Join The Discourse Community

If you enjoy the podcast, you’ll love our Discourse community. Become a member of “The Science of Sport” community by joining with a small monthly pledge on Patreon — and be part of the conversation behind the conversation.

Show notes

In this week’s Spotlight, we open with a brisk roundup of major stories from the world of sport and policy. We look at new developments following the UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, including the first tangible policy response. We also revisit the resolution of the tragic ice hockey case involving manslaughter charges, and World Athletics’ announcement of its “Ultimate Championship” event—an innovative idea, but not without flaws. Gareth raises some pointed criticisms about the competition format and the puzzling exclusion of key athletics disciplines.

Next, we talk talent. The NFL Draft always offers a window into the world’s most elaborate selection process—but also its inefficiencies. We reflect on how early selection often produces more busts than brilliance, yet remains largely unchanged due to structural inertia. A 14-year-old’s blistering 35-ball century in the IPL leads us to discuss a surprising link between cricket scoring and endurance pacing, and how this informs the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method.

From there, we shift to the core topic of the episode: scientific integrity. Gareth reflects on our recent Spotlight's deep dive into how scientific papers are made, and our most recent feature podcast on the Boston Marathon and Mike's experiences testing Puma's new shoe. The conversation expands into questions of independence in scientific research and evidence, with specific reference to Puma’s bold claim that their new shoe is “the fastest ever", and why that statement is, at best, premature. But we also give credit where it’s due, praising the transparency and almost certain publication of the results of the brand’s testing, as well as the researcher's realism about trust in their lab's research.

And amid it all, Ross shares some personal news—stepping away from his School Academy High Performance and development role, while reflecting on missed opportunities and unrealized HP philosophies.

Links

• The Scottish FA acts to protect women's football
• And the English FA are, apparently, considering it
• The case against ice hockey player Matt Petgrave is dropped
• An analysis of draft picks that shows how high the proportion of "busts" is
• Here's a preprint of the Hoogkamer evaluation of the Puma supershoe - this is not peer-reviewed yet, but I strongly suspect that a peer reviewed version of this is on the horizon
• The best community discussion you'll read on Supershoes, courtesy our Discourse members (Members only access - you know what to do!)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this round-up of the two big spring marathons—Boston and London—Mike and Ross rate the performances of the top athletes while debating whether pacesetters should be used in major marathon events. The team then delve into the ultra-competitive world of shoe tech, where Mike gets to do a running economy test in a pair being touted as the world's fastest running shoes.

SHOW NOTES:

• Results of the testing done by the University of Massachusetts Amherst on Puma's Fast-R 3
• Study on how shoe mass affects running economy
• The study we discussed that shows how a 1.1% improvement in metabolic cost of running translates into a 0.78% improvement in performance
• The original Vaporfly study that got the ball rolling on the 4% benefit, for comparison of methods

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join our Discourse Community

The Science of Sport is more than a podcast — it’s a growing community of curious, thoughtful people in sport and sports science. Join our Discourse by pledging on Patreon and tap into the deeper conversations.

Show Notes

Where do scientific papers come from?

In this week’s Spotlight, our main focus is a “birds and bees” conversation of the scientific world. Ross walks Gareth through how a research paper is conceived, conducted, and eventually delivered into the world through publication in scientific journals. We break down what is essential to how a paper fits into the larger sports science puzzle, and share some insider tips for reading research with a critical eye. We explore why the “why” behind a study matters more than most people think—and how every piece of research fits into a much bigger picture. Plus, we dive into the obligations and ethical requirements researchers face, and why transparency, study design, and disclosure are the foundations of real science.

But before we get to that deep dive, we tackle a mix of stories from the world of sport:

🏃‍♀️ A sub-4-minute mile for women?

There’s fresh talk of breaking the barrier—but Ross is sceptical. Is this genuine progress or just another gimmick? We explore what it would mean if it happened, and what will need to be thrown behind the world's best athlete to make it possible.

🚴‍♂️ Durability > sprint capacity?

From Remco’s win over Wout in Brabantse Pijl to takeaways from the Boston Marathon, we examine how this underrated concept—producing a fresh performance while fatigued deeper into a race—plays out in real-world results.

🎾 Doping rules, showers, and sample tampering.

A new controversy in tennis gets us talking about anti-doping protocols, and some of the wildest attempts in history to game the system

It’s science, scepticism, and sport—exactly how we like it.

Links

The two papers we discussed in our "Birds and Bees" section:

• Greg Roe's Rugby paper: Spot the Difference
• Nic Tam's Barefoot running paper: We don't all adapt like the story book said

• The Breaking 4 campaign launches
• Tennis on the defensive about the anti-doping shower policy

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.