Overview

We will begin by looking at the general structure, or framework, of a training plan. This is something that is known as periodisation. Once you know about periodisation we will look at the many ways that periodisation can be used to develop training plans within various sports. Specifically, we will look at how to use periodisation to devise training plans for endurance athletes, for team sport athletes, for strength and power athletes, and for sprint athletes. We will also look at scientific ways to track how our athletes are responding to our training plans, and we will look at how to weave recovery and nutrition into our training plans to ensure that our plans knit together in a precise way.

Important: module failure that prevents you passing the year will require resit assessment and attendance at Supplementary Assessment Week

Assessment Strategy

-threshold - D •Limited but sufficient display of knowledge when developing a needs analysis. Scientific support for workload and physiological underpinning of chosen sport is lacking, or sparse. •Sufficient clarification of scientific focus for interventions, i.e., specific parameters to be targeted in the intervention. Chosen parameters are rarely justified and / or rarely link to the information provided in the needs analysis •Sufficient level of clarity and understanding regarding testing protocols. Choice of testing protocols generally lack justification / seem illogical. Scientific support is lacking / incorrect mostly and too frequently overlooks the parameters outlined for intervention focus. No acknowledgement of validity and reliability is evident. •Intervention is designed to a sufficient standard but lacks scientific underpinning. Perdiodization is sparsely considered. Training protocol lacks appropriate / correct scientific support and is superficial. Training / recovery strategies are evident but with little scientific justification. •Critical thought and scientific justification behind decisions is superficial or lacking •Monitoring strategies are either not included or illogical and lacking a scientific basis. •Little scientifically driven justification is evident for the inclusion of any additional elements. •Structure veers frequently from provided guidelines. Writing lacks flow and is frequently incoherent. Typographical errors are frequent throughout. •Answer relies completely on lecture material, or individual thought devoid of any scientific guidance. •SSHES referencing guidelines are not adhered to, with many errors in referencing.

-good - B •Generally good display of knowledge when developing a needs analysis. Focuses specifically on scientific workload and physiological underpinning of chosen sport but occasionally lacking in scientific support. •Good clarification of scientific focus for interventions, i.e., specific parameters to be targeted in the intervention. Chosen parameters are justified more often than not, and link in some cases to the information provided in the needs analysis •Good level of clarity and understanding regarding testing protocols. Choice of testing protocols are occasionally logical, scientifically driven and specifically address the parameters outlined for intervention focus. Scientific justification is sometimes lacking and/or choices are illogical. Some acknowledgement of validity and reliability is evident but superficial. •Intervention is designed to a good standard with scientific underpinning evident sometimes. Perdiodization is considered in the plan. Training protocol in some instances progresses accordingly via a periodized strategy, but not always. The context of the question is not always considered when putting the periodized plan in place. Training / recovery strategies are evident with some relevant scientific justification, but a number of instances where this is also not the case. •Critical thought is evident and scientific justification behind decisions are present, but limited or superficial. •Where relevant, appropriate monitoring strategies are evident but choices are not always logical and scientifically justified. •Some scientifically driven justification is evident for the inclusion of any additional elements, but sometimes it is not clear why additional elements have been selected, or they are occasional superficial or illogical •Structure generally follows provided guidelines, but deviations from this may be evident. Writing generally flows well but some instances of incoherent writing also present. Some parts of the work are written concisely but instances of excessive / unnecessary elaboration are also evident. Typographical errors are somewhat frequent. •Answer relied mainly on the lecture material with some instances of wider reading, but limited primary reading. •SSHES referencing guidelines generally followed, with a number of errors or oversights present.

-excellent -A •Excellent display of knowledge when using published literature to develop a needs analysis that focuses specifically on scientific workload and physiological underpinning of chosen sport •Excellent clarification of scientific focus for interventions, i.e., specific parameters to be targeted in the intervention. Chosen parameters are fully justified, linking directly to information provided in needs analysis •Excellent level of clarity and understanding regarding testing protocols. Choice of testing protocols are logical, scientifically driven and specifically address the parameters outlined for intervention focus. Clear and substantial reference to validity and reliability within the context of the question when making choice of testing protocols •Intervention is designed to an excellent standard with thorough and scientific underpinning evident. Perdiodization is considered to an excellent level in the plan. Training protocol progresses accordingly via this periodized strategy to address the momentary needs of the athlete in relation to the chosen question. Clear consideration for appropriate training / recovery strategies with scientific support throughout periodized plan. •Excellent ability to critically weigh up decisions and justify choices throughout. Limitations are thoroughly acknowledged •Where relevant, appropriate monitoring strategies are evident. Reasoning and choice of any monitoring approaches is comprehensive scientific, and logical •Inclusion of additional elements are clearly considered, justified and scientifically driven. •Excellent structure that follows provided guidelines. Writing flows clearly and logically throughout, and work is concise with no typographical errors. •Clear evidence of a wide range of individual reading beyond the lecture material and other supplied references. •SSHES referencing guidelines followed ensuring thorough referencing throughout, with no errors

Learning Outcomes

• On successful completion of this module students will be able to use all of the information delivered to sequentially design and critically justify a logical and specific training / recovery plan to support long-term athletic improvement.

• On successful completion of this module, students will be able to devise how key recovery methods may be used during a long-term training design to support physiological development

• On successful completion of this module, students will be able to select and justify the choice of specific testing strategies to asses how key physiological variables can be measured during a long-term training plan

• On successful completion of this module, students will be able to use research based literature to identify the physiological factors that contribute to elite performance in a variety of athletic settings.