Sports Science and Natural Science Research. What Is the Difference?
Sports Science and Natural Science Research. What Is the Difference?
Today there are countless different training recommendations. Each one usually claims that its training methods are the best. How does this knowledge come about? What does sports science research examine, and what does natural science research examine? We explain.
Whether trainers, instructors or experienced athletes, experts in the field of training often like to point out that their own training principles are scientifically sound and based on research results. In principle, there is nothing to object to here. However, since the statements of experts often contradict each other, the question of correctness arises.
How can it be that so much scientific data, some of it contradictory, exists? Well, first and foremost, a distinction should be made between experiential knowledge and study-based knowledge.
Experiential knowledge
Experiential knowledge, on the one hand, is knowledge that develops from practice. This includes, for example, exercise sequences or combinations of movement sequences that a trainer has developed based on his experience and knowledge (which may well also be based on studies) and which he uses with successful athletes. An example of this is the combination of non-sport-specific muscle exercises such as squats, jumps and sport-specific movement sequences such as sprints within a training session. Such combinations have a direct practical relevance and are often performed by athletes.
Study-based knowledge
On the other hand, study-based knowledge is knowledge that comes from research and was developed within the framework of scientific studies. Examples include the signalling cascades of cell biology/biochemistry, which describe the molecular adaptations to endurance or strength training. At first glance, such findings have no direct practical relevance, but they establish the biological guidelines according to which training should ideally be structured.
With regard to study-based knowledge, however, further distinctions must be made.
Is this knowledge that comes from sports science research?
Or are the studies of a natural science nature?
Were the data published in scientific journals with quality assurance?
Or are they simple investigations such as seminar papers, which may be interesting and informative but often do not meet methodological criteria?
All of these points should be taken into account when citing knowledge. In principle, the terms "research" and "scientific" should only be used if the investigations meet the basic quality criteria for studies and have been published in specialist journals (e.g. Journal of Applied Physiology).
But how do sports science research and natural science training research differ?
The distinction is often not entirely straightforward, and there is no fixed dividing line. Put simply, however, the two fields of research can be delineated as follows.
Natural science research
Natural science training research examines the fundamental relationships within the body in the context of "exercise"/physical load (e.g. how muscle growth actually comes about) and uses the methods of modern natural sciences (often very complex and sometimes invasive). At the same time, it uses exclusively terms and quantities based on the SI system (so, for example, force in newtons, power in watts, speed in metres per second, etc.) and dispenses with descriptive quantities such as strength endurance. Natural science training research thus essentially sets the framework for training methods. An example of natural science research, as already outlined above, is the investigation of intracellular signalling cascades during or after endurance training (how do my muscle cells react to energy stress?). The advantages of this research include clearly defined effects and unambiguous statements. The main disadvantage lies in the practical relevance, which is not always immediately apparent.
Sports science research
Classical sports science research, by contrast, generally uses simpler methods and does not examine the causes of physical adaptations. It describes observed effects and attempts to place them in the context of training or sports practice. An example of this is the comparison of two types of muscle training with regard to final sprint speed, where the methods used are rather simple. Unlike natural science training research, sports science research uses descriptive and therefore often loosely defined terms such as strength endurance, maximal strength or explosive strength. The results of sports science research are supposedly directly transferable to training and sports practice.
Put simply, natural science provides the basic understanding of physical adaptations, while sports science describes the effects of training in a sport-specific way. However, as already mentioned, a clear separation of the research fields is difficult, since natural science methods are increasingly finding their way into sports science, which greatly improves the quality of "studies in the training and sports field".
