Perceptions of performance determinants and evidence-based practice in track cycling: a survey of coaches, athletes, and practitioners

Abstract

Introduction: Track cyclists, at an elite level, must have highly developed physical, mental, tactical, and technical qualities to enable competitive performance. There is limited existing literature specifically within track cycling to understand and improve performance. So, how track cyclists, their coaches, and the various practitioners they work with develop each of those components of performance is of great interest. A major limitation of sport science literature is that published research does not always fit the needs or resources of those translating it to practice. It is imperative researchers clarify what areas of performance those within the sport value most (or least), and what issues are currently existing that prevent research findings being implemented in practice. The purpose of this research was to understand how those within track cycling: acquire and develop knowledge and training practices; value various areas of performance; and, implement research in practice. Methods: An online survey of track cycling coaches, athletes, and practitioners was conducted using REDCap. The survey included questions across five topics: demographics, research area importance, knowledge acquisition and application, research relevance, and research direction. A sample of 257 respondents was sought to achieve a 5% error rate with 90% CI. Results: Preliminary findings (n = 150; 48 coaches, 60 athletes) show the majority of respondents developed methods by ‘observing the sport or others competing/working in it’ (86%), and ‘own participation’ (80%). The primary reason for using a practice was prior experience (84%), while individuals were least likely to use a practice if it resulted in small/marginal gains with potentially negative outcomes (27%). Areas of greatest perceived importance were Aerodynamics, Nutrition, and Tactics (98% agreed or strongly agreed). Tactics (40%) and Mental Skills (36%) were areas where evidence was perceived to be lacking, while aerodynamics (80%) was the area most new ideas are contributed. Primary barriers to implementing research into practice were athlete buy-in (78%), cost (72%), and time (70%). Discussion: Preliminary data show a large reliance on non-scientific dimensions of the evidence-based practice model. Furthermore, the vast majority of respondents reported multiple barriers that have affected implementation of research in practice. These data provide direction for researchers on specific areas of performance to focus on, as well as a number of practicality issues that must be addressed to allow easier implementation. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest with relevance to the submitted abstract.