Posted: September 15, 2005
Science of Sport:: What have the sport scientists done for us?
Craig Sharp on the interface between knowledge and performance
In 1990 Craig Sharp, recently described (in the BASES journal
2002) as ‘arguably the founder of sports science in the
UK’, was heading up the British Olympic Medical Centre, which
he had co-founded in 1987. In 1992 he was appointed to the first
chair of sports science at the University of Limerick and is
currently professor of sports science at Brunel University, with
honorary posts at Stirling and Exeter Universities and at the
International Equine Institute at Limerick. He is planning to
retire soon, partly to concentrate on his life-long interest in
Scottish, scientific and sports poetry.
When I first entered the world of sports science at the
University of Birmingham in 1971, it was the only British
university offering a degree in physical education (later sports
science) in Britain. Then came Glasgow, Loughborough and Liverpool.
Clyde Williams was appointed to Loughborough soon after, and for
some years he and I gave lectures to packed audiences all over the
country on aspects of sports physiology. The trouble was that we
had to give virtually the same lecture each time, as the knowledge
base of each audience at the time was quite low. I well remember
Clyde saying to me after one such double act: ‘Craig, we
really should stop inventing the wheel every month!’
Because I came from another profession (veterinary medicine), in
which I had had some experience of racehorses and racing
greyhounds, and because I had been a national runner and a
professional squash player, I was especially interested in sports
physiology, which I took to be the application to sport of what was
known at the time about exercise physiology. A lot was known even
then, researched by such famous physiologists as Nobel prizewinner
AV Hill onwards, in a succession which included Roger
Bannister’s 1950s work on oxygen aspects of running.
Practical application of science
Clyde Williams, Ron Maughan in Aberdeen, Bruce Davis in Salford
and some others were more fundamental scientists than I was. They
sought to create a good base of published research, while I was
more interested in the practical application of that science to
competitors and coaches.
I had co-founded the Birmingham Human Motor Performance
Laboratory in the early 70s, gradually persuading a series of
national squads to visit for testing and advice. These included the
GB men’s artistic gymnastics squad, the sprint and slalom
canoe squads, the England volleyball squad, the GB judo squad, the
GB women’s and men’s squash squads and some of the GB
rowers. In addition, a number of individual international
competitors from track and field athletics, tennis, shooting and
archery came regularly, with their coaches, for testing.
However, until the mid-80s, most elite track and road runners
went to the superb labs of Bruce Davis, Clyde Williams and John
Humphreys (the latter working in Leeds), where the genuine
expertise for running was concentrated. At the same time, Tom
Reilly was making a name for himself in a variety of sports at
Liverpool John Moores, as were Ed Winter at Bedford and Tudor Hale
at Chichester.
Because of my involvement with Olympic squads (I had helped take
90 competitors to altitude train at St Moritz just before the 1972
Olympics and had been on the British Olympic Association’s
Medical Committee since 1972), I was invited in 1987 to set up the
British Olympic Association’s physiology laboratories at
Northwick Park Hospital, whose Clinical Research Centre was one of
the great medical research institutes of Europe.
My five years at the British Olympic Medical Centre (BOMC)
coincided with an almost exponential growth in sports science
teaching in universities throughout the country, and there are now
some 150 sports science courses of various kinds in institutions
around the UK.
From around 1990, when PP was founded, sport in general, but
especially competition sport, came under a variety of influences
all pointing the same way – towards an increasing use of
sports science, first physiology but later psychology and
biomechanics. In addition to the BOMC, other influences
included:
- The National Coaching Foundation, especially under the
brilliant guidance of Sue Campbell;
- The then British Association of National Coaches, under Geoff
Gleason and John Atkinson;
- Great athletics coaches such as John Anderson, Harry Wilson and
Peter Coe;
- Peter Radford and Neil Spurway with their ‘physiology and
sports science’ course in Glasgow;
- John Brewer at Lilleshall.
Gold standards for lab testing
These and other influences, including the BASES gold standards
for laboratory testing and interpretation, paved the way for a
massive grassroots increase in the application of science to sport.
This was paralleled by the growth and development of the British
Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine, together with a major
increase in diploma and masters courses in sports medicine in
Scotland, England and Ireland.
In the old days, the governing bodies of various sports would
send just their squads with their coaches to an accredited
laboratory for appropriate testing. Now, however, increasing
numbers of governing bodies employ their own sports scientists, who
accompany the squads and provide even better liaison between the
laboratory and the competitor and coach. At the highest elite
level, some individual competitors employ their own personal sports
scientists, such as the hugely experienced Joe Dunbar and Leo
Faulmann.
What effect has this explosion of interest in sports science had
on the sporting world itself? In sport in general, and running in
particular, from club level upwards the level of knowledge is very
much greater than ever before. Training has been put on a genuinely
sound basis, as has nutrition and fluid balance before, during and
after various events. Injuries can be managed and treated so that
athletes stay in their sport for very much longer than, for
example, in the Bannister days.
Professor Tim Noakes’ book Lore of Running, in its fourth
(paperback) edition last year, is an unsurpassed source of wisdom
on the science and medicine of running, which should be read by
every runner from the 800m distance upwards. There are also
excellent books, financed by the International Olympic Committee,
on the major fitness parameters and on a growing number of
individual sports.
But what of the effect on performance? By comparison with the
mid-80s, British running above 400m, with the astounding exception
of Paula Radcliffe, has been not been notably successful. Partly,
of course, this is because much of the rest of the world has
latched onto very good training and sports science as well. But it
is also because grass-roots athletics has withered away to a
considerable extent in Britain, with the elite tending to cut
themselves off from club events. For it is a sad paradox that an
unprecedented explosion in knowledge about how to push the
boundaries in sport has been accompanied by a parallel explosion in
sedentary leisure pursuits (home computers, video, DVDs etc) that
has made young people less and less eager to explore those
boundaries.
Where do all the sport and exercise science graduates go? Before
the second world war a classics degree was seen as a basic
education, which few students ever thought to make their
life’s work. Sport science degrees have, to some extent,
filled part of that general educational niche. A degree course with
a spectrum ranging from statistical analysis and biomechanics
through psychology and physiology to sports philosophy and
sociology certainly offers an excellent general education,
reflected in the very broad range of occupations such graduates
enter.
Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of those graduates go on
to work in sport or fitness, while growing numbers are absorbed
into the various areas of health science. But herein lies a real
problem for sport science. University departments are powerfully
research driven these days in order to stay afloat financially and
attract good staff and students. But the grant money for research
into sport is very limited, partly because it tends to fall between
stools, being perceived as too medical for the science funding
bodies and too scientific for their medical equivalents. Money is
available primarily for the application of sporting disciplines to
health and medicine. Not for nothing did the original British
Association of Sports Science become Sport and Exercise Science and
the British Association of Sport and Medicine morph into Sport and
Exercise Medicine.
My dream of a National Sports University for the UK
Excellent and relevant research into sport is being carried out
– but not nearly as much as one would like. I used to dream
of a National Sports University – Loughborough, Birmingham,
Borough Road or Stirling on a grand scale, where genuine critical
mass would be achieved within the major laboratory-based
disciplines of physiology, psychology and biomechanics. But I
don’t know whether it will ever be realised.
What have been the main trends in research, and what are the
outstanding challenges? In terms of running, physiological research
has gradually been shifting towards more detailed treadmill testing
for running economy, lactate thresholds and ‘lactate
minimum’ levels. A major problem in assessing runners is that
about 50% of the energy of each running stride is stored and
released as ‘elastic energy’ in tendons and ligaments,
yet we are only able to measure the other 50%, which is delivered
by muscle. The development of simple accurate systems for measuring
elastic energy would represent a real breakthrough in running
science.
Runners’ fluid balance, glucose and salt requirements are
reasonably well understood, thanks to Ron Maughan inter alia. Heat
acclimatisation strategies are good, and there are some regimens to
help athletes resist pollution.
Strategies to combat the effects of jet lag have been well
researched by Tom Reilly; the principles of carbohydrate-loading
are very well established; there is a growing research on creatine,
and the ‘new creatine’ may well turn out to be
carnosine, ingested to help the muscle cells buffer lactic acid
internally, which is being researched by Roger Harris of
Chichester.
From nutrients to supplements
Sports nutrition in general is moving on from study of the major
nutrients – carbohydrate, protein and fat – to research
into specific chemicals, such as glutamine to assist immune cells,
and ‘branched chain amino acids’ to lessen central
fatigue. And this is where one begins to enter the confusing realm
of supplements, with all their attendant doping hazards for
competitors.
Thus, the last 35 years have witnessed an accelerating
groundswell of knowledge applied to sport. And in the 14 years of
Peak Performance’s life there has been an exponential
increase in all aspects of sports knowledge in general and running
in particular – of which the very existence of PP is living
testimony.
Although I began this piece by listing a number of elements of
‘expert input’ into sport, I have focused mainly on
just one of them – physiology. In their varying ways, all the
other elements have made progress which is as great, or even
greater, and will continue to do so.
But when it comes to factors that enhance performance, knowledge
is not necessarily the most important. A major factor in the
everincreasing performance in running, for example, is that the
more people who run, from all nations of the world (and some parts
have hardly begun to compete yet) the greater the chance of
throwing up what are known in statistics as ‘outliers’
– those freakishly talented individuals who set world
records.
Horses, through a century-old breeding programme, have exposed
their species’ outliers and are now being limited by
physiology itself. But humans are still a very long way from
reaching their physiological limits. We have by no means fully
trawled the running genes of our species – let alone set
about improving them!
Craig Sharp
|
|