But what it gains with ecological validity and specificity, it loses in physiological specificity and validity. A player’s inability to achieve certain levels might be due to physical qualities that can’t be teased out in either of these “tests.” One of the strengths of an RSA-based test is the specificity and ecological validity, though the most specific test would be the game itself. Although one could argue that RSA tests are an improvement over the 16 x 110s, both serve more as screens rather than tests.īoth have pass/fail criteria that tell us if an athlete can complete a certain level of output. They suggest replacing these with repeat sprint ability (RSA) tests that are similar to football. As we do on social media, we’ve seen some coaches blast the common practice of the 16 x 110 timed test and doing repeat 300-yard shuttles. If you’ve been following social media conversations this summer, you’ve seen a lot of discussion about the training and testing of energy systems for American football.
The beep test series#
I want to thank Donnell Boucher (Assistant AD & Head Strength and Conditioning Coach at the Citadel) for eloquently capturing my thoughts and arguments through a series of tweets on the topic that I’ve been thinking of for some time and that pushed me over the edge to write this post. After all, much of what we’re arguing about is the training of fitness, not the evaluation of it. I hope this brings some balance to the conversation about how we objectively measure the fitness we’re trying to create in our athletes. I don’t write this article to be contrarian rather, I suggest an objective way to determine a football player’s level of “fitness” and ability to complete the demands of the sport. In American football, we’re experiencing a pendulum swing that’s moving away from long duration shuttles toward short duration repeated sprints that replicate the demands of the sport.
0 kommentar(er)
