I got a very nice and interesting mail from a great name. As so often many of the responders sent my private a mail and do not like to have their name used on a public forum.
We absolutely will accept this situation, and I always mail back asking for permission to use the topic as a yes or no.
So here I got a friendly yes.
In short :
The question or better the discussion was :
Why do no more or big name people in practical sport science use this fascinating topic of integrating new technology to the " classical" ideas of testing.
In short we agreed very easy and fast :
Tradition and business are the fundamental breaking blocks in this cases.
But I have a much better and more in depth answer, presented last year in London during the annual meeting of the physiological society.
How science, medicine and engineering has changed how athletes train and perform
S. Drawer and C. Cook
UK Sport, London, UK
Arguably sport science is in its infancy, with the first robust publications truly directed at the subject appearing many years after physiological
and medical related treatises relevant to similar subject areas. While understanding in biomedical sciences has progressed
almost exponentially since the advent of modern biology of the Watson and Crick era, the same can’t really be said for sport science at its
application edge. Often sport science appears undertaken with little reference to more progressive and better work in fundamental fields
of biomedical endeavor.
This does not necessarily need to be the case. Much work of high caliber in biomedicine and engineering can be piggy-backed on to do
innovative work at the applied end of sport science. While innovation is not always viewed as novel or pure in the academic sport science
perspective it can both escalate and accelerate applied adoption of good fundamental concepts and indeed correct poorly used and
extrapolated ones. A good example of the latter is the understanding (and application) of the hormone testosterone. The clear results in
muscle hypertrophy from supraphysiological abuse led to the sport science concept that small changes in natural levels would be equally
important, probably an erroneous notion of what testosterone does. Excellent work at the biomedical level has challenged this and as a
consequence in turn driven elite athlete applied work demonstrating other important sporting applicable roles of natural testosterone
more in keeping also with a biological evolutionary perspective. Similarly an examination of a wealth of biomedical data compared to
new descriptive data collected in elite athletes suggest that elites function quite differently to the often used student population sport
Rapid progress in engineering and technology has also driven sporting applications that have undoubtedly assisted in the color of medals
obtained –while it has become a sporting cliche –entimeters, hundreds of seconds and minimal percentages that appear marginal do increment
to a measurable gain. Knowledge on athletic performance is rapidly evolving through the miniaturization of electronics, growth
in processing power and automation methods which are now common place in the field. Such technological advances permit the rapid
testing and application of fundamental biomedical ideas in an ecologically valid environment in which the athlete and coach practice and
thrive. These advances provide a platform for greater adherence and commitment from athlete and coach to a systematic process of
investigation in pursuit of performance development. Although much work still remains, technology is beginning to provide the capability
that allows an integrated systems approach to understanding how individuals respond to the stressors of training and competition in a
continuous and longitudinal manner.
Our talk will discuss some of these examples in detail and argue that harvesting fundamental work in bio-medicine and engineering can
promote high caliber applied sport science research that is both more scientifically robust and more quickly adoptable to sporting gains.
These two make extremely good partners and have, and can further, push elite athlete practice forward.
Where applicable, the authors confirm that the experiments described here conform with The Physiological Society ethical requirements