By Dr. Nicola Sacchi - Author of the book: Drugs and doping in sport -
A recent and very lively discussion about my last article on the tabata protocol, born on the forum of this site, gave me the opportunity to write this new text concerning the difference between science and training theory .
This knowledge is based on the studies and practical experience that the technician has acquired over the years.
Over the last few decades, given the growing importance of sport in people's lives, we have tried to scientifically validate all the knowledge acquired. Today, in light of what has been demonstrated and what is only supposed to be right, we can divide the set of training knowledge into two broad categories: the science of training and the theory of training.
The science of training is based on data obtained through experiments, using purely scientific analytical methods, thus respecting the parameters of objectivity and rigor. In this case only the results obtained through specific studies regarding the response of the organism to motor activity stimulation and performed in conditions of absolute control are considered as correct. Since the sport is based on the laws of biology and physiology, and therefore it is necessary to consider the high degree of variability among individuals, there is an objective difficulty in producing certain results.
The concept of experimentation with specific scientific studies means that this demonstration must respect the postulates of the scientific method, making use of tools for the collection and analysis of data and an approach based on the statistical analysis of the data obtained.
Objectivity and scientific rigor are indispensable to affirm with certainty that by doing X happens Y. To have these characteristics a scientific study must be based on:
significance of the number of samples; this means that the greater the number of study participants (samples), the greater the statistical security that the data obtained are certain;
comparison with a control group; means that a certain number of people submit to the particular motor solicitation to be studied, and the data obtained are compared with those produced by a group that has not been subjected to that specific solicitation;
precise and repeatable control tests at the beginning and end of the study, to verify the effective change of a given parameter following the aforementioned solicitation; this parameter must therefore be clear and measurable;
rigorous analysis and evaluation of the data obtained.
The theory of training, instead, represents the set of knowledge acquired empirically on the field by coaches, instructors, athletes and various practitioners of any sporting discipline. Such knowledge, in the current state of things, has not been scientifically demonstrated, but has been experimented with the practice and observation of cause-effect logical relations: I make X happens Y, and Y changes in function of X according to a hypothetical, not shown, trend.
Training theory stems from the experience and evaluations made following this experience. Anyone who practices with constancy and commitment in a specific sector, such as training, develops experiences in this sector that allow him to develop certain relationships of cause and effect. For example, many people have verified that by performing exercises with overload, the muscles grow; subsequently, the most reputable coaches or athletes have theorized different training methods based on the results obtained by them (Heavy Duty training, Weideriano training for example). In this case, however, we see how different theories hold that to achieve the same goal we must do things that are diametrically opposed. These theories are based on observations obtained in the field, without the validation obtainable with scientific experiments; this does not mean that the theories are wrong or useless, but simply that they do not make use of scientifically valid measurements and therefore cannot fit into a context of training science.
The scientific validation of a given event takes a long time, due to the rigor required to obtain it; therefore, training theory evolves much faster. Sometimes, however, the latter takes roads that, with the passage of time and with the acquisition of new experiences, prove to be wrong.
Therefore, in a sector in strong evolution like the sporting one, not always what is thought correct is shown to be right, even if this does not prevent that - even if not scientifically proven - it can still be.
The moral of the story is that not always in a field like sport can a certain effect be asserted with absolute certainty following a specific stimulus (also because different organisms respond to the same stimulus in a different way); however, it is possible to formulate hypotheses, discuss them, develop them and act accordingly ...
