[Closed] Sport science

Which side of it? The biology/coaching/nutrition side of it or the equipment/engineering side of it?

On the engineerign side of it I did my dissertation on strain gauges in hockey sticks, only use I've had for that was I could do an "I told you so" when Stages and 4iii announced they were going to offer power meters on carbon cranks (nope, no you're not, it doesn't work).

I also get to laugh and point at graphs whenever anyone talks about "pedaling in circles" or "pulling up on the pedal".

The biology/coaching/nutrition

Really interested in the coaching, nutrition, recovery side of things at the moment. In the book I’m reading they talked about gut health and how it’s closely linked to performance but I really enjoyed reading that. Also I like all the specifics on protein intake and how thoughts on that seem to be changing over the years. I like reading about supplements, not just the basic off the shelf stuff in bright colour tubs.
I take note of food labels regularly- I used to use High 5 a bit until I realised how much is in it.

I also get to laugh and point at graphs whenever anyone talks about “pedaling in circles” or “pulling up on the pedal”.

Guessing that’s because there’s always a dead spot around 10 and 12?

I started a Sports Science degree back in the 90's, was a lot more work than I was expecting, ended up spending more time in the pub than in lectures and dropped out after a year - worked in IT ever since...

I was pretty into cycling as a junior beforehand and got interested in the science side through that (plus quite enjoying Biology @ A-Level) but the reality was I found it dull studying at degree level, probably would have been more interesting if I'd stuck with it and had got into practical/lab work. It was also quite a mixed course (covered economics & politics of sport etc. not just the pure science side) which sounded OK on paper but ended up just adding more work from areas I wasn't particularly interested in studying.

It also didn't really open up a clear career path on it's own so I bailed, haven't regretted it but I imagine there's better courses and more career opportunities from it these days.

I've known a few who've done it over the years, compared to the USA & Australia it's not as easy to carve out a defined recognised career in the UK, the best people I've seen have focused on a specific niche and gone self employed.

Guessing that’s because there’s always a dead spot around 10 and 12?

No, simpler than that, you just don't pull up. Your back foot is a dead weight unless you're out of the saddle sprinting. It's actually pushing down.

Here's two different graphics pulled from google images of pioneer power meter data. You cans ee that different riders pedal differently, but they all push down on the back pedal.

Even with "pedaling in circles"?  I mean, thats a real thing right, so whats actually happening, are we narrowing the dead spot and not having continuous power?

I'd really like to understand the concept of smoothing out a pedal stroke for power delivery / muscular impact.    I thought I understood you got more continuous power and shifted the dominance away from your quads a bit by pedalling smoothly.   Is that not the case?

My sister studied it at Loughborough, as she was already racing/competing internationally in a couple of sports as a junior, it meant she could continue developing and training and also prepare for a career after competition.
She went on to become a pro triathlete (raced for UK and France, world cup level and 2 Olympics).
She now runs a wetsuit and swimwear company (along with another retired triathlete), aimed at the Tri market mostly, but leisure wear too.

I’d really like to understand the concept of smoothing out a pedal stroke for power delivery / muscular impact.

I was chatting with someone in Polar some years back (as their power meter measured it) and he said there is no evidence it matters. Not a single paper showing any improvement being smooth.

In theory yes you can be more efficient but there's two ways of doing that.

1) recruit more muscle fibers, that's done by pedaling at lower cadence/higher torque during training.

2) switch them on and off quicker, if you look at the 1st one their right foot is wasting a lot off effort at the bottom of the stroke. That's achieved by doing high cadence drills that train your muscles to switch on/off at the right times.

The scrape your shoe/pull up/kick over the top stuff is actually less useful for two reasons. One it's trying to recruit smaller muscles that can't really make an impact relative to the quads. Try picking up a bag of cement with your toe, that's only 250N of force and you probably can't do it, but you could leg press/pedal that all day. Second reason is your FTP is dictated mainly by your heart and lungs, if you can't supply more oxygen, trying to recruit another muscle group is just diluting what you already have.

My sister studied the unlikely combination of a BSc in Sports Studies and Religious Education. I helped her throughout with the SS side. It's a solid science, particularly with advances in nutrition and training methods. All SS clinical studies are underpowered, so only find big effects (or none as the trials are too small).

If you like physiology, a bit of mechanics and general exercise, it's a solid subject. If you want to coach, there are probably better pathways through British Cycling, because a SS degree will not give you the practical expertise in what is a practical profession.

Have a read of Cycling Science. Or Bicycling Science if Physics is your thing.

I was pretty into cycling as a junior beforehand and got interested in the science side through that

Interesting FuzzyWuzzy! Do you think you’d approach things any differently or with a different attitude if you studied it now? I’m guessing that was a while ago now? Also, I don’t hugely know much about the full course content so it’s good to hear.

On the employment side of things, I’m kind of aware self employment would likely be one of the main routes.

I guess I have a general interest in lots of areas, and maybe figure out a niche - the degree might be more advanced than I imagine, but I did an online course in sports nutrition last year and I just found it frustrating as I felt I knew a lot of the stuff or about half the stuff already, from my own racing and training and being coached, while others were asking stupid questions . I ended up not finishing it as it was too tedious and tame, I get more out of reading.

I’d like to get into coaching too and build up my profile (currently doing an online coaching course with Training Peaks).

Great story anjantom!

Thisisnotaspoon you’re making me rethink my whole way of pedalling 🤔😂😀, I have a hard workout later on too.

Interesting FuzzyWuzzy! Do you think you’d approach things any differently or with a different attitude if you studied it now? I’m guessing that was a while ago now? Also, I don’t hugely know much about the full course content so it’s good to hear

It was back in the 90's (I had to buy a shell suit for the course :p ), sports science has come on a long way since then and seems to have become more specialised. There were two sorts of sports science degree programmes back then, academic focused or athlete focused (where it's mostly about supporting an elite athlete, likely who compete for the Uni). The programme I was on was academic (there were some practical parts but more leaning towards coaching, e.g. swimming training but it being very focused on technique rather than performance). A mate started a more athlete-focused programme at the same time - I was doing around 25 hours a week in lectures, he was doing 10, he enjoyed his course more :p

I was pretty immature at the time, I didn't expect Uni (or Poly as it was in my case) to be a complete doss but somehow thought it would be less studying than A-levels at school, it wasn't! As I said before though, I don't regret dropping out as I doubt I'd have remained in a related field as a career (coaching has never appealed to me and I likely wouldn't have been academic enough to eek out a career on the research side). It still interests me but happy enough just reading articles in magazines written by journalists rather than wading through research papers etc.

I did Bsc Sports Science with Biology as a mature student. I had the intention to go into teaching at High School level. Tried it. Didn't like it (started PGCE).
I'm not in touch with anybody from my course but I was for around a year after graduating, kind of.
Nobody that I was aware of from my Sports Science group had managed to get any meaningful career started that involved any great degree of Sports Science qualification requirement.
Biology was tough learning. Sports Science kept me awake at night. That was a whole new level of hard.

A family friend wanted to be in sports science, did his degree and it didn't lead anywhere.

The top guys are doctors like Tim Noaks is a MD, and went on into sports.

My wife has been involved with Gymnastics her whole life, and sees a lot of the young athletes do a sports science degree as the "have" to study something after school, and it is in an area they have devoted a lot of time to, but it doesn't lead to a real career IMO

So after reading the replies so far, it sounds like a lot of people (or the majority here) do a SS degree and never really get anything from it in terms of a career or job.
Thanks for the replies so far, would be nice to hear a few more replies to get more of a feel for things.

It’s a mega competitive field. For many jobs you will need an MSc at the very least as well as other relevant qualifications e.g UKSCA accreditation, coaching experience etc. Not to mention lots of relevant industry experience from competing, playing and/or coaching a sport. It helps if you have a good idea about what you want to do as some sports science degrees are very different from others. Some very applied, some very lab/research based.

Most decent degrees integrate an element of work placement as its key to get contacts and identify your potential area of expertise e.g S&C, coaching, nutrition, physiology, psychology etc.

Internships and summer placements often very common so good to find out about these.

In my opinion a sport science degree is a very good qualification that equips you with a broad skill set and knowledge base that is useful in many fields.

I used to teach sport science at a college and my former students work across many different industries from sport development, coaching, teaching, personnel training and Physiotherapy to policing, military and running their own businesses.

Plus it’s a great subject that’s really interesting. There are very few degrees that will allow you to walk into a job.

I did Sports Science BSc and then PhD at one of the top Sports Sci Unis in the country (20 odd years ago mind). I loved working with athletes & performance optimisation, but hated the endless hours pipetting in the lab only to find you'd messed up the reagent somewhere along the line. After a spell lecturing I moved into teaching and now teach Maths part-time and run an endurance coaching business part time where I get to use the knowledge and experience that sits on the foundation of my degree.

Would I change it, no chance. I love endurance sport and the insights and grounding in sports science lead to endless additional enjoyment doing (and coaching/discussing) the sports I love. I did realise very early on in my degree that to stand out in Sports Science you need a good degree grade, no 3rd class honours if you want to stay in the field.

Course mates of mine now work in a variety of fields, physio (another degree), banking, marketing, running their own business, teaching, research in a variety of fields, working in sports nutrition for a huge multinational... just like any science degree the jobs are the ones you chase with enthusiasm. I would say that if you're looking for big bucks then there's better ways to spend three years, but in terms of a fascinating subject that can lead into a career in sport I'd recommend it.

I know quite a few SS degree graduates who now run successful S&C / PT / Gym businesses. I think to be successful you need more than just a degree, you need drive to build a business and also good people skills as you're selling yourself and dealing with clients all day long. You also need to be good at your stuff, if you're injuring / breaking clients they won't come back and you'll get a duff reputation. The ones who seem to succeed also have a thirst for knowledge (St Martins college anyone?), always reading up on the latest papers / doing courses / extra qualifications / UKSCA conferences etc etc.

The sort of people that Team Ineos, for example, look for

https://www.teamineos.com/article/job-vacancies-part-time-therapists

https://www.teamineos.com/contact

I would say that if you’re looking for big bucks then there’s better ways to spend three years,

£40k as a self employed PT in the SE is quite doable. The ones who do best are those who use their garage for PT sessions as they don't have to pay to use a gym.

My PT does 27 clients a week at £45/hour and pays £500/month for use of a gym, so nets just over £1000 / week. 5 weeks holiday a year and 1 week off sick etc, you're looking at £46k gross, not a bad wage. Lockdown has actually worked out OK for him, down to 21 clients a week via Zoom, but no gym fees, coaching from his spare bedroom...

I went to Loughborough too (did engineering), and knew alot of sport science students. they could often be found in the union bar...not exactly a busy course! Great for those pursuing sports as they had plenty of time to train. Of the ones I know of now (maybe about 4 or 5) none are doing a career in sports science. The closest to a career in sports is one who is now a PE teacher. However, your degree doesn't have to relate to your job. One Sports Scientist whom I shared a house with at uni got a job with PWC straight out of uni and he's now a recruitment consultant. But then I watched a documentary about the Sky team and they interviewed one of their performance bods who did Sports Science at Loughborough.

No, simpler than that, you just don’t pull up. Your back foot is a dead weight unless you’re out of the saddle sprinting. It’s actually pushing down.

You're still pulling up even if the resultant force is still down. There is still a component force in the upward direction. You're just not pulling up enough to totally overcome the acceleration due to gravity. And the resultant force is reducing the dead weight of that trailing foot which is beneficial and will result in an increase in power.

Whether it's efficient or not is the question. It's not a tactic you can or should employ over an entire 100 mile course, but you can employ it on that steep 12% few hundred metre section on that climb when you need an additional power boost, either seated or unseated. and you can employ it at the end of a long ride to take the pressure off the fatigued quads - share more of the load with hamstrings and hip flexors.