Sports Science
Ste_S
Posts: 1,173
Reading some of the debates on here and other forums, I'm starting to become more interested in Sports Science.
If I wanted to study the subject (part time) what would be a good starting course ? BTEC or similar ?
If I wanted to study the subject (part time) what would be a good starting course ? BTEC or similar ?
0
Comments
-
how about a 5 year degree in medicine first? Unless someone is coaching from personal experience backed up by their own tangible results (e.g. Dave Lloyd et al) then I personally would expect a sports scientist to perhaps be a specialist subject of general medicine, or at least have a similar scientific understanding of how the body functions in entirety. Anything less is frankly witchcraft.....0
-
er nice work Steve :? .Are you suggesting that you need to study medicine to get an understanding of sports science? I'm sure you can get a sports science degree without studying medicineSteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first? Unless someone is coaching from personal experience backed up by their own tangible results (e.g. Dave Lloyd et al) then I personally would expect a sports scientist to perhaps be a specialist subject of general medicine, or at least have a similar scientific understanding of how the body functions in entirety. Anything less is frankly witchcraft.....0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first?
I'd imagine the 'biology' part of sports science isn't that great, and will have more to do with data and statistics. Would you expect a coach to have a medical degree ?0 -
Ste_S wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first?
I'd imagine the 'biology' part of sports science isn't that great
I don't know about the UK, but at many US universities the undergraduate exercise science program has become the de facto pre-med program (there is no such thing as an undergraduate medical degree here, i.e., you first have to get an undergraduate degree in some other area first before entering medical school). Other students use their exercise science degree as a 'springboard' for entry into other biomedical programs, e.g., physical therapy.
As for myself, my undergraduate degree was a double-major in biology and chemistry, on top of which I layered the limited courses in anatomy/physiology/exercise physiology that were offered to undergraduates (along with a whole bunch of stats courses, of course).0 -
i have done a sports science BTEC. two years full time at college, i loved it. one of the best things ive ever done!
just a shame i wasnt into cycling then!!!
never mind! its not too difficult either, and if you have an interest in the subject already, thats all the more reason to go for it!_______________________________________________________________________________________
If You Can't Cut It With The Big Dogs, Then Don't Pi$$ Up The Tall Trees!0 -
Toks wrote:
er nice work Steve :? .Are you suggesting that you need to study medicine to get an understanding of sports science? I'm sure you can get a sports science degree without studying medicineSteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first? Unless someone is coaching from personal experience backed up by their own tangible results (e.g. Dave Lloyd et al) then I personally would expect a sports scientist to perhaps be a specialist subject of general medicine, or at least have a similar scientific understanding of how the body functions in entirety. Anything less is frankly witchcraft.....
Toks, I expected no less an answer from you...
No, simply to be believable for me there must be some recognizeable scientific qualification to support the claims. I've spent enough time talking to my GP and cardio specialists to ralise that they know little about the effects of intensive exercise and metabolism. So why would a less scientifically trained person understand this process any better? It just happens I am not convinced, call it healthy sceptiscism....0 -
acoggan wrote:Ste_S wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first?
I'd imagine the 'biology' part of sports science isn't that great
I don't know about the UK, but at many US universities the undergraduate exercise science program has become the de facto pre-med program (there is no such thing as an undergraduate medical degree here, i.e., you first have to get an undergraduate degree in some other area first before entering medical school). Other students use their exercise science degree as a 'springboard' for entry into other biomedical programs, e.g., physical therapy.
As for myself, my undergraduate degree was a double-major in biology and chemistry, on top of which I layered the limited courses in anatomy/physiology/exercise physiology that were offered to undergraduates (along with a whole bunch of stats courses, of course).
A good route and probably the reason why you are so good at what you do. The trouble is, the pupils I/we send onto sports science degrees are pretty much bottom of the class students. The better pupils go into more traditional subjects.
I'm not knocking sports science by the way, I'm just stating a 'fact' as I see it, that the best caliber of students don't enter sports science.
The statistics quote is interesting. I've been teaching for 12 years and not one of my A'level (maths) pupils has done sports degrees. I'd have serious doudts that the pupils that my school has sent on sports sci degrees could cope with any meaningfull stats.0 -
Ste:
Yes you can study part time and it is better if your already a qualified coach in some thing and even better if you have already graduated in another field.
I graduated in engineering and I am qualified squash course, and just before I left Wales I had a place in Cyncoed doing part time sponsored, Sports Science Degree.
UnfortunaelelyI moved away and never got to complete it.
Chris:
There are not many people who actually enroll straight onto these type courses, they are mostly for people going into personal trainer careeers or people like me at the time, qualified coaches coaching elite athletes who required further qulifications for national standard coaching positions and such.
With respect to the maths, it is hardly going to be rocket science, just some stats which with software packages these days are easy.
I studied Maths on my degree to level three and have never used 90% of it in engineering positons
By the way, I also looked at doing teaching at one point, it is hardly any wonder they dont get many from industry going to teaching. I lectured part time in Uni in Maths and that was ok, but to teach in a school I was told I would have to give up work and do a B Ed in Maths or science to teach it Even though at the time it was ok to lecture Level 1 and 2 in Uni !!
Still i now get more time to ride now, still coach a bit in squash though Who wants lessons, no power meters involved, just 1 to 1 technique 0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:Toks wrote:
er nice work Steve :? .Are you suggesting that you need to study medicine to get an understanding of sports science? I'm sure you can get a sports science degree without studying medicineSteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first? Unless someone is coaching from personal experience backed up by their own tangible results (e.g. Dave Lloyd et al) then I personally would expect a sports scientist to perhaps be a specialist subject of general medicine, or at least have a similar scientific understanding of how the body functions in entirety. Anything less is frankly witchcraft.....
Toks, I expected no less an answer from you...
No, simply to be believable for me there must be some recognizeable scientific qualification to support the claims. I've spent enough time talking to my GP and cardio specialists to ralise that they know little about the effects of intensive exercise and metabolism. So why would a less scientifically trained person understand this process any better? It just happens I am not convinced, call it healthy sceptiscism....
All part of the courses Steve :-)
No need to study medical degree or even anatomy to a geat extent either.
The courses are more to do with teh scientific approcah to training. Take a look at the sylabus on the UWIC sites, they are quite good. They have done the NAtioanl Rugby Team for years Pehaps not the best example 8) 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Ste:
Chris:
There are not many people who actually enroll straight onto these type courses, they are mostly for people going into personal trainer careeers or people like me at the time, qualified coaches coaching elite athletes who required further qulifications for national standard coaching positions and such.
With respect to the maths, it is hardly going to be rocket science, just some stats which with software packages these days are easy.
I studied Maths on my degree to level three and have never used 90% of it in engineering positons
By the way, I also looked at doing teaching at one point, it is hardly any wonder they dont get many from industry going to teaching. I lectured part time in Uni in Maths and that was ok, but to teach in a school I was told I would have to give up work and do a B Ed in Maths or science to teach it Even though at the time it was ok to lecture Level 1 and 2 in Uni !!
Still i now get more time to ride now, still coach a bit in squash though Who wants lessons, no power meters involved, just 1 to 1 technique
It may not be rocket science but trust me to some pupils it may as well double Dutch (or Welsh)
and you sound like the pupils, every day I'm asked '... but sir when am I going to use this in later life...'. So 90% you've never used but how important was the other 10%. Your lecturers weren't mind readers or able to tell the future, how did they know what 10% would be absolutely essential.
That's my stock answer by the way, I don't really care if 99.9% never gets used. It's a beautiful subject and the 0.01% :roll: that is usefull,... well where exactly would we be without those great discoveries?0 -
chrisw12 wrote:
That's my stock answer by the way, I don't really care if 99.9% never gets used. It's a beautiful subject and the 0.01% :roll: that is usefull,... well where exactly would we be without those great discoveries?
Yeah, what about logarithms?0 -
so Chris, for old times sake, integrate xcosx for me... 0
-
Ah Steve, you could have picked any number of functions which would have been impossible to integrate and I would have had to spend all night searching for a solution so as to prove myself. Instead you pick one that is relatively easy just to make me look good, so thank you.
xsinx+cos x if any one's interested, done by integration by parts.
Cervelorider: I don't specialise in logs :oops: but weren't one off their early uses as a way of performing multiplication of very large numbers. As such they would have been very useful. Then again, you probably have difficulty understanding anything past two digit numbers, so they'd have been little use to you. 0 -
-
chrisw12 wrote:xsinx+cos x if any one's interested, done by integration by parts. That brings back some happy memories of A level maths. Mrs Saville - a WONDERFUL teacher.
Teachers are soooo important aren't they? Are you a good one, Chris?
Ruth0 -
I don't like to row my own boat but um...:oops: :oops: :oops:
but I'd be a lot better if I wasn't too busy ridding my bike.
I also believe that unfortunately with teaching the following proverb often applies irrespective of the teacher, 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.' 0 -
chrisw12 wrote:
Cervelorider: I don't specialise in logs :oops: but weren't one off their early uses as a way of performing multiplication of very large numbers. As such they would have been very useful. Then again, you probably have difficulty understanding anything past two digit numbers, so they'd have been little use to you.
I know your memory aint that good, but you might remember I aint too hot on 'average' additions - I hope you dont humiliate your pupils in the same way you ' literally' dressed me down.................... that's got you thinking aint'it?????
Made much use of that Guru fairing :?: :?: :?:0 -
cervelorider wrote:chrisw12 wrote:
Cervelorider: I don't specialise in logs :oops: but weren't one off their early uses as a way of performing multiplication of very large numbers. As such they would have been very useful. Then again, you probably have difficulty understanding anything past two digit numbers, so they'd have been little use to you.
I know your memory aint that good, but you might remember I aint too hot on 'average' additions - I hope you dont humiliate your pupils in the same way you ' literally' dressed me down.................... that's got you thinking aint'it?????
Made much use of that Guru fairing :?: :?: :?:
Yes Andy?? Made great use of the head fairing, big mistake to use it in a 12hr though!
8) not
How's tricks, haven't seen much of you on this forum and I was being light hearted in my response. 0 -
chrisw12 wrote:I don't like to row my own boat but um...:oops: :oops: :oops:
but I'd be a lot better if I wasn't too busy ridding my bike.
I also believe that unfortunately with teaching the following proverb often applies irrespective of the teacher, 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.'
And you'll be ridding your bike of ...what? I'll see you after the lesson Chrisw12 (at which point whole class goes 'Whoooooo!' 0 -
chrisw12 wrote:cervelorider wrote:chrisw12 wrote:
Cervelorider: I don't specialise in logs :oops: but weren't one off their early uses as a way of performing multiplication of very large numbers. As such they would have been very useful. Then again, you probably have difficulty understanding anything past two digit numbers, so they'd have been little use to you.
I know your memory aint that good, but you might remember I aint too hot on 'average' additions - I hope you dont humiliate your pupils in the same way you ' literally' dressed me down.................... that's got you thinking aint'it?????
Made much use of that Guru fairing :?: :?: :?:
Yes Andy?? Made great use of the head fairing, big mistake to use it in a 12hr though!
8) not
How's tricks, haven't seen much of you on this forum and I was being light hearted in my response.
Is that what you tell the kids?
I'm fine, I make an occaisional post on here, but mainly come over to watch 'the mike willcox show'. 0 -
cervelorider wrote:I'm fine, I make an occaisional post on here, but mainly come over to watch 'the mike willcox show'.
Fair enough.
I wasn't exactly full of the christmas spirit before but after reading that I feel quite sh1tty now. That's a good blow you've landed there. Nice one mate.0 -
cervelorider wrote:chrisw12 wrote:cervelorider wrote:chrisw12 wrote:
Cervelorider: I don't specialise in logs :oops: but weren't one off their early uses as a way of performing multiplication of very large numbers. As such they would have been very useful. Then again, you probably have difficulty understanding anything past two digit numbers, so they'd have been little use to you.
I know your memory aint that good, but you might remember I aint too hot on 'average' additions - I hope you dont humiliate your pupils in the same way you ' literally' dressed me down.................... that's got you thinking aint'it?????
Made much use of that Guru fairing :?: :?: :?:
Yes Andy?? Made great use of the head fairing, big mistake to use it in a 12hr though!
8) not
How's tricks, haven't seen much of you on this forum and I was being light hearted in my response.
Is that what you tell the kids?
I'm fine, I make an occaisional post on here, but mainly come over to watch 'the mike willcox show'.
NO it's what I HAVE to tell the parents when they phone up to complain. :oops: 0 -
chrisw12 wrote:cervelorider wrote:chrisw12 wrote:cervelorider wrote:chrisw12 wrote:
Cervelorider: I don't specialise in logs :oops: but weren't one off their early uses as a way of performing multiplication of very large numbers. As such they would have been very useful. Then again, you probably have difficulty understanding anything past two digit numbers, so they'd have been little use to you.
I know your memory aint that good, but you might remember I aint too hot on 'average' additions - I hope you dont humiliate your pupils in the same way you ' literally' dressed me down.................... that's got you thinking aint'it?????
Made much use of that Guru fairing :?: :?: :?:
Yes Andy?? Made great use of the head fairing, big mistake to use it in a 12hr though!
8) not
How's tricks, haven't seen much of you on this forum and I was being light hearted in my response.
Is that what you tell the kids?
I'm fine, I make an occaisional post on here, but mainly come over to watch 'the mike willcox show'.
NO it's what I HAVE to tell the parents when they phone up to complain. :oops:
haha
http://www.velodromeshop.org.uk - Track Cycling Shop from Velodrome.org.uk - Casco, Bont Shoes, Dolan, Campag, Reflex Nutrition, Sugino and more
http://www.sportstrainingsolutions.com - Cycling and Sports Therapy in Mallorca0 -
As someone who has a Masters Degree in physiology and teaches exercise physiology to undergraduates, let me makes a few points.
1) At degree level physiology is studied to a fairly detailed level - although it is obviously limited to aspects related to exercise. Its certainly not at the level studied in medical degrees - but then they generally do very little on exercise - in fact doctors generally do not experience fit people - they are taught to deal with the unwell.
2) The maths at undergraduate level is relatively straightforward - its only when you are doing research that it becomes complicated.
3) The majority of undergraduates come straight from school - although there are a few who come in from other avenues. There is little benefit in having a coaching background. I have looked at and been on courses at all levels for coaches and the level of science is very rudimentary.
4) Most universities do part time degrees - Ste_s as you are in Wolverhampton - go to Wolv Uni and talk to someone in the Sports Science Dept.0 -
chrisw12 wrote:xsinx+cos x if any one's interested, done by integration by parts.
quote]
you mean:
intgral of cox = sin x
cosx = d(sinx)/dx
int xcosx dx = int x d(sinx) = x.sinx - int(sinx.1. dx)
= x sinx - int(sinxdx)
= xsinx + cos x(integral of sin x = -cos x) +c where c is arbritary constant....??0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:chrisw12 wrote:xsinx+cos x if any one's interested, done by integration by parts.
quote]
you mean:
intgral of cox = sin x
cosx = d(sinx)/dx
int xcosx dx = int x d(sinx) = x.sinx - int(sinx.1. dx)
= x sinx - int(sinxdx)
= xsinx + cos x(integral of sin x = -cos x) +c where c is arbritary constant....??
Um, yes, I think so,... have you been drinking?
and well done for spotting my DELIBERATE MISTAKE, I'm a bit disappointed in Ruth and others for not spotting that I DELIBERATLY left out the constant, to see who was awake. 0 -
Erm yes I think Mr Strongbow helped compose that particular post, however, the formula in question is one which sticks in my head, since my whole career changed in 15 painful minutes when I failed to answer it succesfully during a uni entry interview, and was then given an impossible entry requirement, which meant I ended up in a poly.... :roll: However, my waffly explanation as to why I couldnt answer it despite the amazement of the professor conducting the interview meant I was assured a career in sales.....0
-
SteveR_100Milers wrote:Toks wrote:
er nice work Steve :? .Are you suggesting that you need to study medicine to get an understanding of sports science? I'm sure you can get a sports science degree without studying medicineSteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first? Unless someone is coaching from personal experience backed up by their own tangible results (e.g. Dave Lloyd et al) then I personally would expect a sports scientist to perhaps be a specialist subject of general medicine, or at least have a similar scientific understanding of how the body functions in entirety. Anything less is frankly witchcraft.....
Toks, I expected no less an answer from you...
No, simply to be believable for me there must be some recognizeable scientific qualification to support the claims. I've spent enough time talking to my GP and cardio specialists to ralise that they know little about the effects of intensive exercise and metabolism. So why would a less scientifically trained person understand this process any better? It just happens I am not convinced, call it healthy sceptiscism....
GP's are, by description not specialists but generalists, so you cant expect them to know anything complicated about anything. Cardiologists generally spend all of there time repairing the ill, not modifying the fit.
As for the demographics of students going to study sports science, whats the pay like compared to a doctor / consultant / GP? I'm assuming that answers the question of why the better students dont take that route.
On a seperate note I wish I had taken a maths A level, its much more important / useful than I imagined it would be at the time.0 -
Milese wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:Toks wrote:
er nice work Steve :? .Are you suggesting that you need to study medicine to get an understanding of sports science? I'm sure you can get a sports science degree without studying medicineSteveR_100Milers wrote:how about a 5 year degree in medicine first? Unless someone is coaching from personal experience backed up by their own tangible results (e.g. Dave Lloyd et al) then I personally would expect a sports scientist to perhaps be a specialist subject of general medicine, or at least have a similar scientific understanding of how the body functions in entirety. Anything less is frankly witchcraft.....
Toks, I expected no less an answer from you...
No, simply to be believable for me there must be some recognizeable scientific qualification to support the claims. I've spent enough time talking to my GP and cardio specialists to ralise that they know little about the effects of intensive exercise and metabolism. So why would a less scientifically trained person understand this process any better? It just happens I am not convinced, call it healthy sceptiscism....
GP's are, by description not specialists but generalists, so you cant expect them to know anything complicated about anything. Cardiologists generally spend all of there time repairing the ill, not modifying the fit.
As for the demographics of students going to study sports science, whats the pay like compared to a doctor / consultant / GP? I'm assuming that answers the question of why the better students dont take that route.
On a seperate note I wish I had taken a maths A level, its much more important / useful than I imagined it would be at the time.
So by inference ytou think that "Sports Science" is a more specialist branch of physiology than medicine? Understand your point about repair vs improvement, but isnt that rather a general statement: in order to effect either you have to understand the process you are trying to repair oir improve. If you don't understand the process of metabolism, then yo0u ncan no more repair it when broken than you can improve it when running normally. The fundamental science is no different.0
