Author(s): BÜTHE, E., VENZKE, J., SCHÄFER, R., PLATEN, P., Institution: RUHR-UNIVERSITÄT-BOCHUM, Country: GERMANY, Abstract-ID: 589

INTRODUCTION:
Performance diagnostics in endurance sports are indispensable tools in sports and medical research, providing precise insights into the physical capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses of athletes. A wide variety of methods are used worldwide to assess performance, including diverse threshold concepts, protocols, and standardisations. In order to assess the current state of performance diagnostics and to identify significant similarities and differences in methods within Germany, an online questionnaire survey was designed and distributed to various performance diagnostics institutions.
METHODS:
The online questionnaire included the following categories: test procedures, protocols and load schemes, threshold concepts, standardisation, individualisation and training planning. The survey was completed by 40 sports diagnostic facility managers over a two-week period. Estimates and confidence intervals were derived using binomial distribution and Clopper-Pearson adjustment.
RESULTS:
Regarding threshold concepts, 45% CI95% [29.3; 61.5] (18/40) of the respondents chose the individual anaerobic threshold according to Stegmann & Kindermann et al. (1981) or the aerobic-anaerobic threshold according to Mader et al. (1976). In 82.5% CI95% [67.2; 92.7] (33/40) of the cases, training recommendations were based on heart rate, whereas in 80% CI95% [64.3; 90.9] (32/40) they were based on speed/power. Regarding standardisation, in 72.5% CI95% [56.1; 85.4] (29/40) of the centres, changes in test conditions were not documented, when testing the same person twice. In 77.5% CI95% [61.6; 89.2] (31/40), no medical history was taken before the start of the test. Dietary considerations before testing, such as drinking, carbohydrate intake, or caffeine, were also not specified in 35% CI95% [20.6; 51.7].
CONCLUSION:
These results indicate considerable variation between institutions in the choice of threshold concepts and the regulation of intensity and speed. The lack of documentation of changes in test conditions and the absence of discussion about personal clarification raise questions about standardisation and quality assurance. It is clear that strict clear guidelines and protocols are needed to ensure the validity and reliability of performance testing across the country. Quality assurance has many advantages, including the exchange of data between different diagnostic centres. These findings provide suggestions for critical review and improvement of testing practices.