Guest Article: Biological Planning, Organizing, and Programming for Physical Preparation. Part 2

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING, ORGANIZING, AND 

PROGRAMMING FOR PHYSICAL PREPARATION

Part 2

Click HERE for part 1

Planning

Working Backwards

Many coaches have preached a very simple way of planning training over the years.  That is, to start from the end and work backwards.  For instance, if you know your first competition is 16 weeks away, you would simply plan, organize, and program your training in the general preparation period based on this known date.  When it comes to organizing for the competitive season, you would start from the last (and usually most important competition) and work backwards.

I am no different in my execution.  Working backwards allows for a logical sequencing of training blocks in which each of the previous blocks prepares the athlete(s) for the next phase of training.

Below is a sample of a yearly plan; organized for the collegiate American Football calendar:

The bioenergetic, biodynamic, and bio-motor abilities placed in the horizontal columns are the entities being emphasized during that time period.  At no point in time is any bioenergetic/motor/dynamic ability excluded from the training.  I will expand upon this in the programming section.

Organizing

The mess of methodologies

With all of the biological principles covered, I want to discuss training theory and methodology next.

For training theory, there are two basic theories: the one factor theory (or Supercompensation theory) and the two factor theory (or fitness-fatigue model) (Verkhoshansky, Supertraining, 6th edtiion (expanded), 2009).  These two theories have been covered ad nauseum in hundreds of journals, articles and books.  Therefore, I will not expand any more on either of these two theories. 

We are all familiar with the two most popular training methodologies: concurrent and unidirectional. The way I view all training methodologies - whether it is Block Periodization, Conjugate Periodization, Conjugate Sequencing System, or anything else - is lying somewhere on a continuum from the left (Concurrent) to the right (Unidirectional).  

Now, to clear up the definitions, I want to make sure that we are not viewing concurrent or unidirectional just in terms of “strength”.  Planning, organizing, and programming training is much more than just accounting for strength.  Concurrent methodology is having multiple bioenergetic (alactic, lactic and aerobic), bio-motor (speed, power, strength, stamina, suppleness and skill), and biodynamic (general, special preparatory/developmental, and competition) abilities present and being emphasized in the acute training plan and program.  Unidirectional methodology is having limited bioenergetic, bio-motor and biodynamic abilities present and being emphasized in the acute training plan and program.  Again, there is no explicit number of abilities that separates the methodology you are using from concurrent to unidirectional, and vice versa. 

Next, I want to classify some of the most popular systems and methods associated with periodization and methodology:

·         Yearly Organization: the annual cycle; linkage of all sub-units (monthly, weekly, daily and séances) into a logical sequence based on the level of preparedness, temporal considerations, and competition calendar.

o   Concurrent <-> Unidirectional Continuum

At the beginning of a temporal year, you should make a decision for yourself, or your athletes, whether a concurrent or unidirectional approach, is more justified based on the sport/game/competition; and current level of preparedness and trainedness.  Now, this designation does not have to be exclusive.  It is completely practical to utilize both a concurrent and unidirectional approach at different times of the year.  But like any other dichotomy, one is going to be used more than the other.  What will be the emphasis for you or your athletes, concurrent or unidirectional?

·         Monthly Organization: level of organization categorized by 2-16 weeks of training aimed at specific objectives, goals and adaptations based on sport form requirements.

o   Block Periodization*

§  Accumulation Block

§  Transmutation Block

§  Realization Block

o   Intensification Block

o   Concentration Block

o   Conjugate Sequencing System

o   5/3/1

o   Juggernaut Method

o   Linear

o   Step

o   Undulating

o   Flat

*This is the system from Vladimir Issurin.  His system can be used for an entire year, but the cycles of block periodization reset on average every 16 weeks, thus, this is why it is classified as monthly organization, not yearly.

All of these programs or training blocks last somewhere between four and sixteen weeks before either resetting or moving onto another phase of training.  Linear, Step, Undulating, and Flat refer to the total load of training given the multiplication of the means’ volume and intensity. 

·         Weekly Organization: unit of 7-10 days of organization

o   Conjugate Periodization (Westside)*

o   High-Low

o   Linear

o   Step

o   Undulating

o   Flat

* I view Conjugate Periodization, only as a way of weekly organization.  What I am speaking of is the popular set up of (Simmons, 2007):

Sunday: DE Upper

Monday: ME Lower

Tuesday: Off

Wednesday: ME Upper

Thursday: Off

Friday: DE Lower

Saturday: Off

There are many other ways to organize the week utilizing ME/DE Lower & Upper training sessions.

Conjugate Periodization can (and usually does) have some monthly organization and variability built into it, (i.e. circa-max cycle, dynamic effort waves changing from bands to chains, four week cycle of max effort exercises, etc.) but overall, the main theme it presents is weekly organization. Now don’t get me wrong here; could you adapt some of the teachings of Louie Simmons and Conjugate Periodization to your program? Absolutely.  Have other coaches done this? Yes, they have; and so have I.  But you can’t take it in entirety and apply it to all other sports, games, competitions, athletes and individuals.

High-Low weekly organization was popularized by the late, great sprint coach, Charlie Francis.  For those not familiar with this way of organization, it is defined by separating and grouping high CNS stressors to individual sessions, and separating and grouping low CNS stressors to individual sessions (Francis, 2008).  This way of organization allows for more total training volume to be performed because of the increased recovery brought on by the restorative nature of the low sessions.  Linear, Step, Undulating and Flat again refer to the interplay of volume and intensity amongst all means.

·         Daily Organization: utilizing a combination of multiple séances of methods (maximal, interval, dynamic, complex, contrast, etc.), means (sprints, jumps, throws, weights, etc.), and any further subsets (acceleration sprints, upper body weights, lower body weights, depth jumps, etc.) along with manipulating acute variables of intensity, volume, density and rest periods, to achieve the objective of the day.

As the definition states, daily organization must be in-line given the type of weekly organization and the bioenergetic, bio-motor and biodynamic objectives for the month (or block).  

Obviously, the above information is not an exhaustive list and by no means complete or without flaw.  For simplicity, ease, and staying objective, this is how I view organization of training.

Programming

Somewhere in the middle

To continue on with our discussion of methodologies, the continuum between concurrent and unidirectional, and how to organize training, I want to present what I believe to be the easiest, most effective, and adaptable, way of programming. 

My catalyst to programming--is the concept of Vertical Integration.  I was first introduced to vertical integration by the writings of James Smith on the EliteFTS™ Q&A.   My curiosity was peaked and I went searching for more information.  I eventually purchased the work of Charlie Francis and began to read about Charlie’s concepts of programming.

In a nutshell, vertical organization can be summed up as “all training components are being performed at all times – only the volumes vary”.

Charlie Francis categorized his training components in the following way (Francis, 2008):

·         Electrical Muscle Stimulation

·         Strength Work

·         Explosive Jumps, Hops, & Skips

·         Speed Work

·         Tempo Work

·         Core Conditioning Work

As the definition states, Charlie’s athletes would be performing these components throughout the entire training year.  However, depending on the time of the year - such as the off-season, indoor season and outdoor season – the volumes would vary based on the objective of that time period.

What I’ve come to realize, through using vertical integration and continuing to study programming, is that vertical integration sits smack in the middle of the continuum between concurrent and unidirectional methodologies.  Vertical integration can be tailored and adapted to fit both a concurrent methodological approach, and a unidirectional methodological approach.

Think back to the definition of vertical integration, “all training components are being performed at all times – only the volumes vary”.  To make vertical integration concurrent, the total volume of the training components would be dispersed, and none of the components would be emphasized more than the others (relatively speaking, of course).  An example of a concurrent training program is any off-season program for a team sport athlete.  Team sport athletes, by nature of their required sport form, must possess a plethora of bio-motor abilities, and have both output and capacity of multiple bioenergetic systems.  In order to develop all of these abilities, and achieve the necessary adaptations, the program will have all of the above components present throughout the entire duration of the off-season, with no component emphasized more than the others.  

To make vertical integration unidirectional, you would simply emphasis the volume of a limited amount of components more than others.  For instance, the famous strength blocks associated with Yuri Verkhoshansky are an example of making vertical integration unidirectional.  For sports that require strength (maximal, explosive, acceleration, starting and reactive) as the main bio-motor ability (throws, weightlifting, powerlifting, etc.), strength work is put at the highest volume relative to the other components.  However, as Dr. Verkhoshansky has made clear over the years--addressing the misconceptions with his work, there is a presence of other components during the strength block, just in a limited volume, as to not interfere with the main objective, which is the development of strength (Verkhoshansky & Verkhoshansky, Special Strength Training Manual for Coaches, 2011).

Vertical integration, to me, is the best way to plan, organize and program training.  It is the most complete because it is so easily adaptable to all sports and the needs of individuals.  Other methodologies or periodization schemes are too limited or rigid in one way or another to fit the needs of multiple sports and individuals.  The best analogy I can give is to describe vertical integration as an umbrella that hangs over all other methodologies and systems of periodization. 

As I mentioned earlier in the article, Charlie Francis categorized his training components into training means, like below (Francis, 2008):

·         Electrical Muscle Stimulation

·         Strength Work

·         Explosive Jumps, Hops, & Skips

·         Speed Work

·         Tempo Work

·         Core Conditioning Work

The way I categorize my components, is by starting from the three biological principles:

·         Bioenergetic

·         Biomotor

·         Biodynamic

Then looking at their subcategories:

·         Bioenergetic

o   Alactic

o   Lactic

o   Aerobic

·         Biomotor

o   Speed

o   Power

o   Strength

o   Stamina

o   Suppleness

o   Skill

·         Biodynamic

o   General

o   Special Preparatory

o   Special Developmental

o   Competition

And for bioenergetics and biomotor abilities, further categorized:

·         Bioenergetic

o   Alactic

§  Output

§  Capacity

o   Lactic

§  Output

§  Capacity

o   Aerobic

§  Output

§  Capacity

·         Biomotor

o   Speed

§  Acceleration

§  Maximal Velocity

§  Endurance

o   Power

§  Maximal

§  Endurance

o   Strength

§  Maximal

§  Explosive

§  Acceleration

§  Starting

§  Reactive

·         Hypertrophy

·         Endurance

o   Stamina

§  Endurance

§  Capacity

o   Suppleness

§  Mobility

§  Flexibility

o   Skill

§  Coordination

§  Technique

§  Tactics

Finally, training means, which can be used to develop the bioenergetic systems, biomotor abilities, and biodynamic criteria, are:

·         Sprints

·         Jumps

·         Throws

·         Weights

·         Calisthenics

My modification to vertical integration can be summed up by this statement: “all of the biological principles are present throughout the year, but the volumes and INTENSITIES change, along with the emphasis put on the subcategories of each.  You can construct all of the constituents--from the biological principles--and yearly, monthly, weekly and daily ways of organization, to create any of the programs mentioned.  This is why I view vertical integration as an umbrella.  Through the combination of utilizing the three biological principles in sports training as the criteria for sports form, and the tried and true means of physical exercise, I believe I am able to best serve my athletes by constructing a training program individualized for them.

About Ryan

Ryan Williams is a physical preparation coach, consultant, writer, blogger, personal trainer, avid sports enthusiast, and ex-athlete still looking for an edge. He graduated cum laude from Waynesburg University with a degree in exercise physiology and a minor in biology. He previously served as the head of physical preparation at Waynesburg University for the football team for two years. Ryan can be reached via his website, www.willpreparefitness.com.

Read More

Interview with Ida Clark

I was lucky enough to be introduced to Ida Clark by professor Robert Pettitt, with whom she did a lot of research on CP/W’ and CV/D’ models, along with 3 minute test (3 MT). The presentationIda did on Critical Power and Graded Exercise Testing is great resource that I have posted and referred to numerous times.

This summer Ida was in her homeland Sweden and she have visited me in Hammarby IF training ground in Stockholm. We have spent couple of hours talk shopping about uses of Critical Power model. I decided to interview her so everyone can learn as well.  All I can say is enjoy the insights!

Mladen: Thanks for your time to do this interview. Let’s begin with some information about you – who you are, what you do, how you end up here and what are your future plans?

Ida: My name is Ida Clark, I am originally from Vallentuna, Sweden where I grew up. At the age of 17, I went to Canada for one year to play ice hockey at a hockey school in Alberta. After that year came back to Sweden to finish high school. Out of high school I got recruited by Minnesota State University’s (MSU) ice hockey team. I came here when I was 20. I played 4 years for MSU and received my bachelor in Physical Education non-teaching. During my last year as an undergraduate Dr. Robert Pettitt was my professor and advisor. During that time he had just started to read about the 3-min all-out tests and was very intrigued about it. When I took exercise physiology as an undergraduate I fast realized I wanted to work within the field. I bothered Dr. Pettitt every day with questions and he saw how pensioned I was about the topic. He offered me to come back after finishing my bachelor and pursue my masters in Exercise Physiology, at the same time work with him on developing a 3-min all-out test for running, I never hesitated to accept. 

During my 2 year Master’s degree I worked as a Graduate Assistant in the lab where I taught lab for undergraduate and conducted a variety of research but for the most part within the 3-min all-out test. When I graduated with my masters the professor who at the time taught exercise physiology resigned. Dr. Pettitt saw the opportunity to hire me as an Assistant Professor as I had no jobs lined up at the time and I knew the laboratory better than anyone else. So here I am, my second year as an Assistant Professor at MSU.

During this summer (2014) I went to Exeter University, UK and visited Dr. Andrew Jones and Dr. Annie Vanhatalo’s Lab. I met with them and we discussed my future to go and get my Phd at Exeter University, Fall 2014.        

Mladen: Let’s talk GXT (Graded Exercise Testing) for athletes. Is there protocol dependency in the GXT results? In other words, are there differences in scores (VO2max, vVO2max, GET [Gas Exchange Threshold], vGET) when one uses 1 min stages and 2 or even 3 minutes stages with 1km/h increase per stage? In some GXT we have done and in which I couldn’t request different protocol, I have seen pretty high results in vVT2 (Ventilatory Threshold) and vVO2max when 1 min stages were used and I knew the athletes were not that fit.

Ida: In our lab we use customized protocols for every subject that comes in to do a GXT, always done in 1-min stages. The test itself should be somewhere between 8-12 min long for accurate results. If the test is longer than that you can get faulty results. We conduct a verification bout 3 min after the GXT is done. This is done at 2 stages below the end stage of vVO_2max, lasting about 3 min in length. The verification bout serves the purpose to verify VO_2max. If the subject reaches a higher VO₂ in the verification bout you know the GXT was not done correctly or the subject quit early. I would recommend you to go and read Morton, 2011 in J Sports Sci, he explains why the peak power is higher in steeper ramp protocols.  Though I do think you see higher results when performing 1 min stages on your “unfit” athletes due to their high W’.

Mladen: Speaking of VO2max, in more than 50% of athletes there is no clear plateau in VO2max so secondary criteria has to be used. Is this no plateau effect related to protocol design and individual CP/CV (critical power/critical velocity)? For example, if two athletes have vVO2max of 19 km/h, but athlete A has CP of 16km/h and athlete B has 13km/h, how would that effect GXT and VO2max plateau taking into account that both did same protocol? Will athlete A (lower CP) show plateau with higher chance because longer time in GXT over CP or in some cases will he quit before even reaching vVO2max due depletion of W’ if longer stages are used?

Ida: I have seen some subjects plateau and some peak. We have not done any research on if someone reaches a plateau dependent on their CP/CS. Though each subject will reach VO_2max during a GXT that been administrated correctly, W’/D’ don’t matter.  If you use the verification bout after the GXT the plateau is a non-issue.

Mladen: Tell us more about thresholds – what is the difference between first and second ventilatory threshold, GET, Lactate threshold (~2mmol), Anaerobic Threshold (~4mmol), Maximum Lactate Steady State (MLSS) and CP? How these are related and are they protocol dependent? For lactate testing stages should usually be longer than 4 min with some passive rest in between – can this be avoided with ventilation parameters using shorter stages? Can you share some scores in team athletes you are working with, in terms of velocities?

Ida: There are many different ways to calculate one’s threshold. You can calculate it with help of Ventilatory threshold (VT), GET and Lactate Threshold (LT). Though they all mean the same; when one is going from exercising in the moderate intensity domain to exercising in the heavy exercise domain (changing from using krebs’ cycle as their primary source of fuel to using lactate). When estimating threshold from VT you look at VE/VCO2 and VE/O2 (where VE is minute ventilation). VT1 is the ventilatory equivalent for VE/VO2 with VE/VCO2 level or slightly inclining (see below). VT2 is the inflection point for VE/VCO2, this is where once threshold should be estimated.

1 = VT1; 3 = VT2

GET we calculate with help of the v-slope method where we take VCO2-VO2 in L/min. This will give us a graph we can use to estimate once threshold, we look for the breaking point (see below)

 

Copyrighted material

In both these methods we look at respiratory equivalent (RQ) and make sure it is around 1.

Lactate and anaerobic testing you usually use 3 min stages where after each stage you prick for lactate until a inflection point >1mmol is present. When the 3 min is up and you have pricked for lactate you increase the power output or the speed and continue the next stage, the test should take ~20min.

I believe it’s unnecessary to use Lactate to evaluate one’s threshold, it is a messier technique and time consuming. We use GET in our lab as it is easier method to administer and to find the break point of V-slope. The data is very reliable using the V-Slope (see Markus Amann comparing GET to LT).

CP or MLSS is the parameter that distinguishes the heavy and severe exercise domain. If you exercise at a intensity above CP you will have a slow component present while if exercising below CP slow component with a delayed steady state will be present. 

  

When estimating CS from our athletes we have found that women distance runners have an average CS of 4.5m/s while soccer players are at 3.3 m/s.

Mladen: Critical Power is very interesting parameter. Can you tell us more about the usual estimations of it compared to the new 3-min test? How hard is to administer 3-min test? How do you manage to get maximum effort from team sport athlete in 3 min all-out test? How applicable is the test in long-season sports  (like soccer) and how often should it be repeated?

Ida: The 3-min all-out test (3MT) is the easiest way to get one’s CP/CS. You can do several exhaustive bouts at different intensities to estimate CP as well. To do the biking 3MT you need a bike with a load ergometer which most regular people do not have. We are currently working on how to make the 3MT more applicable to the population. The running 3MT is very easy to do, we have our students in Exercise Science here at MSU administering their own tests, where they calculate CS, D’, maximum performances at different distances and individualized intervals for themselves.  There is a few way to administer it, either with a GPS watch, a cell phone or by video digitizing. With the GPS watch you just download the results on to a excel spread sheet. With the cell phone you need a track and put up cones with 20meters in between and record every time the subject runs part the cone, with this you can solve m/s there where traveling at during the test and then D’ and CS. With the video digitizing you do the same as with cell phone but instead record every time they pass a cone. You need to tell them to run all out and we have had success with all the athletes (soccer, hockey, track) we have tested this far. 

When you calculate the velocity of the subject and then graph it you can detect for pacing, if you have an athlete that do pace you need to correct for it when calculating CS and D’ or have the subject re-tested. I believe the test is very applicable especially when it comes to intervals. We have our athletes complete the intervals twice a week, if they do them more (together with their normal training) they might over train as the last interval is designed to run them to exhaustion.            

Mladen: One idea I have is to administer 3-min test using 20-40m shuttles for couple of reasons. First one is that breaking the distance one doesn’t reach higher velocities which could lead to hamstring pull especially at the beginning of training period. Second, one might be that the test is more sport/testing specific and involves CODs. Third one is interesting – with new GPS devices and software (CATAPULT) one is able to estimate Metabolic Power using velocity and acceleration data. Having Power estimates, instead of velocity, at least in theory, might be of better use in sports that involve a lot of start-stop activities to quantify their workloads. Have you ever tried to do something like this?

Ida: No we have never tried using Metabolic power instead of velocities. Though I do not see the idea why we need to, as the subjects are running at velocities in game and practice I believe that is the measurements we should use. We are currently working on something in this manner but can’s share any data. We have tried to do the 3MT on hockey players too and found that 150s is not needed to deplete their W’, we can do it in 90sec.

Mladen: Thank you one more time for taking your time to do this interview. Thank you very much for your insights and good luck with the future projects.

Read More

Quick correction in simulating Typical Error

I am awaiting review and opinions/critiques from statistics wizzard Will Hopkins for my How to visualize test change scores for coaches, but even on his first look he pointed to one small error I did in simulating typical error for vertical jump. It is not huge error, but it is an error in representing typical error in measurement.

What I did wrong?

This is what I did wrong (for this example I will generate 1000 athletes/samples)

# Load library for random names generation for athlete
library(randomNames)

# Simulate vertical jump scores for 1000 players, with an average of 55cm
# and SD of 6cm We are going to repeat the assessment on two days in the
# same conditionins and add some 'noise'
set.seed(505)

reliabilityTest1CM_old <- rnorm(1000, mean = 55, sd = 6)
reliabilityTest2CM_old <- reliabilityTest1CM_old + runif(1000, min = -2, max = 2)

# Let's name those 1000 athletes
reliabilityPlayerNames_old <- randomNames(1000)

# Put the data in data frame
reliabilityData_old <- data.frame(Athlete = reliabilityPlayerNames_old, Test1 = reliabilityTest1CM_old, 
    Test2 = reliabilityTest2CM_old)

# Calcualte the differences between tests
reliabilityData_old <- within(reliabilityData_old, Diff <- Test2 - Test1)

Here are our first 10 athletes from the table

	Athlete	Test1	Test2	Diff
1	O'Connor, Joshua	48.27	49.04	0.76
2	Matthews, Tisa	47.31	46.94	-0.37
3	Obi, Victoria	42.76	42.88	0.12
4	Leal, Alexandra	49.37	48.09	-1.28
5	Salazar, Ana	51.94	53.61	1.68
6	Nunez-Medina, Makeyla	52.52	53.17	0.65
7	Shin, Nicholas	49.54	49.81	0.28
8	Smith, Bruce	55.84	57.57	1.73
9	Bayarsaikhan, Gabriel	58.39	58.10	-0.29
10	Yarangsy, Miles	52.41	52.13	-0.27

What I did wrong is that I have added uniform noise to the first test

reliabilityTest1CM_old <- rnorm(1000, mean=55, sd=6)

reliabilityTest2CM_old <- reliabilityTest1CM_old + runif(1000, min=-2, max=2)

What I should have done to simulate this more methodically and correctly is to create real test scores and add normal “noise” (TE) to BOTH of them. Here is the right code

set.seed(505)

# Create the 'REAL' scores in vertical jump with mean=55 and SD=6 for 1000
# athletes
realVerticalJumpCM <- rnorm(1000, mean = 55, sd = 6)

# Now add 'noise' (TE) to both reliability tests. In this case noise has
# mean=0 and SD=1. If mean of the TE would be >0 then that would be a
# constant error.

reliabilityTest1CM <- realVerticalJumpCM + rnorm(1000, mean = 0, sd = 1)
reliabilityTest2CM <- realVerticalJumpCM + rnorm(1000, mean = 0, sd = 1)

# Let's name those 1000 athletes
reliabilityPlayerNames <- randomNames(1000)

# Put the data in data frame
reliabilityData <- data.frame(Athlete = reliabilityPlayerNames, Test1 = reliabilityTest1CM, 
    Test2 = reliabilityTest2CM)

# Calcualte the differences between tests
reliabilityData <- within(reliabilityData, Diff <- Test2 - Test1)

	Athlete	Test1	Test2	Diff
1	Martinez, Kuan-Hsuen	48.77	47.65	-1.12
2	Earvin, Colton	47.38	46.84	-0.54
3	Vigil, Analee	44.16	43.63	-0.53
4	Bruce, Victoria	49.55	49.44	-0.11
5	Slechter, Joshua	51.76	52.26	0.50
6	Kaeser, Lnay	52.35	54.24	1.89
7	Shibles, Kevin	50.82	49.11	-1.70
8	Russell, Jonathan	54.21	56.85	2.64
9	Chavez, Selena	58.96	58.21	-0.75
10	Saldivar, Ebonnie	51.09	52.33	1.24

Here is the histogram of difference scores between test1 and test2 in both methods

par(mfrow = c(1, 2))

hist(reliabilityData_old$Diff, 30, col = "red", main = "Old method with uniform error", 
    xlab = "Vertical Jump difference [cm]")

hist(reliabilityData$Diff, 30, col = "blue", main = "Correct method wih normal error", 
    xlab = "Vertical Jump difference [cm]")

Let's calculate TE for both simulations. I need to copy paste our function for TE calculus first.

typicalError <- function(data, test1 = "Test1", test2 = "Test2", na.rm = TRUE) {
    # Remove the missing values
    if (na.rm) 
        data <- na.omit(data)

    # Calculate the difference from named collums
    diff <- data[[test2]] - data[[test1]]

    return(sd(diff)/sqrt(2))
}

# Calculate Typical Errors for both simulations
TE_old <- typicalError(reliabilityData_old)
TE_correct <- typicalError(reliabilityData)



cat("Simulation #1 with uniform error\nTE=", round(TE_old, 3), "\n")

## Simulation #1 with uniform error
## TE= 0.822

cat("\nSimulation #2 with normal error\nTE=", round(TE_correct, 3), "\n")

## 
## Simulation #2 with normal error
## TE= 0.987

As you can see, TE in correct method of simulation (TE=0.987) is VERY close to SD=1 of our normally distributed noise we have added to the “real” vertical jump.

I hope I haven't made any errors now… But Will will notice :)

Read More