Hopkins W G
Department of Physiology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Sports Med. 1991 Sep;12(3):161-83. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199112030-00003.
The training of competitive athletes can be assessed by retrospective questionnaires, diaries, physiological monitoring and direct observation of training behaviour. Questionnaires represent the most economical, most comprehensive and least accurate method. Diaries are more valid, but their drawbacks for long term quantitative studies are poor compliance and difficulties in processing the data they generate. Physiological monitoring (of oxygen consumption, heart rate or blood lactate concentration) provides objective measures of training intensity, and direct observation gives valid measures of most aspects of training; however, these methods are impractical for continuous, long term use. Coaches and athletes quantify training for purposes of motivation, systematisation of training and training prescription, but there has been little study of the use of training quantification by these practitioners. Motivation and systematisation are probably achieved best with diaries. Direct observation appears to be the best method of ensuring compliance with a training prescription, although heart rate monitoring is also a promising method for prescribing endurance training intensity. Sport scientists quantify training to study its effects on the performance and health status of competitive athletes. Most studies have been descriptive rather than experimental, and unvalidated questionnaires have been the predominant method of assaying training. The main areas of research include performance prediction and enhancement, overtraining, reproductive dysfunction, injury, illness, and nutritional status. Training has substantial effects in all of these areas. There is a need for more experimental studies that utilise validated measures of training to investigate how to reduce sports injuries and enhance competitive sports performance. More attention could also be given to methodological issues of training quantification.
竞技运动员的训练可以通过回顾性问卷调查、训练日记、生理监测以及对训练行为的直接观察来评估。问卷调查是最经济、最全面但最不准确的方法。训练日记更具效度,但对于长期定量研究而言,其缺点是依从性差以及处理所产生数据存在困难。生理监测(耗氧量、心率或血乳酸浓度)可提供训练强度的客观指标,而直接观察能得出训练大多数方面的有效指标;然而,这些方法对于持续长期使用并不实际。教练和运动员为了激励、训练系统化以及制定训练处方而对训练进行量化,但对于这些从业者使用训练量化的情况,研究甚少。使用训练日记或许最能实现激励和系统化。直接观察似乎是确保遵循训练处方的最佳方法,尽管心率监测也是规定耐力训练强度的一种有前景的方法。体育科学家对训练进行量化,以研究其对竞技运动员成绩和健康状况的影响。大多数研究都是描述性的而非实验性的,未经验证的问卷调查一直是测定训练的主要方法。主要研究领域包括成绩预测与提高、过度训练、生殖功能障碍、损伤、疾病以及营养状况。训练在所有这些领域都有重大影响。需要开展更多实验研究,利用经过验证的训练指标来探究如何减少运动损伤并提高竞技运动成绩。还可以更多地关注训练量化的方法学问题。