Cited by 283Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Education and Training Studies

The specificity of training prescription and physiological assessment: A review

Reilly, Thomas, Morris, Tessa, Whyte, Greg·2009·Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract

The aims in this review are: (1) to identify physiological determinants of performance; (2) to consider training specificity by examining aerobic, team and racket sports, strength and power activities, and cross-training and concurrent training methods; and (3) to evaluate the role of specificity in the physiological assessment of performance determinants. Assessment of the physiological determinants of performance is an integral part of sports science support for elite athletes. Laboratory and field-based physiological assessments are fundamental elements in profiling athletes, assessing training adaptations, and interrogating programme efficacy. The relatively small and highly specific adaptations associated with high-performance training call for valid, reliable, and sensitive methods of assessment. Recent advances in the physiological assessment of athletes have led to the development of a plethora of laboratory and field-based procedures. In the assessment of the athlete, there is a tension between the high reliability and low ecological validity of laboratory assessments and the low reliability and high validity of field-based methods. In an attempt to enhance ecological validity of training and physiological assessment, various sports-specific ergometers have been designed. This development has helped to match fitness assessment procedures to the demands of the sport concerned.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02640410902729741

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 139 · Cited by 283

Authors
Reilly, T., Morris, T., & Whyte, G.
Affiliations
Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Corresponding author
Reilly, Thomas
Venue
Journal of Sports Sciences
Published
2009-04
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
575-589
ISSN
  • 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-447X
OpenAlex
W2092694783
Cited by
283
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Training Studies
Keywords
training specificity, physiological assessment, performance factors, aerobic exercise, team sports, racket sports, strength and power training, cross-training, concurrent training, ecological validity, athlete profiling, training effects
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Humans, Physical Education and Training, Physical Fitness, Exercise, Muscle Strength, Athletic Performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review