Just because you read it in an article; that does not mean it is true. Even if that article references a “study” that was done on the topic.
I could do a study and put it in an article – titled “Why hockey players should eat chocolate donuts after training”. Then I could ask all the hockey players that come into the gym – “Do you think I should let you eat chocolate donuts after your workouts?”
They would all answer “Yes” and there you have it a study that shows hockey players should eat donuts after working out.
It sounds crazy, but that is exactly what you find in so many of these magazine and online articles. You are reading someone’s opinion.
Even here, you are reading my opinion of how hockey players should train to maximize their performance while reducing their risk of injury. That opinion is based on 6-years of university study on the topic and over 20-years experience, but it is still my opinion. Just the same as you get from Mike Boyle or Kevin Neeld and I read their stuff religiously and listen to what they say.
Some opinions might not have the same value so beware.
If you see an article that references a “study” and it is in anyway legit, there will be a link to the actual study somewhere in the article (typically at the very bottom) and that should be from a peer reviewed academic publication – not a newsletter from XYZ hockey association.
You should then look up that article and give it a read yourself to see what they actually studied, what the actual results were and how the conclusions were made.
Is the research method sound? Did they find significant difference? Is the statistically significant difference actually significant from a practical perspective for the sport, for example if a study shows that heavy barbell jump squats will increase skating speed by 0.01% – – would I be likely to start doing that with our athletes? Not in a million years.
Actual research is found in scientific journals. Case studies or anecdotal reports are what is found in most popular media and online.
If I change my program design methods (like I did for this off-season) and our athletes score way better on their testing, do awesome at their training camps and their performance during the season goes through the roof, then I will tell you all about it. I will even share the testing data with you, but that is still not “research” because there are so many uncontrolled variables.
So like always buyer beware – just because you read it in a magazine or see it online or there is a “study” referenced this does not equal the strict confines of research.
It can be helpful and applicable opinion based on observations, which can be very awesome, but you still have to give it the sniff test (if it looks like dog poop and smells like dog poop – – then it probably is dog poop).
Cheers!
M
Updated for May 2015!! UGT 3.0 – the pro-style off-season training program for goalies. SAVE $131 today.