The specificity of training prescription and physiological assessment: A review
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Focusing on training that mirrors the demands of a certain task improves functional performance to a greater extent.
“Yet, focusing on training that mirrors the demands of a certain task improves functional performance to a greater extent. 100 -102”
From High-velocity power training has similar effects to traditional resistance training for functional performance in older adults: a systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as [102]
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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