![]() ![]() Comparisons across and within studies, which try to identify the similarities or differences between members of a sporting or active population, require robust definitions of the cohort. For example, the basic principle of the specificity of research, which states that the results of a study should be applied only to populations and/or scenarios which are similar to those involved in the research design, 5 requires objective features to define the targeted individuals/groups. There are many benefits to having a standardized framework to characterize participants based on an integrated approach to their sporting performance/achievements, biometric attributes, training exposure, and general fitness level. 2 Terms such as “trained,” “highly trained,” and “well-trained” also seem to be highly subjective, with variations around the participants training load, training history, and the intent of the training commitment. 1 An investigation examining 91 publications, which defined their participants as either “elite” or “expert” across a range of sports, found that the range of this term encompassed athletes participating in national-level competitions up to athletes winning medals at major international competition. Indeed, the term “elite” subjects might be one of the more overused and ill-defined terms in the exercise science literature. However, the sports science and sports medicine literature, from elite athletes through to sedentary individuals, has evolved over time without a common perspective or terminology to characterize the caliber and training status of a participating individual or group of individuals. The physiology and performance of athletes are thoroughly scrutinized by many audiences, including sport and exercise scientists who are interested in the extremes of human performance, the contributions of training and genetics to sport performance, the impact of various strategies or interventions, and the potential lessons that could be inferred for the benefit of the general community. It is our intention that this framework be widely implemented to systematically classify participants in research featuring exercise, sport, performance, health, and/or fitness outcomes going forward, providing the much-needed uniformity to classification practices. Finally, chronological age with reference to the junior and masters athlete, as well as the Paralympic athlete, and their inclusion within the Participant Classification Framework has also been considered. ![]() Additional nuances such as depth of sport participation, nationality differences, and gender parity within a sport are all discussed. Discussion around how the Participant Classification Framework can be tailored toward different sports, athletes, and/or events has occurred, and sport-specific examples provided. We suggest the Participant Classification Framework can be used to classify participants both prospectively (as part of study participant recruitment) and retrospectively (during systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses). ![]() The Participant Classification Framework uses training volume and performance metrics to classify a participant to one of the following: Tier 0: Sedentary Tier 1: Recreationally Active Tier 2: Trained/Developmental Tier 3: Highly Trained/National Level Tier 4: Elite/International Level or Tier 5: World Class. This paper presents a 6-tiered Participant Classification Framework whereby all individuals across a spectrum of exercise backgrounds and athletic abilities can be classified. Currently, there is no common perspective or terminology to characterize the caliber and training status of an individual or cohort. Throughout the sport-science and sports-medicine literature, the term “elite” subjects might be one of the most overused and ill-defined terms. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |