Authors: Ingham, S. a, Fudge, B.W. & Pringle, J.S.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 7, 193-5 (2012).

Commentary by Leo Thornley

Ingham et al present a well laid out case study looking at the performance and physiological capability of an elite 1500m runner over the course of two years. During this time the distribution of training was changed to a more polarized approach and performance was improved. There are several key summary points from this concise paper.

1. Regular and consistent physiological monitoring is an essential part of tracking the effectiveness of preparation.

2. A simple way of tracking training distribution is required for knowing “what is getting done?”

3. Know (or develop) your benchmarks, you must be able to break down the components of successful performance.

4. Attention to detail and regular in-the-field monitoring can close the gap between prescribed and actually performed training.

As we head into the culmination of the latest summer quadrennial, thoughts inevitably drift to post Olympic debriefs, the point where we review the effectiveness of what has been done. When contemplating any intervention (IST involved or not) it is imperative to have an understanding of the whole equation. This means we need to know the athletes current status (current physiological profile), what gets done (training along with any intervention) and what comes out (performance) in order to judge its effectiveness.

While this is a case study and some detractors might scoff at an n of one, surely showing a significant positive change in performance of an elite athlete is in itself worthwhile. This shows that there is a place for good case studies in good science along-side larger group studies.