This post explores the role of sports science in elite sport and outlines four key pillars that underpin the responsibilities of an applied sports scientist.
Thanks to Dr Johann Windt for his contributions to this post. Johann is the Senior Director of Analytics, Insights & Research at the Vancouver Whitecaps.
Sports science as a vocation is a grey area. It is a broad term that sometimes lacks clarity as to its scope. While this may be expected given how broad the term is, sports science organisations, such as BASES (British), ESSA (Australian), and the NSCA (North American), have tried to address this by developing sport scientist accreditations.
Yet, debate rages on. One editorial articulated the challenges within this climate (Hornsby et al., 2022). These include ‘individuals who are not really sport scientists calling their work “sport science”’, ‘a poor understanding of what a sport science program can or should do’, and sports scientists having to create, explain, or defend their job’.
Appropriate hierarchy between sports science and strength and conditioning is often debated. However, many roles throughout a sporting organisation incorporate some use of scientific principles.
Traditionally, the strength and conditioning (S&C) Coach has borne responsibility for physical preparation by developing and implementing warm-ups, strength training programs, rehabilitation programs, conditioning drills, etc., all within a periodised plan relevant to their specific sporting environment. Each of these programmes is underpinned by an understanding of the physiology, biomechanics, and motor learning involved in physical development and athletic performance.
Theoretically then, S&C practitioners are well-versed in applying scientific principles. Further, do sports psychology, nutrition, and sports medicine practitioners.
This warrants a discussion of the overarching roles and philosophies of sports science. Sports scientists focus on optimising human performance by applying scientific principles, as I've previously discussed in my post on the Performance Cycle.
Whether you are a specialist Applied Sports Scientist or a practitioner who falls into overlapping disciplines like S&C, nutrition, psychology, or sports medicine, below are some of the key themes that underpin the responsibilities of a scientific practitioner in sport.
Maintaining a Scientific Mindset
A scientific mindset comprises maintaining doubt, embracing uncertainty, and exercising critical thinking. It can be misconceived that science is the search for fact and certainty. Doubt and uncertainty are, in reality, the foundations of the scientific mindset. Changing your mind is actually a hallmark of a scientist. Distinguished scientist Professor Richard Feynman once said:
“A scientist is never certain. We all know that. We know that our statements are approximate statements with different degrees of certainty: that when a statement is made, the question is now whether it is true or false but rather how likely it is to be true or false.” - Professor Richard Feynman
Critically consuming research and technology claims is essential to those with sport science responsibilities, especially considering the pseudoscience and sensationalised marketing employed by some entities (Halson et al., 2016).
Abundant data and information are available to practitioners, but by striving to keep our responsibilities focused on performance, as per the Performance Cycle, we may constantly seek to question what it means for our athletes, within our sport, and in our broad sporting context.
In response to a previous Twitter debate, Applied Sports Scientist Patrick Ward wrote that someone with that title should have scientific training:
“The concept of framing a question, collecting data, doing basic statistics, knowing basic physiology and biomechanics, understanding how to run a simple reliability study, etc., are things that should be fundamental skills”
Practitioners should also be aware that their own biases and irrationalities may be driving the tools and research they chose to use (Gamble et al., 2020). The potential to fall prey to biases and marketing is especially apparent when dealing with sports technology, highlighting the need to use such tools as a support mechanism, rather than a driver.
Use Statistics to Quantify Uncertainty
Statistical analyses can account for such uncertainty. This can include calculating confidence intervals, smallest worthwhile change/clinically important difference, and the signal to noise ratio. Such approaches are especially important when interested in assessing change within a small numbers of athletes. Practitioners should therefore seek to determine the repeatability of measures through in-house validity and reliability assessments. Only then can the true effect on performance be understood.
Given that this requires a more specialised skill set, this reiterates the opportunity to continuously collaborate, in this case, with data scientists or statisticians. As well as quantitative approaches that assess (un)certainty, an overarching notion of doubt is required when consuming information. Those with a scientist mindset have a drive to challenge a hypothesis, an assertion, tradition or dogma.
By maintaining doubt, a continual approach to learning is essential to ensuring evidence-based practice, after all best practice is not always best. This mindset is underpinned by the ability to adjust our beliefs based on new data. The debate around the ability of workload measures, specifically the Acute: Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR), to predict injury is an example of maintaining scepticism despite popularity in applied practice (Impellizzeri et al., 2020).
Continuously Collaborate
Performance as a multifaceted construct demands a integrated, collaborative environment. It is apparent that the athlete will benefit most when subject matter experts from each domain come together in an integrative, collaborative approach with performance at the forefront, as described in a previous post on the Performance Cycle.
For instance, collaborating with coaching staff in the planning process will facilitate an understanding of their tactical goals, periodisation approach, and training philosophy, so that physical preparation work can be integrated as seamlessly as possible.
Teamwork between sports medicine and physical preparation staff is paramount when implementing effective injury prevention and return to sport programs. Real-time, daily discussions with coaching staff inform when and how physical preparation can most effectively and appropriately be augmented or adapted where necessary. As Tim Gabbett and Rod Whiteley (2016) articulated, sports medicine and physical preparation staff need to work together as teammates, rather than competitors.
It is apparent that the athlete will benefit most when subject matter experts from each domain come together in an integrative, collaborative approach with performance at the forefront.
The athletes themselves should not be overlooked as a key collaborator in the implementation of scientific tasks. Incorporating them in the process and seeking their feedback can aid in their interest and buy-in. Indeed, we've previously discussed how athlete beliefs can have tangible effects on physiological adaptation and performance and therefore, practitioners should be intentional (but ethical) about capitalising on belief effects.
The importance of interpersonal skills and strong relationships with players and stakeholders alike cannot be overstated. For strategies to be effective, communication and education with staff as well as players need to underpin their implementation. Given the cyclical nature of performance, it is important that the effectiveness of strategies be measured, reviewed and adjusted as necessary. This in turns requires an interdisciplinary understanding and measurement of performance and the desired outcomes of strategies.
Although applying scientific principles within the physical realm may seem most obvious, applying a scientific mindset to broader questions across the Performance Cycle is warranted. Examples of such avenues to explore in collaboration with members of the multidisciplinary team across the Performance Cycle are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Examples of sport science responsibilities throughout the performance cycle
Preparation | |
Physical | Evaluating and developing physical capacities |
Psycho-social | Implementing video to manipulate hormonal response |
Nutritional | Periodised fuel manipulation strategies |
Logistical | Travel strategies and schedules |
Tactical | Integrated tactical-physical approaches to conditioning |
Competition | |
Physical | Warm-up strategies |
Psycho-social | Applying mental skills (e.g., self-talk, imagery) |
Nutritional | Half-time nutritional strategies |
Logistical | Demands and strategies for the specific location (e.g., altitude, heat) |
Tactical | Coding tactical behaviour and integrating with physical output |
Recovery | |
Physical | Restoring physical qualities via recovery strategies |
Psycho-social | Coping strategies to minimise psychological stress |
Nutritional | Nutritional strategies to promote recovery |
Logistical | Travel strategies and schedules |
Utilise Technology as a Supporting Tool
The increased attention on sport science may be linked to a proliferation of technology in sport, and across society. Indeed, a primary role for applied sport scientists is collecting performance data derived from an ever-expanding array of technology.
However, applying scientific principles to sport is not synonymous with technology. Questions, not technology, should drive sports science processes. We concur with Hornsby and colleagues that; "Sport science is a human process and should not be completely reliant upon technology”.
While technology can provide avenues for exploration, there are also a multitude of potential pitfalls that need awareness. Jones and Denison (2018) postulate that sport’s data-driven discourse is so powerful that sports science practitioners may assume technology has only positive effects. Therefore, consider and transparency of potential negative effects is an important discussion. Sports scientists should be wary of the pitfalls of naïve interventionism.
Confusion with sports technology may exist, at least in part, due to information overload and pseudoscience (Halson et al., 2016). Athletes themselves have raised concerns relating to intrusion, insecurity, and anxiety, driven by constant scrutiny and data analytics (Manley and Williams, 2022). There are similar worries that such scrutiny is cultivating an environment of control, which may lead to more docile athletes (Jones and Denison, 2018). Before adopting a technology, being critically aware of these concerns is vital for practitioners.
Technology is a luxury, as opposed to a necessity. Evidence-based scientific support can be provided without technology (Clubb and McGuigan, 2018). Such low-cost, evidence-based approaches should be the foundation of a monitoring system. Thereafter, a critical process is required to determine a potential technology’s requirement and suitability.
Windt and colleagues (2020) presented a decision-making framework for integrating technology that includes considerations of usefulness, trust, data management, and implementation. Concerns of excessive surveillance and information overload can be moderated by ensuring investments are only made in technologies that address a specific need. By pairing a critical process with the performance cycle and a scientific mindset, S&C practitioners are equipped to identify opportunities to utilize technology as an effective supporting tool.
Technology may support many sport science needs, including; improving and off-loading data collection, enabling sport-specific load measures, and a multidisciplinary view of the athlete (Windt et al., 2020). However, managing such devices alone is not a hallmark of sports science. It is not the investment in a certain technological aid that will serve a need, but how the practitioner integrates and implements it within their environment.
A practitioner’s interpersonal craft is an essential conduit of their technical knowledge and practical skills and as such, these skills may contribute greatly to the success of technology in the applied environment. It is these interpersonal skills that will also underpin the practitioner’s ability to continuously collaborate within the web of stakeholders, including the athletes themselves, in sport.
It is not the investment in a certain technological aid that will serve a need, but how the practitioner integrates and implements it within their environment.
Final Thoughts and Practical Applications
When implementing strategies in these broader areas of applied sports science, we encourage practitioners to: keep the impact on performance the main focus; continuously collaborate with members of the multidisciplinary team as well as the athletes themselves; embrace a scientific mindset underpinned by critical thinking and doubt; and utilise technology to support a need relating to performance has been identified.
Practically speaking, these themes can be applied through actions such as;
ensure that KPIs are directly tied to the performance objectives of the athletes/organization
in addition to KPIs, explore our ongoing process tracker (OPT) framework (Clubb et al., 2024) that provides a more process-driven approach
assess the outcomes of interventions on performance
frequently seek the views and insights of others in the multidisciplinary team – this can be through informal discussions and sharing of research and social media, or formalized through journal clubs and professional development sessions
ensure findings and feedback are communicated with stakeholders in a timely manner and ideally, one that is suitable to each individual
involve the athlete in the sport science process through education on interventions and feedback of their experiences
seek external validation research (beyond their own white papers) when dealing with sports technology companies
conduct in-house validity and reliability assessments of technology to quantify uncertainty
consider the limitations of studies when consuming research, in particular, the methodological limitations and context differences with your own setting
be open to changing beliefs when new, high-quality evidence is provided in the literature
Ultimately, the Performance Cycle can be used by organisations and individuals alike to plan, implement and review the multidisciplinary scientific support across preparation, competition, and recovery, all with a goal of improving athletic performance.
