Brent S. Rushall
San Diego State University

October, 2003

red divider line

This discourse considers coaching development and/or education schemes and programs. However, since many avenues for the content involve practicing individual coaches, there will be an occasional need to consider them and their contribution to educational enterprises.


Belief-based Coaching is a common and traditional form of coaching. Its guides for practices are usually a mix of personal experiences, some limited education about sport sciences, selected incomplete knowledge of current coaching practices, and self-belief in that how coaching is conducted is right. Changes in coaching practices occur through self-selection of activities. The accumulated knowledge of belief-based coaching is subjective, biased, unstructured, and mostly lacking in accountability. Belief-based coaching also includes pseudo-scientific coaching. Pseudo-scientists attempt to give the impression of scientific knowledge but invariably their knowledge is incomplete resulting in false/erroneous postulations. Belief-based coaching is normally the foundation of most coaching development schemes. Organizations are closed (isolated) systems resisting intrusions of contrary evidence that might alter the constancy of the beliefs and social structure. Logical (knowledge) entropy increases with time in these structures.

Evidence-based Coaching is a restricted and relatively rare form of coaching. Its guides for practices are principles derived from replicated reputable studies reported by authoritative sources in a public manner. Often there is consideration of objective studies that do and do not support principles. Evidence-based coaches have fewer guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for accomplishing particular training effects. The accumulated knowledge of evidence-based coaching is objectively verified and structured. However, evidence-based coaching principles are developed in a fragmented scientific world. It could be somewhat difficult to gather all the relevant knowledge into an educational scheme. Organizations are open systems structured to constantly accept new knowledge and concepts. Logical (knowledge) entropy decreases markedly as order is established.

Entropy (knowledge or logical) measures the degree of disorder or error in a system. "It is a matter of common experience that disorder will tend to increase if things are left to themselves; one has only to leave a house without repairs to see that" (Hawking, 2002, p. 76). It is not measured in physical units like thermodynamic entropy but rather, is measured by some imposed convention.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. When entropy is considered, it usually is in association with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states "Entropy in a closed system can never decrease." Logical entropy in an isolated system always increases with time. Moreover, when two isolated systems are joined, the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the entropies of the individual systems. The join of isolated systems results in multiplicative logical entropy. In layman's terms, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is Murphy's Law, "things always get worse."

Belief-based Coaching Development

Coach education and development systems have a high degree of isolation. It is contended that coaching development displays much entropy and therefore, is in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Some of the characteristics of coaching development and activity as related to the Second Law are listed below.

  1. When coaches are left alone and do not continually upgrade their knowledge with evidence-based events, they invent matters that lead to greater disorder [error].
  2. When coaches steeped in entropy combine, such as at "World clinics" or the writing of coach-education manuals, the result is greater myth and confusion than improved clarity of knowledge.
  3. The only way to improve coaching knowledge is to change entropic individuals (coaches full of unfounded beliefs) to accept valid ordered knowledge, that is, evidence-based knowledge. The introduction of orderliness, if it is accepted, reduces error .
  4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has a behavioral counterpart. With each human repetition of an idea, error is introduced. Eventually, "the idea" has little resemblance to the original. This is seen in the children's game of "Chinese telephone" when a statement is whispered to another child, and whispering exchanges are repeated several times to new children. The end of the game is to see how much the original message was distorted through the repetition. Other examples are in religions. Few if any modern day religions encompass only their original dicta. For example, "maternality", a central feature of the Jewish faith, is not a basic characteristic of the Judaic Talmud. More frequently, Islamic pronouncements have no grounding in the Koran. The Catholic Church offers "interpretations" of one version of the bible, most leading to greater disorder.

The development of belief-based coaching principles is akin to "rationalism", the subjective method that relies largely on human reason as being the source of knowledge. Rationalists believed that an important group of foundational concepts are known intuitively through reason, as opposed to experience or reliable observation. They maintained that truths could be deduced with absolute certainty from innate ideas, much the way theorems in geometry are deduced from axioms. When producing coaching "guidelines", coaches are often imbued with intellectual and knowledge capacities that are unwarranted.

In sport, many practices are advocated without any evidence of their value or relatedness to performance. For example, in swimming the concept of "lift" forces for propulsion has never been directly observed or measured. It is a belief-based entity and the more it is discussed, the greater becomes its entropy and its movement away from the original concept (theory). There is overwhelming misinformation (error) in the "science of swimming" concerning the topic of lift [For more on lift, see the specific example presented later in this article].

When the coaching knowledge of a sport is based on "self-evident truths", sport participants are threatened with exposure to a preponderance of coaching errors rather than sound practices. When a sport's knowledge is based upon the self-discovery or limited experiences of personal observations of a few, entropy will be rampant. When the leader of a powerful sport organization adheres to the value of belief-based coaching over evidence-based coaching, the sport is in trouble and particularly evidenced by the general slow changes in performance of its participants. In several cases, performances might even worsen rather than improve. The following assertion of a powerful sport leader exemplifies the expanding entropic nature of the sport.

In truth, the fact that a scientist tells me that something "cannot be", says to me only that they have not yet found the proper instrument to examine the case, because endlessly repetitive experience confirming the same results is more significant, (in my limited mind) than all the scientists in the world saying something does not work.....(I am not speaking of the silly things like . . . , but like some of the other "myths" as Brent calls them.) [Personal communication, anonymous, January, 2003].

What is readily observed in coaching is that when one has an idea or experience that "sounds good" it is promoted as knowledge. In coaching experience, if something "works" at least once in an important setting, it is likely to be repeated as a "valuable" coaching procedure, despite completely ignoring all the times it does not work with other athletes. That has led to a set of characteristic coaching behaviors that often lead to the following manifestation: If an athlete wins, the coach will take credit and explain the reasons for the success. If an athlete loses, there is an inquisition into what the athlete did wrong to produce the "failed result".

Man is completely controlled by the laws of physics, even in behavioral choices. Therefore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is validly applicable to singular and group human behavior. There is no free will, spirit of the group, personal selection, etc. Claims of such are more an indication of ignorance than knowledge. Thus, freely promoted unsubstantiated coaching initiatives and discoveries as being valuable "guidelines" are most likely in error.

The coaching profession has frequently admitted a preponderance of errors in coaching. In the 1960s, coaching clinics, symposia, and more extensive education schemes began to emerge as expected activities of sport coaches. These educational experiences presented knowledge that was supposed to improve coaching effectiveness. In the beginning, a common theme was that the practices introduced to sport in the aftermath of the World War II were steeped in the "out-dated" ("erroneous") procedures of the pre-war years. In the 1970s, the errors of coaching in the 1950s and early 1960s were "exposed" and better or "correct" directives were presented. In the 1980s, new activities were embraced with greater enthusiasm to advance on what had accumulated or needed to be discarded in the previous decades. The continual revision of what should be coached and how to do it not only resulted in the expansion of revisionist beliefs, but also implied a significant extent of erroneous past practices. At that time, this behavior resulted in some individuals forming conclusions about the consistency of coaching behavior and education. One interpretation of those conclusions was as follows.

  1. In 20 years time, the coaching practices of today will be said to have been wrong.
  2. If what is being coached today will be shown to be wrong in the future, why not coach the way they will be coaching in 20 years?
  3. It takes at least 10 and more like 20 years to implement discoveries in sport science into general coaching lore, if at all.
  4. Why not scour today's applied sport science for coaching implications and coach with that knowledge today rather than waiting for 20 years?

In some isolated cases, the above conclusions and logic were implemented with outstanding success (e.g., Canadian swimming, 1976-84; Canadian wrestling, 1976-1984; Canadian cross-country skiing 1984-1988). However, their insignificance in relation to the total sporting world did not impact the profession in any marked way. Despite the exploding field of applied sport science, belief-based coaching practices still dominate to this day.

Evidence-based coaching makes predictions that can be verified (observed). Belief-based coaching usually explains why an event occurred and is protected by time past. Belief-based coaches relate why something happened with little chance of ever testing the associations depicted in the explanation. A saving-face for belief-based coaches when predicting is its appeal to vagueness or recognition of an inability to predict. This serves to inflate the Principle of Uncertainty beyond reasonable limits so that error can be disguised as uncontrolled "nature" rather than deliberate disorder. In scientific and "school-yard" terms, that is a "cop-out".

In life as we know it, there are many more disordered states than ordered ones. Without verifiable evidence, there are many variously unconstrained coaching states. Evidence limits the lack of constraints, much in the same way that a jig-saw puzzle arrives unsolved in a box in complete disorder only to become ordered as pieces are fit together on the way to a singularity.

Coaching will remain disordered unless evidence-based principles are introduced to the knowledge base. A weakness in this requirement is its applications. Individuals who now lead coaching disorder would have to change and become more ordered when evidence-based predictions are introduced into coaching practices. That is a threat to organizational inertia (the comfort level of disorder perpetuated by "leaders"), and so it is unlikely to be altered. Fear, usually expressed as derision of good sports science, is the hallmark of a perpetuation of disorder (ignorance) in sport coaching.

The challenge is to discriminate "good" from "bad" sport science. Bad sport science usually stems from a restricted source established by invalid scientific procedures such as the "appeal to authority", "armchair theorizing", or the postulation of "self-evident truths". Verifiability is lacking in all of these procedures. On the other hand, good sport science emanates from the practices of natural science. Principles are derived from independent replications of investigations that inductively lead to the same conclusions. Such conclusions are usually conveyed more strongly if done by someone not involved with the original investigations (an independent source or rigorous form of analysis such as "meta-analysis"). An example is in order.

For the sport of swimming, coaches generally agree that all swimmers have to work "hard". That has led to the general acceptance of swimmers being in overtrained states for long periods under the guise of being a sound and desirable practice. Not only is this phenomenon entrenched in experiences such as "hell weeks", it is also applied to all age-groups. Developmental scientists can offer conclusive evidence that excessive specialized activity before puberty is undesirable if long-term specialized performance goals are important. That is not acceptable to swimming coaches who believe to the contrary (and thus place many young people at risk). The following statement (personal communication, anonymous, January, 2003) was issued by a coaching leader who propagates belief-based coaching when developing a program for the sport's annual clinic.

There are two areas for the program (potentially) that I do not have specific names for.....The second is a child-development "expert" who can come across as someone who can HELP us understand how best to work with 12 and unders, and not recite 25 reasons why children should not be doing specialized sports before the age of 12, etc.

There is evidence in the coaching of swimming that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is obvious. In environments where swimming talent is not recruited, but occurs naturally, there are histories of coaches who are successful for a finite period and then become less successful. Some unintended factor (usually a very talented individual) accounts for the supremacy before further disorder overwhelms the notable factor(s) and the true state of increasing entropy is once again attained. The talented individual survives despite coaching entropy. This phenomenon is recognized in the adage "great athletes make great coaches".

The aged leaders of coaching organizations were steeped in perceiving coaching when there was little evidence compared to what is known today. It is a rare and brave person who grows with time and knowledge to often contradict something proposed at an earlier time. A failure to keep abreast of expanding verifiable knowledge and its implications for orderliness will halt progress and retain or regress in error. That will be reflected in the outcomes of such knowledge, the performance of athletes. When records and personal achievements are not advancing in a sport, it is usually because disorder is being maintained or produced rather than order being introduced and performance outcomes improved.

What is the solution to this problem? Possibly, follow the lead of objective individuals or groups who verify independent implications (predictions) of scientists who have conducted error-and bias-free research. Evidence-based coaching principles are produced in this manner and are accountable.

Science never will be perfect. Quantum mechanics has shown that events cannot be predicted with total accuracy because there is always a degree of uncertainty. As Stephen Hawking has pointed out (Hawking, 2003, p. 161), there is a new goal of science that differs to the older aim of discovering absolute order.

Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle. [The aim is to discover order recognizing the possibility of exceptions.]

Popular coaching knowledge and leadership move opposite to this goal no matter what claims are advanced. The usual practices and methods of gathering coaching guidelines and principles are mostly at fault.

Evidence-based Coaching Development

The development of evidence-based coaching principles depends upon having several independent published scientific studies that report similar findings about human behavior and therefore, deemed to be of substantive and reliable merit. An illustration of this procedure will show how information is derived to form an evidence-based coaching principle.

Table 1 lists research findings and references associated with carbohydrate supplementation and feeding in females. Several of the studies compare genders and indicate that a principle that is developed for females will be different to that for males. The references in the table focus mainly on females. More studies would have to be considered in the table to conclude something about males.

In the table there are 11 citations. Ten studies support one interpretation and study #11 supports a contrary finding [perhaps a manifestation of the Principle of Uncertainty]. It would be wrong to focus on the findings of study #11 and propose that the implications of the other 10 studies are "wrong" (as might be done in belief-based coaching). What these studies show is that carbohydrate supplementation during exercise and carbohydrate loading before exercise are largely ineffective for improving female performances in activities that are mostly aerobic in nature. Those implications are contrary to coaching advocacies in many sports today. There are a variety of reasons for this contrary position becoming evident, a major one being that a large amount of historical sport science research has been conducted using only college male subjects. However, it is becoming evident that there are many gender differences in function and performance determinants to the extent that a separate area of study of female athletes, that is, where study subjects are females, is warranted.



What the Study Showed




Jarvis, A. T., Felix, S. D., Sims, S., Coughlin, M., Jones, M. T., & Headley, S. A. (1997).



Kirwan, J. P., O'Gorman, D., Campbell, D., Yarasheski, K. E., & Evans, W. J. (1997).



Titchenal, C. A., Graybill-Yuen, R. B., Yuen, K. Q., Ho, K. W., & Hetzler, R. K. (1998).



Paul, D. R., Mulroy, S. M., Horner, J. A., & Jacobs, K. A. (1999).



Partington, S., Stupka, N., Rennie, C., Ridell, M., Armstrong, D., & Tarnopolsky, M. A. (2000).



Pritzlaff, C. J., Wideman, L., Weltman, J. Y., Gaesser, G. A., Veldhuis, J. D., & Weltman, A. (2000).



Carter, S. L., Rennie, C. D., & Tarnopolsky, M. A. (2000).



Jacobs, I., Moroz, D., Tikuisis, P., & Vallerand, A. (2000).



Andrews, J., Sedlock, D. A., Flynn, M. G., Navalta, J., & Ji, H. (2001).



Speers, V. R., McLellan, T. M., Grisso, C. A., Smith, I. F., & Rodgers, C. D. (2001).



Backman, L. D., Taylor, A. W., & Lemon, P. W. (2000).

Although less than an exhaustive list of references, the table supports the postulation of two evidence-based coaching principles.

  1. Female athletes do not derive performance benefits from supplemental carbohydrate feedings before or during extended high-intensity performances (studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10).
  2. Females use carbohydrates in exercise differently to males (studies 5, 6, 7, 8).

Study 11 in Table 1 offers contradictory evidence to the six studies that suggest coaching principle #1. However, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that coaches need not emphasize carbohydrate diets, supplements, or loadings in females to the same extent they would in males. Coaching principle #2, which is derived from a less than exhaustive review of the literature, recognizes a physiological basis for a gender difference in carbohydrate use and metabolism in strenuous exercise.


This section illustrates the types of knowledge developed about the same phenomenon from a closed belief-based system and an open evidence-based system. The reader can judge the degree of error developed under each system.

This writer has criticized the concept of lift being an important factor in the generation of swimming propulsion (Rushall et al, 1994; Rushall, 2002). Those forays have caused considerable reaction from individuals who have committed their opinions to lift being the major propulsive component in swimming.

John Waring (2003) criticized Rushall's (2002) concepts of lift and their applicability to swimming. In doing so, several erroneous statements and important omissions were revealed. An illustration (See Figure 1) of a thrown kickboard was used to demonstrate what Waring proposes as the manner in which forces in swimming propulsion are developed. cartoon of flow lines

This illustration is a cartoon of a supposed event. Unfortunately, in many sports, and in particular swimming, cartoons are often promoted as representing real phenomena leading to a large body of false and erroneous knowledge (entropy) that fits beliefs rather than true phenomena.

With the thrown kickboard, there are several errors in fact.

  1. When a kickboard is thrown, it normally is spun, not stable. Consequently, air flow is asymmetrical due to the spin. That change in flow produces a number of flow characteristics not represented in the cartoon in Figure 1.
  2. A kickboard is hardly equivalent to a hand in shape. When thrown, it does not present itself in a manner that resembles how champion swimmers orient their hands when swimming (Rushall, 2002).
  3. The representation of only one phenomenon, that of "lift flow" favored by Mr. Waring, at the exclusion of other important forces and flow phenomena is misleading.

In the field of physics, there is a single principle that states "when fluid flow is altered, force/pressure differentials are created". There are three sets of discrete causes that alter fluid flow; asymmetrical deviation (as discussed here), spinning objects, and frictional distortion (e.g., the Coanda Effect). If a pressure differential is in the vertical plane, many usually called it a "lift force", an erroneous and confusing term that fails to discriminate the three different phenomena caused by the three completely different events. This author uses the term "true lift" to represent that caused by the combination of the Coanda Effect and downwash that results in flight. With spinning objects, the effect is commonly termed the Magnus Effect. With an asymmetrical object, the pressure differentials are the differences between the vertical component of the normal reaction (Newton's Third Law of Motion) and the negative vertical component of drag resistance. The thrown kickboard presented by Waring is a phenomenon that might never be seen for it is very difficult to produce in real situations.

Not all the contentious statements in Waring's paper are addressed in this discussion. Those selected are used to exemplify a belief guiding an involvement in sport science which has filtered down to a coaching periodical. Thus, the demonstrated entropy could influence some coaching practices.

An evidence-based approach was followed to evaluate Waring's criticisms of Rushall's thesis of true lift not existing in swimming propulsion. Waring's fictional cartoon was replicated in a real-life situation. A kickboard was transversely anchored in a small wind-tunnel. Any lateral flow of fluid around the sides of the anchored kickboard was not permitted. Smoke trails were used to photograph the air flow around the device. The fluid traveled at 2 m/s but did not replicate the exact fluid characteristics of water flowing around the board at that velocity. One could generate air flow to closely approximate water flow but that was not possible in this situation. However, it is contended that the phenomena witnessed are evidence of the real characteristics of the fluid flow about the object that was illustrated by Waring. The flow of air around the inclined kickboard is pictured in Figure 2.

Smoke trail over object

When a real kickboard was observed in fluid flow in a real wind-tunnel, it showed none of the characteristics claimed or illustrated by Waring. Some of the major differences between this evidence and Waring's beliefs were as follows.

  1. The path of fluid flow was convex over and well beyond the rear limit of the object.
  2. After the trailing edge, the inferior flow curled upward rather than continued in a straight line.
  3. There was greater disruption to air flow under the object than over the top.
  4. A "drag pocket" trailed the object in an asymmetrical manner. The "pull" of that pocket was slightly down. The force D would have a negative vertical force component and a horizontal force component.
  5. A large mass of air is diverted downward and acts similarly to a solid. As with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the contact between the board and air mass produces a normal reaction force, which is represented here as R.
  6. The difference between the vertical force component of the normal reaction and the negative vertical force component of the drag resistance could produce a tendency for the object to rise. That difference makes it possible to fly a kite. Kite flying is not that far removed from what Waring attempted to represent.
  7. Power to produce these various forces emanates from the engines that drove the air at 2 m/s.

The reader can discern whether the belief-based description of a thrown kickboard (Figure 1) is or is not representative of what actually happened in the evidence-based observation (Figure 2). No characteristics of the belief-based kickboard and fluid flow representation occurred in the real environment. The movement characteristics of an asymmetrical object in fluid flow are complex and not totally represented here. If the kickboard was free in the tunnel, it would have tumbled away in the direction of the fluid flow. The fluid flow around an asymmetrical object does not always produce a vertical force (incorrectly generalized as and termed "lift" when it is convenient to do so). The rudder on an airplane works the same way as does the observed board, except that it is orthogonal to the horizontal plane. The rudder on a boat also functions similarly. This simple use of an asymmetrical object to cause fluid flow distortion and to produce altered forces is commonly applied in everyday life. However, no force distortion can occur unless power is applied to the object, as occurs with the engines on a plane and sails on a yacht. That is not considered by Waring.

The wind-tunnel experiment was undertaken to examine truth in Waring's cartoon. In no way is it contended that what was shown in the wind-tunnel with the kickboard has any relevance for swimming. It simply was used to show that belief-based postulations need to be objectively verified before they are embraced.

The use of a fictional analogy by Waring to support an erroneous belief can only increase entropy in swimming coaching. On the other hand, the evidence-based observation can reduce entropy because it shows why the belief should not be embraced. It will stop some entropy growing. One strategy of evidence-based coaching is to remove as many fictions, panchrestons, and myths as possible so that coaching knowledge will consist of objectively verified content. That should improve coaching knowledge hopefully to the ultimate benefit of the athletes being coached.

This example attempted to show there can be a vast difference between belief-based and evidence-based explanations of the same phenomenon irrelevant as it may be to the sport for which it is intended.

Direct Implications for Coaching Development

The use of swimming examples in this paper is deliberate. Apart from providing a consistent theme, swimming coaching is one of the most open and obvious examples of belief-based coaching and coaching development. Beliefs are entrenched in the culture of swimming coaching. However, there are many other sports that warrant the criticisms that are inherent in an analysis of belief-based systems. The manner in which coaching principles and information are gathered is the commonest criterion for evaluating whether beliefs or evidence are used to generate information. While beliefs are easiest to foster, that does not mean they are the best source of information.

This brief commentary on the administration and growth of coaching development schemes showed the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are appropriate because its elements are manifested in belief-based coaching programs. Evidence-based coaching development is proposed as being a better alternative. The major points of the discussion and their implications are as follows.

Valid and appropriate sport science is closer to embracing natural science and discovering true causes of performance than belief. Belief fosters entropy and error. How much disorder (entropy, error) is involved in coaching will depend upon the extents to which evidence-based principles and beliefs are involved in the sport-coaching culture.

When asked to consider the arguments in this presentation, the renowned coach and career sport scientist Forbes Carlile of Australia, made the following comment (Carlile, personal communication, August 2, 2003).

You are correct; it is the "educators" and coaching directors who should get it right. These are the people you are addressing. It is to these educators, standing in for the scientists, that coaches should be willing and able to submit their ideas for objective, evidence-based criticism. Yet, as you have pointed out, there is a goodly portion of die-hard pseudo-scientific coaching ideas, for example "the myths of swimming", some of them very long-standing, which need to be flushed out by true scientists who may not be successful practicing coaches, may not be able to lay an egg, but can expose a bad egg when they come across one. That would help prevent talented athletes from being led down the garden path with false ideas by coaches overcome by their associated success. Yes, it is the influential educators who need to "apply the blowtorch" before UNRELIABLE knowledge gets into manuals and coaching courses. It is at these points I think you are saying, that at the very latest the scientists should come in before any seal of approval is given.

But in retrospect, think how many books and articles on swimming in the past and for that matter many of today could be judged greatly flawed. It is certain that all today's "truths" will need to be modified and perhaps it is a fact that "those who do not make mistakes do not make anything". The progress of learning seems to follow a zig-zag path.


  1. Andrews, J., Sedlock, D. A., Flynn, M. G., Navalta, J., & Ji, H. (2001). Carbohydrate loading and supplementation in trained female runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(5), Supplement abstract 933.
  2. Backman, L. D., Taylor, A. W., & Lemon, P. W. (2000). Effect of isoenergetic high vs low protein supplementation on body composition and performance in female rowers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), Supplement abstract 1664.
  3. Carter, S. L., Rennie, C. D., & Tarnopolsky, M. A. (2000). Endurance training results in a decrease in glucose RA/RD during exercise at both absolute and relative intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), Supplement abstract 1264.
  4. Hawking, S. W. (2003). The theory of everything. New York, NY: New Millenium Press.
  5. Jacobs, I., Moroz, D., Tikuisis, P., & Vallerand, A. (2000). Muscle glycogen in females after exercise at 9 and 21 degrees Celsius. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), Supplement abstract 1684.
  6. Jarvis, A. T., Felix, S. D., Sims, S., Coughlin, M., Jones, M. T., & Headley, S. A. (1997). The effect of carbohydrate feeding on the sprint performance of female cyclists following 50 minutes of high intensity exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5), Supplement abstract 723.
  7. Kirwan, J. P., O'Gorman, D., Campbell, D., Yarasheski, K. E., & Evans, W. J. (1997). Effects of a pre-exercise breakfast cereal on exercise performance and glucose production. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5), Supplement abstract 726.
  8. Partington, S., Stupka, N., Rennie, C., Ridell, M., Armstrong, D., & Tarnopolsky, M. A. (2000). Exogenous carbohydrate supplementation suppresses endogenous carbohydrate and protein oxidation in males and females. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), Supplement abstract 1063.
  9. Paul, D. R., Mulroy, S. M., Horner, J. A., & Jacobs, K. A. (1999). Carbohydrate-loading diets in women cyclists. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(5), Supplement abstract 880.
  10. Pritzlaff, C. J., Wideman, L., Weltman, J. Y., Gaesser, G. A., Veldhuis, J. D., & Weltman, A. (2000). Carbohydrate and fat oxidation during exercise and recovery: Effects of exercise intensity and gender. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), Supplement abstract 1068.
  11. Rushall, B. S. (2002). Lift is not a viable force in swimming propulsion. American Swimming Coaches Association Newsletter, 2002(5), 15-20.
  12. Rushall, B. S., Holt, L. E., Sprigings, E. J., & Cappaert, J. M. (1994). A re-evaluation of the forces in swimming. Journal of Swimming Research, 10, 6-30.
  13. Speers, V. R., McLellan, T. M., Grisso, C. A., Smith, I. F., & Rodgers, C. D. (2001). Carbohydrate ingestion is not affected by menstrual phase in moderately trained females. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(5), Supplement abstract 1599.
  14. Titchenal, C. A., Graybill-Yuen, R. B., Yuen, K. Q., Ho, K. W., & Hetzler, R. K. (1998). Effects of a fat-rich diet on maximal oxygen uptake and time-to-exhaustion in female triathletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(5), Supplement abstract 1141.
  15. Waring, J. (July-August, 2003). Drag is not enough. Swimming in Australia, 44-46.

red divider line

Click your browser's BACK BUTTON to return to the previous source.