific literature provides useful and general information regarding the development of sprint performance and underlying determinants, there is a considerable gap between science and best practice in how training principles and methods are applied (these gaps are summarized in Table 6). Possible explanations for these discrepancies may be that scientific studies mainly examine isolated variables under standardized conditions, while best practice is concerned about external validity and apply a more holistic approach. In order to close this gap between science and practice, future investigations should observe and assess elite sprinters throughout the training year, aiming to establish mechanistic connections between training content, changes in performance, and underlying mechanical and physiological determinants. The conclusions drawn in this review may serve as a position statement and provide a point of departure for forthcoming studies regarding sprint training of elite athletic contestants.
This study aimed to establish robust, generalizable findings through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We investigated three questions: (1) did higher- and lower-performing athletes differ in childhood/adolescent progress, starting age, or amounts of main-sport or other-sports practice or play; (2) do effects differ between junior and adult athletes, compared performance levels, or types of sports; and (3) are effect sizes from different predictors associated with one another?
Does early specialization facilitate later athletic excellence? Or is early diversification with multi-sport practice and play better? This is a longstanding theoretical controversy in sports science and medicine [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Although there is consensus that extensive experience over multiple years is required to develop exceptional performance, the optimum type and amount of developmental sport activities is subject to ongoing debate. The patterns of early specialization and early diversification are implied in the most popular (i.e., most-cited) frameworks of talent development in sports science literature, the deliberate practice view [8]; with special reference to sports [9, 10] and the Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP) [11]. For recent identical reviews, see Erickson et al. [12], Côté and Erickson [13], and Côté et al. [14].
Did higher- and lower-performing athletes differ in childhood/adolescent performance progress, starting age, or amounts of coach-led practice or peer-led play, in either their main sport or in other sports?
Effects of the predictor variables on performance differences of senior world-class versus national-class athletes and on performance differences among lower-level comparisons (local up to national level) are displayed in Table 5. Senior world-class athletes significantly differed from their national-class counterparts in that world-class performers reached performance milestones later, started their main sport later, and accumulated significantly less main-sport practice but significantly more other-sports practice. Neither peer-led play in the main sport nor in other sports predicted differences between senior world-class and national-class athletes.
Compared with their national-class counterparts, senior world-class athletes engaged in more childhood/adolescent coach-led practice in sports other than their main sport and, relatedly, began playing their main sport later; accumulated less main-sport practice; and reached performance milestones in their main sport at a slower rate.
Predictors of junior-age performance were opposite of those of senior-age performance: higher youth-age performance was associated with an earlier start of playing the main sport; greater amounts of main-sport practice but less other-sports practice; and a faster rate of achieving milestones.
Ball sports require continuous adaptive behaviors and should therefore also involve general cognitive processes such as EF. In order to understand how EF relate to successful behavior in real life we have previously assessed elite soccer players15,16. We chose soccer as the behavior is constrained in terms of rules, spatial extent and time, and hence, well-suited to study scientifically. Moreover, soccer represents a global cultural phenomenon with 265 million active players worldwide17 and understanding the underlying mechanisms is therefore of a general interest.
Acquired domain-specific behavioral and visuo-perceptual skills are important in elite sports18,19 including soccer20,21. Arguably, also more general cognitive processes should be decisive for a successful behavior in these contexts. For example, a successful elite soccer player needs to process a large amount of information in a short time under mental pressure, and be able to quickly adapt, change strategy and inhibit responses. Elite players often demonstrate creative decision-making with a large degree of accuracy at high speed22,23. These observations suggest that successful elite soccer play requires extraordinary EF in several domains that can orchestrate the learned domain-specific skills - as has been proposed for any type of complex behavior11.
In line with this hypothesis, we have previously shown that adult elite soccer players have significantly better EF compared to sub-elite players15. Following this study, a similar link between EF and level of play has been suggested in several soccer studies16,24,25,26,27,28 as well as in studies of other ball sports24,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38. As some studies have not identified a difference in EF between elite and semi-elite players in ball sports39,40 this question is still under debate. Correlational analysis have suggested that EF scores also predict the number of made goals and assists during a period of 2.5 years in elite and sub-elite players when controlling for age, position and level of play15. Similarly, a correlation was found between EF results and made number of goals during two seasons in young elite soccer players16. Finally, EF results could partially predict who would be accepted into an academy for young soccer players26.
EF may be divided into core executive functions (CEF) consisting of the separate EF-components such as behavioral inhibition, interference control, aspects of working memory and cognitive flexibility as well as higher order executive functions (HEF) associated with the use of various EF-components simultaneously and problem solving3,16. The importance of different CEF for soccer play is evident, e.g. inhibition of behavior as a response to a feint or the use of working memory to remember the positions of other players on the field. However, soccer behavior in adult elite players is primarily characterized by complex and fast problem solving involving several aspects of EF, suggesting that HEF are fundamental for success. Although many EF components are active simultaneously as a part of HEF, it is possible that some have more impact on successful behavior than other. We have previously suggested that a combination of divergent and convergent creativity under time pressure, important for choosing one out of many possible solutions quickly, is such a key component for successful soccer play. This behavior should also be associated with an excellent cognitive flexibility allowing a dynamic adaption to fast changes on the soccer field15. Given the reasoning above, testing only specific CEF would not fully mirror soccer behavior. Instead, more complex tests of HEF involving all the discussed aspects above are warranted. Design Fluency (DF) is a test that involves fast problem solving and creativity as well as working memory and behavioral inhibition. Moreover, it is a visuo-spatial test requiring behavioral responses. Thus, it consists of many components that are theoretically important in soccer behavior. So far, four studies have previously suggested that higher level of soccer behavior is associated with better results on DF15,16,25,26 including two studies predicting more successful behavior (discussed in the previous paragraph)15,26. 2ff7e9595c
Comments