SSPEL Newsletter: Research and Scholarly Activities

Introduction

On Wed 24^th October I travelled to the University of East London to discuss the merits of Long-term athlete development with like minded academics across the country.

The model of LTAD has been adopted or revised by a large number of NGB’s within the UK. With origins traceable to the old eastern block, LTAD has been heralded as the saviour of UK sport and is to form the framework through which our young athletes can be nurtured to achieve success in the 2012 Olympics. Interestingly, the support from empirical science for the efficacy of LTAD is ominously lacking. This is not to say that once conducted it may endorse the model. Rather the model in its current form has very little, if any scientific support from well controlled studies within the published literature.

Much of the roundtable discussion centred on testing Bayli’s windows of trainability. Bayli (2001; 2004) proposed that young people had key training windows which coaches could use to maximise speed, aerobic fitness and muscle strength. These windows, according to Bayli’s (2001; 2004) LTAD model need to be targeted during specific periods of athlete’s growth and maturation. For this to be achieved each athletes’ PHV would need to be ascertained.

Academics at the discussion were in agreement that these were indeed the times where young athletes would see the greatest increase in certain fitness components, but these increases would occur through normal growth. Any additional improvement induced through systematic training has yet to be proved. Moreover, scanning of the paediatric exercise science literature clearly indicates that young people’s response to training is at best blunted when compared to adults. Thus advocating additional training at these critical times to maximise performance should be interpreted cautiously, at least until empirical evidence has come to light to support such programmes.

Three projects were discussed at the meeting. Firstly a major project in collaboration with UK athletics and the University of East London was to test and monitor 300 elite young athletes for 7 years aged between 13-17 years. The purpose was not just to prepare young athletes for 2012 but also understand the relationship between growth, maturation and training in light of the windows of opportunity proposed by Bayli (2001; 2004). Similarly the University of Exeter was working with the Exeter City youth academy to try to identify whether training speed in the speed sensitive window would augment players’ speed further than growth and maturation itself. Our very own LTAD support project in conjunction with the Marjon Hub Club was also discussed, and as a result key growth indicators and fitness tests will mimic those of East London and Exeter. The long term intension is to try to provide some scientific support for the wide scale implementation of LTAD, something that it currently lacks.

Other discussion centred on the need for coaches to encourage young athletes to develop strength and explosive power before reaching maturity. This is contrary to more traditional views held amongst coaches, which tends to advocate strength and power training only upon reaching adult maturity. The censuses was that failure to do so would more than likely jeopardise the potential for young athletes to become future elite performers in sports requiring such qualities.

To sum up, the feeling amongst the group was to cautiously embrace the model given the lack of direction and the scale of confusion in developing young athletes within UK sport prior to its adoption. At least now a model is in place to evaluate. Nevertheless, key questions as to its effectiveness in achieving that which it aims to achieve, not least in supporting young talent develop into future elite, still remains to be seen. Critiques suggest that rather than the latter, it is an athlete retention model designed to increase the pool from which talent can be selected and developed, rather than focussing on developing individual athlete’s needs. Indeed calls for a more athlete centred model to supersede LTAD may not be far away!

Saul Bloxham

References
Balyi, I. (2001) Sport System Building and Long-Term Athlete Development in British Columbia. Canada: SportsMed B.C.
Balyi, I and Hamilton A. (2004) Long-Term Athlete Development. Victoria, Canada: National Coaching Institute British Columbia and Advanced training and Performance Ltd.

I am about to email Sage with the completed book proposal. It has been an interesting experience assembling it, and it shows real teamwork around the School. I have had some prior experience of collaborative work, involving several institutions, and several efforts have been utter nightmares, showing academics at their worst -- bitchy (especially the men), petty, jealous, vindictive and selfish. This one was based on thorough preparation, straightforward and open discussion and generous compromise -- long may it continue!

All we can do now is wait for comments from the reviewers. There may be difficult times to come but I am sure we will cope. (Sorry -- sounds a bit like Monty at Alamein)

Dave Harris

I have recently been the recipient of a College Teaching Award. The award was made on the basis of a research proposal the title of which is as follows:

'The Development and Evaluation of Re-usable Learning Objects for Students with Particular Needs (with specific reference for disabled students on programmes related to sport, leisure and outdoor adventure)'

The 'particular needs' referred to in the title relate to dyslexia and hearing problems although other 'issues' may arise during the project.

I have been producing re-usable learning objects for undergraduate students of Leisure, Outdoor Adventure and Sports Development. They have been produced using the free software MS Producer and have consisted of lecture slides and digital images that play alongside a spoken commentary often based on existing lectures or on ‘key concepts’.

The specific purpose of this application is to conduct evaluation of the effectiveness of re-usable learning objects in the learning and teaching process. My interest in re-usable learning objects has already led to a successful bid to the Higher Education Academy in conjunction with the J.I.S.C. through their Higher Education Assistive Technology project (HEAT). The aims of the project are:

i) to produce learning objects relevant to the study of leisure, outdoor adventure and sports development with enhanced visual materials;

ii) to liaise with visually and aurally impaired students concerning the design of RLOs; specific to their learning requirements (including the adaptation of existing RLOs accordingly);

iii) to explore the scope for the software in the production of innovative educational materials and approaches.

I am very keen to get the views of colleagues on RLOs too. You can see and listen to them by going to www.arasite.org and scrolling down to the RLOs section. They take a couple of minutes to load.

Ian Gilhespy