Overview

This module is designed to equip you with the practical and theoretical skills that are fundamental for working with athletic and exercise based populations. The first half of module will focus on honing your practical skills. This weekly practical content is designed to develop a broad range of practical skills on important themes such as the direct and indirect measure of maximal oxygen uptake, lactate threshold testing, anaerobic testing, field tests, flexibility and body composition. These practical sessions will adopt a hands on approach so that you can get directly involved with data collection and equip yourself with the skills necessary to implement these tests effectively.

Now that you have polished your practical skills, the second half of the module will focus on how these practical skills can be integrated into the design of an athlete training plan. The second part of the module will therefore focus on concepts such as the needs analysis process, as well as periodisation, programming and specificity to allow you to adopt the fundamental principles involved in trraining design and to appreciate how these principles may differ depending on the sporting domain (e.g., strength and power sports, team sports, aerobic sports).

We will begin by focusing on honing your practical skills. This will include hands on practical sessions that develop your skills to implement tests that measure markers such as direct and indirect maximal oxygen uptake, lactate thresholds, anaerobic markers, body composition, and field based measures.

The second part of the module will then cover the theoretical topics involved in training design. These sessions will focus on topics such as the needs analysis process, prediodisation and programming, testing and specificity, monitoring and recovery, and importantly how these considerations may occasionally differ in a context dependent way (e.g., different sports and populations).

Assessment Strategy

EXCELLENT A (70-100%) Excellent - An excellent understanding of assessment requirements with no inaccuracies or misconceptions. Excellent in-depth knowledge of the physiological assessments, safety considerations and all relevant information needed by the participant. The Viva was conducted in a very professional manner where the communication was excellent, succinct, and highly relevant.

The client feedback could be passed on to a real client with no edits needed. The client report shows an in-depth physiological understanding and critical awareness of what parameters are most relevant for the athlete and how data can be interpreted and applied in this setting. Communication with the volunteer is succinct, fit for purpose and highly informative.

Needs analysis performed to an excellent and standard with clear academic critique. Goals for the intervention are clear and academically justified, as are testing choices. Use of evident critique and academic support throughout. An obvious and logical use of periodisation that shows thorough understanding of the concept and a critical ability to apply it appropriately to a given scenario. Excellent evidence of the use of programming appropriate training designs to meet more general periodised structure. Critical analysis, justification of choices, and scientific support are evident throughout. Well written, concisely, and correctly structured, and accurate use of citations.

VERY GOOD B (60-69%) A very good understanding of assessment requirements with very few inaccuracies or omissions. Very good and in-depth knowledge of the physiological assessments, safety considerations and all relevant information needed by the participant. The Viva was conducted in a professional manner where the communication was very good, mostly succinct and mostly relevant.

The client feedback is of a standard that the report could be passed on to a real client with some edits. The client report shows, in-depth physiological understanding in most areas and most aspects of the assessment show a critical awareness of what parameters are most relevant for the athlete and how data can be interpreted and applied in this particular setting. Communication with the volunteer is mostly succinct, fit for purpose and informative.

Needs analysis performed to very good and standard with academic critique in most places. Goals for the intervention are mostly clear and academically justified, as are testing choices. Use of evident critique and academic support throughout. The use of periodisation is mostly logical and shows very good understanding of the concept and a critical ability to apply it appropriately to a given scenario. Very good evidence of the use of programming appropriate training designs to meet more general periodised structure, one or two aspects may be missing. Critical analysis, justification of choices, and scientific support are mostly evident. Well written, concisely, and correctly structured, and accurate use of citations. One or two lapses also present in places.

GOOD C (50-59%) Good – A good understanding of assessment requirements but some important inaccuracies or omissions. Evidence of good in-depth knowledge of the physiological assessments in places, good evidence of safety considerations relevant to the test and information needed by the participant. The Viva was conducted in a mostly professional manner where the communication was good, information may lack clarity and relevance in places and may not be presented succinctly.

The client feedback is of a standard that the report could be passed on to a real client, but not before some significant edits. The client report shows in-depth physiological understanding in some areas, and aspects of the assessment show a critical awareness of what parameters are most relevant for the athlete and how data can be interpreted and applied in this setting. Communication with the volunteer may not be succinct or not entirely fit for purpose, some aspects of the report may be misleading for the client.

Needs analysis performed to good standard with academic critique in some, but not all, places. Goals for the intervention are somewhat clear and academically justified, as are testing choices. Some gaps in support and/or logic are present. Evident critique and academic support in some places, but not consistent. The use of periodisation is logical in places and shows good understanding of the concept and a critical ability to apply it appropriately to a given scenario. Some instances where this may not always be the case. Good evidence of the use of programming appropriate training designs to meet more general periodised structure, several aspects may also be missing. Critical analysis, justification of choices, and scientific support are evident in places. Good writing style, concise in places, correctly structured, and accurate use of citations. Lapses also present in places in one or more of these criteria.

PASS D (40-49%) Pass - A basic understanding of assessment requirements with inaccuracies or misconceptions evident. Understanding may be partial, or accuracy may be questionable. The Viva was conducted with good communication but may have lacked adequate rehearsal/preparation. Information presented may be basic or lacking in clarity in some significant areas.

There is some evidence of good in-depth knowledge relating to the physiological assessments, but mainly a basic understanding is shown. Safety considerations and communication required with the volunteer is summarised at a basic level. The client feedback report would need to be re-written before sending to a real client, but a basic understanding of complex physiological concepts was demonstrated. The report may show some level of critical awareness of relevant measures to the athlete without full appreciation of how the data can be interpreted and applied in this setting. Communication with the volunteer may not be succinct or fit for purpose, some important aspects of the report may be misleading for the client.

Needs analysis performed to basic standard with academic critique missing in places. Goals for the intervention are somewhat unclear with little academic justification, as are testing choices. Many gaps in support and/or logic. Evident critique and academic support are largely lacking. The use of periodisation is occasionally logical but there are gaps in understanding of the concept little a critical ability to apply it to a given scenario. Basic evidence of the use of programming appropriate training designs to meet more general periodised structure, many aspects may also be missing. Critical analysis, justification of choices, and scientific support are somewhat lacking. Basic writing style, concise in places, incorrectly structured in places, and lack of or inaccurate use of citations.

Learning Outcomes

• Communicate clearly and professionally with volunteers, showcasing proficiency in conveying complex sport science concepts in accessible language.

• Critically analyse physiological concepts, interpreting and applying data to optimise elite athletic performance.

• Critically evaluate and integrate knowledge of testing, training, monitoring strategies, and needs analysis to develop scientifically supported periodised training and recovery plans.

• Exhibit a high level of proficiency in conducting and interpreting several core laboratory-based physiological assessments critical for supporting elite performance.