All Alone We Go Faster, Together We Go Further: The Necessary Evolution of Professional and Elite Sporting Environment to Bridge the Gap Between Research and Practice

Full text

OPINION
published: 27 January 2021
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2020.631147
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 1January 2021 | Volume 2 | Article 631147
Edited by:
Stéphane Bermon,
World Athletics, Health and Science
Department, Monaco
Reviewed by:
Paolo Emilio Adami,
University of Rome, Italy
*Correspondence:
Franck Brocherie
franck.brocherie@insep.fr
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Elite Sports and Performance
Enhancement,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
Received: 19 November 2020
Accepted: 14 December 2020
Published: 27 January 2021
Citation:
Brocherie F and Beard A (2021) All
Alone We Go Faster, Together We Go
Further: The Necessary Evolution of
Professional and Elite Sporting
Environment to Bridge the Gap
Between Research and Practice.
Front. Sports Act. Living 2:631147.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2020.631147
All Alone We Go Faster, Together We
Go Further: The Necessary Evolution
of Professional and Elite Sporting
Environment to Bridge the Gap
Between Research and Practice
Franck Brocherie 1
*and Adam Beard 2
1Laboratory Sport, Expertise and Performance (EA 7370), French Institute of Sport (INSEP), Paris, France, 2High
Performance Unit, Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball, Chicago, IL, United States
Keywords: athletes, biomedical–standards, evidence-based/evidence-informed practice, organization &
administration, decision making, humans
SETTING THE STAGE
The landscape of the professional and elite sport has changed enormously in recent years, with
clubs/franchises and national federations performance support operating through specialized
background staff roles. Although not uniformly embraced across all sports and countries, the
expansion of such a model has led to the emergence of a managing position—generally termed
performance director (Buchheit and Carolan, 2019)—to organize and supervise all the sports
science and sports medicine servicing areas accessible to the head coach (and/or his technical staff )
and athletes. The scientific support staffing base includes full-time sport scientists, physiologists,
biomechanists, nutritionists, psychologists, and even more recently statisticians/data scientists,
with some additional part-time input from expert/academic consultants (e.g., neuroscientists).
Depending of the size and culture of the clubs/federations, a medical department covers the medical
care and therapy related to training and competition, as well as the involvement of professional
specialists for health management (Dijkstra et al., 2014). As an example, a National Football
League (NFL) staff generally comprised five departments and as large as 13 full-time employees
under the umbrella of the performance director (Figure 1A). All these departments operate in
synergy and also “independently” with appropriate autonomy at times, with the performance
director orchestrating the “front lines” in a holistic and comprehensive manner toward a common
performance goal.
The impetus to drive a performance support model is directly related to assisting the
coaching/front office staff on strategies to understand what winning looks like through analysis
of key performance indicators and metrics (Halson et al., 2019). The performance model employs
analysis technologies (e.g., global positioning system with embedded tri-axial accelerometers,
gyroscope and magnetometer, wearable sensors) and scientific advances (e.g., innovative training
or nutritional strategies) (Malone et al., 2019) to enhance player performance and maximize player
availability (Drew et al., 2017) while maintaining their health integrity through an integrated
health management system (Dijkstra et al., 2014). Despite the growing number of clubs/federations
employing this approach, there are still many who do not choose to see this model as the vehicle
to progress. Although this has been widely addressed (Bishop, 2008; Dijkstra et al., 2014; Buchheit,
2016, 2017; Coutts, 2016, 2017; McCall et al., 2016; Eisenmann, 2017; Nassis, 2017; Halperin, 2018;
Sandbakk, 2018, 2019; Fullagar et al., 2019; Halson et al., 2019), here, the present opinion proposes
to discuss past, actual, and new issues faced by the practitioners and researchers that are at the front

Brocherie and Beard Necessary Evolution of Sporting Environment
FIGURE 1 | The actual (A) and proposed (B) performance support model and its applied research process (C). AT, athletic trainer; CMO, chief medical officer; DB,
defensive back; DL, defensive line; EVP, executive vice president; LB, linebacker; OL, offensive line; P/T, physical therapist; QB, quarterback; RB, running back; TE,
tight end; WR, wide receiver.
line of professional and elite sport in order to reinforce the
necessary evolution of professional squads and federations to stay
at the cutting edge of performance optimization.
INTEGRATION OF THE PERFORMANCE
MODEL INTO TRADITIONAL SETTINGS
Modern professional and elite sport has gained an interest
in creating athlete-centered structures (e.g., Boston Celtics
Auerbach training center, Ultimate Fighting Championship’s
performance institute in Las Vegas, Aspire Academy in Doha,
Chicago Cubs’ Arizona spring training performance center, and
Wrigley field high-performance facility), which include state-
of-the-art sport science facilities and material for performance
optimization. Because the margin between winning and losing
is tiny (Davison et al., 2009), such environments take into
account all the factors surrounding athlete’s performance, health,
and well-being.
In order to provide effective evidence-based,
performance-oriented, and science-driven practices in sports
science and sports medicine support, a positive integration is
paramount, implying the organizational direction [i.e., owner,
chief executive officers (CEOs), head coach, front office] to
recognize and believe in the performance model and then favor
the interaction between each department. As such, and because
this has been reported to be a critical barrier (Fullagar et al.,
2019), particular attention must be carried on ensuring that there
is alignment between leadership/ownership and the performance
team. This is especially ringing true on the “hands-on” staff (such
as coaching, performance, and medical) that should view the
overall picture of the organization culture and its performance
model and develop coexistence and relationship based on
different expertise enabling all staff. A clear holistic process with
transparent roles and responsibilities facilitates decision-making
regarding the somewhat paradoxal performance optimization
and long-term health management (particularly relevant in
youth elite sport environments) (Dijkstra et al., 2014).
However, problems may occur if groups within the
club/federation are not open to new innovative ideas and
scientific methodologies based on evidence-based practices
to the optimization of player performance and health. Fixed
mindsets not only create problems for the integration of the
performance model (Nassis, 2017) but also may create silos
between the performance departments and coaches/front
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 2January 2021 | Volume 2 | Article 631147

Brocherie and Beard Necessary Evolution of Sporting Environment
office staff (Eisenmann, 2017; Drust, 2019). Clear goals and
expectations with regard to where current practices are at the
club/federation will help to plan the evolution of the “here and
now—winning today” and the “how do we maintain and sustain
winning—success”. If early adopter or innovator profiles would
be helpful for compliance and acceptance (Nassis, 2017), in all
cases, communication and time are keys to convince (unwilling)
head coaches and organizational direction. However, because
professional and elite sport setting is result-driven, time is lacking
to install a confident working environment, where the worst
scenario (i.e., losing consecutive matches) inevitably conducts to
head coach eviction, thereby affecting the performance process
(Drust, 2019).
In order to convince reluctant groups within the
club/federation of the benefits from a sports science and
sports medicine support model, the recruited performance
director must have multiple strings to his/her bow. Based on our
own experience, having a mix of practical (playing experience
and/or backroom staff) and theoretical knowledge to ensure a
clear understanding of the scientific prerequisite is a helpful asset
to assist leaders such as the head coach (Bishop, 2008) by using
similar language in a mutually respectful manner. In particular,
having a scientific background at the postgraduate level (i.e.,
ideally having a postgraduate MSc or PhD qualification) would
allow the identification (including discrediting poor/false
research or pseudoscientific approaches) and adoption of
effective evidence-based practices (e.g., targeting few identified
areas having a meaningful impact on athletes’ performance)
that would directly and rapidly impact the decision-making
process surrounding sport performance (Buchheit, 2016; Coutts,
2017; Nassis, 2017). Furthermore, such effective and easy to use
innovative research-informed, practitioner-led interventions
are more likely adopted than disruptive ones (Nassis, 2017)
and would open doors for more cooperation. Besides agility
and adaptability, additional leadership and interpersonal and
communication skills would reinforce the communication needs
(Eisenmann, 2017) and drive a centralized operating system that
promotes the performance model and club/federation culture.
As such, the performance director is the “gatekeeper” of the
sports science and sports medicine services, ensuring optimal
cooperation while avoiding confusion and pitfalls, notably
through open paths of communication between staff.
REFINING THE PERFORMANCE MODEL
The rapid technological development (and its accompanying
regulation adjustments) approved by most leading global
sporting organizations, in addition to the increasing demand
placed on the athletes, may highlight the important role of
sports science and sports medicine staff in modern sport
success (or failure). Alongside management leadership and
acculturation (Jones et al., 2009), improving athletes’ compliance
for monitoring and evidence-based methodologies provides
the opportunity to reinforce the use of specific devices and
supporting strategies. For that, the shared decision-making
process (i.e., including three key steps: choice, option, and
decision) proposed in sports medicine (Dijkstra et al., 2017;
Elwyn et al., 2017) may reduce conflict and participate as
education mean for effective and succesful support.
The paradox in professional and elite sport setting is the
different timelines requested to ensure key decisions (fast-
working process) while promoting the best evidence-based
practices (slow-working process) (Coutts, 2016, 2017; McCall
et al., 2016). In this view, and because the director of performance
may represent the cornerstone of the performance model and
would have time for translational concept only, embedding
a research and development (R&D) department (under the
umbrella of performance director, Figure 1B) would be useful to
provide scientific expertise in assessing long-term performance
solutions and drive new ideas to improve the decision-making
process for day-to-day servicing areas (Coutts, 2016, 2017;
McCall et al., 2016; Eisenmann, 2017).
In fact, although developing research partnerships and
innovation hubs (McCall et al., 2016) remains valid (see
section Reinforcing the Connection), bringing researchers and
their environment within the same organization is probably
the most relevant way to bridge the gap between the “field
and the lab” via the development of the triad “athlete–coach–
researcher” (Sandbakk, 2018, 2019; Fullagar et al., 2019). Such
club/franchise- (e.g., FC Barcelona in soccer, Chicago Cubs in
baseball) or organization-embedded research (e.g., Australian,
English, French, Norwegian institutes of sport) is generally
considered to have greater impact on professional practice
(Coutts, 2017). Relocating laboratories and researchers close
to the field allows to better understand the constraints that
may limit evidence-based practice translation (Bishop, 2008)
to identify and conduct relevant ecologically valid applied
researches (Reade et al., 2008a,b) that align with the “real-
world” needs and perspectives (Jones et al., 2019). Improving
the servicing resource with an R&D department would open
doors for higher sports science and sports medicine research
into applied practice (Fullagar et al., 2019) that may benefit
higher education within (Bartlett and Drust, 2020) and outside
professional and elite sport.
REINFORCING THE CONNECTION
Refining the performance model with the addition of an
R&D department also allows to optimize collaboration with
academics (McCall et al., 2016) or other infrastructures from
the sport industry (e.g., R&D departments issued from the
same or another sport/competition, equipment manufacturers).
First, because research questions are established and prioritized
by the R&D department (Figures 1B,C), thereby avoiding
the common belief from many academics (much more than
we think; part of those who believe that having practiced
and/or coached at low levels equals head coaches’ specific
knowledge acquired over years) that head coaches are not
sufficiently “brained” to share ideas. One may assume that some
brilliant research findings emanated from innovation intuitively
developed on the field by some head coaches. As such, adopting
integrated knowledge translation models (Boland et al., 2020)
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 3January 2021 | Volume 2 | Article 631147

Brocherie and Beard Necessary Evolution of Sporting Environment
involving practitioners in a research agenda would benefit end
users through common concepts and vocabulary, the ability
to link, exchange, and co-produce knowledge (participatory
research, athlete engagement or involvement, and community-
based research).
In professional and elite sport settings, proper controlled data
collection allows a continuum between servicing and research
(Halson et al., 2019) through implementation of intervention
to verify a hypothesis (e.g., comparing two training methods).
Instead of reinventing the wheel, the research iterative and
bidirectional model proposed by Bishop (2008) remain topical.
Profiling and cross-sectional studies easily implementable in
“real-world” settings would provide values to reviews and
meta-analyses to verify the problem identified (Figure 1C).
Then, methodological and correlational studies are helpful
to set the next steps. In addition, conducting qualitative
research such as case study of one or few (elite) athletes (e.g.,
Brechbuhl et al., 2018; Solli et al., 2020) is one of the pathways
bridging the gap between research and practice (Halperin,
2018). This may be an interesting “buy-in” strategy to create a
working relationship between practitioners and head coaches
(Halperin, 2018), which may result in mutual interests and
more demanding research such as laboratory-based experiments
(Fullagar et al., 2019). Bearing in mind that poor research
(or associated approaches) would discredit all the efforts to
support sports science and sports medicine, we believe that
even difficult to implement parallel-group (e.g., Beard et al.,
2019a,b) or crossover design (e.g., Sandbakk et al., 2015) with
appropriate randomization remains possible and provides an
opportunity to increase the quality of ecological research in the
“real world” (Coutts, 2017; Fullagar et al., 2019). Replication
studies must be considered at this stage if basic research has
been already conducted. Finally, to truly have an impact on
“real-world” settings, effectiveness trials, through replication
and efficacy studies in ecological conditions, are imperative to
improve quality decision in practice. Despite the reluctance
of most journals for a “lack of novelty” (McLoughlin and
Drummond, 2017; Nature, 2020), replicating experimental
results with or without positive findings would be helpful for
researchers and practitioners to decide whether a novel finding
is real and large enough to have a practical impact. In this
view, the recent coopetition (i.e., simultaneous cooperation and
competition) proposal to merge performance data (Ramirez-
Lopez et al., 2020) may also provide an alternative to improve
sample size and ecological validity of applied research. Some
organizations [e.g., FC Barçelona, Sacramento Kings, and Los
Angeles Dodgers joint research on modeling players’ decision
(http://www.sloansportsconference.com/activities/research-
papers/2019-research-paper-finalists-posters/) presented at the
MIT Sloan Sports Analytics international conference] already
take the plunge. Connecting with academics also means to be
proactive in research grant application. As such, few initiatives
get up. For example, last year, Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) and
“Polytechnique” sponsored the “Sport analytics challenge”
(https://www.agorize.com/en/challenges/xpsg) that allowed
students to submit contributions or projects related to Opta
data analysis using Python or R programming language aiming
to increase PSG sporting performance. The winner received
a 3-year thesis or postdoctoral fellowship (worth e100,000
including tax). Other research opportunities also arose from
competition winning bid.
Similarly, major competitions such as the Olympic games
often boost scientific support and research initiatives (Skibba
et al., 2016), Paris 2024 being the last example with a
call for elite sport-related scientific project from the French
national agency for research. The flip side of the coin is
that it fuels the lust of researchers who are out of sport
context, increasing the risk of a setback from the head
coaches for the interest of sports science and sports medicine.
To avoid this and promote its catalyst effect, the funding
stakeholders must carefully control the alignment of research
project with its practical application in professional and elite
sport setting.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARIZING TIPS
The necessary evolution of professional and elite sport
encompasses embracing better communication based on
trust and mutual respect with head coach and management
board/team, embedding an R&D department to relocate
laboratories and researchers close to the field and reinforce their
connection with the “real world” to promote best evidence-based,
performance-oriented, and science-driven practices. In order to
bridge the gap between research and practice and improve its
impact on professional and elite sport setting, key considerations
are summarized as follows:
•To improve collaboration with coaches/managers
and athletes through
Creation of a pleasant work environment,
Proper communication (e.g., avoiding silos,
eliminating segregation),
Rapid information dissemination that is meaningful for the
different groups,
Staff development (e.g., workshop, newsletter),
Favor interaction and critical thinking inside and outside
the box.
•To establish trust and building relationships with academics or
other sports industry’s infrastructures through
Integration of laboratory-based materials and researchers
within the organization,
Development of “win–win” solutions (i.e., interesting and
useful) promoting aligned inter- or multi-disciplinary
research approach,
Improving education material and conferences involving
scholars, scientists, practitioners, and/or coaches,
•To improve quality decision in practice through
Promotion of the best available evidence at the right time
for the right athlete,
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 4January 2021 | Volume 2 | Article 631147

Brocherie and Beard Necessary Evolution of Sporting Environment
Implementation of the “integration paradigm” whereby
research guides practice, but practice also guides research,
Guaranteeing stability, consistency of sports science
and medicine support. This may require infrastructure’s
refinement to maintain effective communication.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The authors listed have made substantial, direct and intellectual
contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Laboratory Sport, Expertise and Performance (EA 7370) is
a partner of the French-speaking network ReFORM, recognized
as a Research Centre for the Prevention of Injury and Illness and
the Protection of Athletes by the Olympic Committee (IOC). As
a member of the IOC Medical Research Network, ReFORM has
received funding from the IOC to establish long-term research
programs on the prevention of injuries and illnesses in sport for
the protection of athlete health.
REFERENCES
Bartlett, J. D., and Drust, B. (2020). A framework for effective
knowledge translation and performance delivery of sport scientists
in professional sport. Eur. J. Sport Sci. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2020.
1842511. [Epub ahead of print].
Beard, A., Ashby, J., Chambers, R., Brocherie, F., and Millet, G. P. (2019a).
Repeated-sprint training in hypoxia in international rugby union
players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 14, 850–854. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.
2018-0170
Beard, A., Ashby, J., Kilgallon, M., Brocherie, F., and Millet, G. P. (2019b).
Upper-body repeated-sprint training in hypoxia in international rugby
union players. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 19, 1175–1183. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2019.
1587521
Bishop, D. (2008). An applied research model for the sport sciences. Sports Med.
38, 253–263. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838030-00005
Boland, L., Kothari, A., McCutcheon, C., Graham, I. D., and Integrated Knowledge
Translation Research, N. (2020). Building an integrated knowledge translation
(IKT) evidence base: colloquium proceedings and research direction. Health
Res. Policy Syst. 18:8. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0521-3
Brechbuhl, C., Schmitt, L., Millet, G. P., and Brocherie, F. (2018). Shock
microcycle of repeated-sprint training in hypoxia and tennis performance: case
study in a rookie professional player. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach 13, 723–728.
doi: 10.1177/1747954118783586
Buchheit, M. (2016). Chasing the 0.2. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 11, 417–418.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0220
Buchheit, M. (2017). Houston, we still have a problem. Int. J.
Sports Physiol. Perform. 12, 1111–1114. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.
2017-0422
Buchheit, M., and Carolan, D. (2019). The Noble ranks of performance roles -
who’s aking - who’s a duke? Sport Perform. Sci. Rep. 60, 1–7. Available online
at: https://sportperfsci.com/the-nobel- ranks-of-performance- roles-whos- a-
king-whos- a-duke/
Coutts, A. J. (2016). Working fast and working slow: the benefits of embedding
research in high performance sport. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 11, 1–2.
doi: 10.1123/IJSPP.2015-0781
Coutts, A. J. (2017). Challenges in developing evidence-based practice in
high-performance sport. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 12, 717–718.
doi: 10.1123/IJSPP.2017-0455
Davison, R. R., Van Someren, K. A., and Jones, A. M. (2009). Physiological
monitoring of the Olympic athlete. J. Sports Sci. 27, 1433–1442.
doi: 10.1080/02640410903045337
Dijkstra, H. P., Pollock, N., Chakraverty, R., and Alonso, J. M. (2014).
Managing the health of the elite athlete: a new integrated performance
health management and coaching model. Br. J. Sports Med. 48, 523–531.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093222
Dijkstra, H. P., Pollock, N., Chakraverty, R., and Ardern, C. L. (2017). Return to
play in elite sport: a shared decision-making process. Br. J. Sports Med. 51,
419–420. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096209
Drew, M. K., Raysmith, B. P., and Charlton, P. C. (2017). Injuries impair
the chance of successful performance by sportspeople: a systematic
review. Br. J. Sports Med. 51, 1209–1214. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-
096731
Drust, B. (2019). Applied science and soccer: a personal perspective on
the past, present and future of a discipline. Sport Perf. Sci. Rep. 1:56.
Available online at: https://sportperfsci.com/applied-science-and- soccer-a-
personal-perspective- on-the- past-present-and- future-of- a- discipline/
Eisenmann, J. (2017). Translational gap between laboratory and playing field:
new era to solve old problems in sports science. Transl. J. ACSM 2, 37–43.
doi: 10.1249/TJX.0000000000000032
Elwyn, G., Durand, M. A., Song, J., Aarts, J., Barr, P. J., Berger, Z., et al. (2017). A
three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process.
BMJ 359:j4891. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4891
Fullagar, H. H. K., McCall, A., Impellizzeri, F. M., Favero, T., and Coutts, A. J.
(2019). The translation of sport science research to the field: a current opinion
and overview on the perceptions of practitioners, researchers and coaches.
Sports Med. 49, 1817–1824. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01139-0
Halperin, I. (2018). Case studies in exercise and sport sciences: a powerful tool
to bridge the science-practice gap. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 13, 824–825.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0185
Halson, S. L., Hahn, A. G., and Coutts, A. J. (2019). Combining research with
“Servicing” to enhance sport performance. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 14,
549–550. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0173
Jones, B., Till, K., Emmonds, S., Hendricks, S., Mackreth, P., Darrall-Jones, J.,
et al. (2019). Accessing off-field brains in sport; an applied research model to
develop practice. Br. J. Sports Med. 53, 791–793. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-
097082
Jones, G., Griffiths, M., and Hardy, L. (2009). Creating an environment
where high performance is inevitable and sustainable: the high performance
environment model. Ann. Rev. High Perform. Coach Consult. 1, 139–149.
doi: 10.1260/ijssc.4.suppl-2.671q532j757771rl
Malone, J. J., Harper, L. D., Jones, B., Perry, J., Barnes, C., and Towlson, C. (2019).
Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional
team sports. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 19, 147–155. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2018.
1492632
McCall, A., Davison, M., Carling, C., Buckthorpe, M., Coutts, A. J., and Dupont,
G. (2016). Can off-field ’brains’ provide a competitive advantage in professional
football? Br. J. Sports Med. 50, 710–712. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-
095807
McLoughlin, P., and Drummond, G. (2017). Publishing replication studies to
support excellence in physiological research. Exp. Physiol. 102, 1041–1043.
doi: 10.1113/EP086344
Nassis, G. P. (2017). Leadership in science and medicine: can you see the gap? Sci.
Med. Football 1, 195–196. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2017.1377845
Nature (2020). In praise of replication studies and null results. Nature 578,
489–490. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00530-6
Ramirez-Lopez, C., Till, K., Boyd, A., Bennet, M., Piscione, J., Bradley, S.,
et al. (2020). Coopetition: cooperation among competitors to enhance
applied research and drive innovation in elite sport. Br. J. Sports Med.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102901. [Epub ahead of print].
Reade, I., Rodgers, W., and Hall, N. (2008a). Knowledge transfer: how do high
performance coaches access the knowledge of sport scientists? Int. J. Sports Sci.
Coaching 3, 319–334. doi: 10.1260/174795408786238470
Reade, I., Rodgers, W., and Spriggs, K. (2008b). New ideas for high performance
coaches: a case study of knowledge transfer in sport science. Int. J. Sports Sci.
Coaching 3, 335–354. doi: 10.1260/174795408786238533
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 5January 2021 | Volume 2 | Article 631147

Brocherie and Beard Necessary Evolution of Sporting Environment
Sandbakk, O. (2018). Let’s close the gap between research and practice
to discover new land together! Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 13:961.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0550
Sandbakk, O. (2019). The role of sport science in the new age of digital sport. Int.
J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 15:153. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0934
Sandbakk, S. B., Sandbakk, O., Peacock, O., James, P., Welde, B., Stokes, K.,
et al. (2015). Effects of acute supplementation of L-arginine and nitrate on
endurance and sprint performance in elite athletes. Nitric Oxide 48, 10–15.
doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2014.10.006
Skibba, R., Cressey, D., and Van Noorden, R. (2016). Scholarly Olympics: how the
games have shaped research. Nature 536, 18–19. doi: 10.1038/536018a
Solli, G. S., Tonnessen, E., and Sandbakk, O. (2020). The multidisciplinary process
leading to return from underperformance and sustainable success in the
world’s best cross-country Skier. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 15, 663–670.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0608
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Brocherie and Beard. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 6January 2021 | Volume 2 | Article 631147