Arts or Science in athletic training. 
last chapter of the best-selling book & Order disorder ", the friendly Neapolitan philosopher Luciano De Crescenzo, after defining what one or the other (Order = Mind, Heart Disorder =) carry out an analysis and cataloging of characters with different humanity, not to mention the saints, poets, scientists and men of other sports and defining between glia:
-
Coppi, Platini, Rivera - Sorted;
-
Bartali, Maradona - disorder.
At the end, the author invites the reader to delight in continuing in this analysis and listed. Assure that those who, like myself (Prof. P. Iodice, my father ed), he has experimented in the game, was disqualified when it was called a catalog, first of himself, and then: colleagues, technicians, trainers and operators of the sports world (including me!).
rigor science and creativity, certainty and the dilemma, the positive and negative, have always divided the human mind so that probably dovto man has invented the "doubt", perhaps unable to discern one from the another.
Emipricità or art or science and methodology, are still dilemmas aback by even the most careful and accredited professionals in our industry.
During an international conference, which took place far away and in 1980 in Tel Aviv (Israel), with a provocative theme: "The art or science of training" then people were already disturbing questions.
not remember to have been reached, even in that accreditatissima based on definitions on the greater or lesser validity of either.
Wanting to reconcile the theories today, we could define:
-
Art - The ability to manipulate the various elements of training to obtain optimal results;
-
Science - The rigorous application of methods , technologies and programs based on principles all conclusive.
In sport in general as well as in competitive sports, as there are no wizards or sorcerers, repositories of magical spells that can transform an ordinary athlete into a champion, there are no formulas and techniques of athletic training miraculous.
The genetic ratio (see post # 2 posted 01/05/10), supported by fair and appropriate activities, all the more appropriately and skilfully and varied, over time can enhance the performance.
In recent years, the science of training has been an exponential increase in what has been placed in parallel with the biomechanical and biomedical sciences from which it draws all the time, knowledge and study method is to search for that ' practical application.
As for the "therapeutic protocol" used in the medical / rehabilitation, is now coming to the encoding of training and preparation of athletic sports.
The main difference is that: for a drug may be conducted, prior to launch trials and laboratory testing, with regard to athletic preparation, its administration or coincides with the trial itself or is assigned the same, inspiration extemporaneous artistic coach.
If the medical history, diagnosis, prognosis and therapy are the exercise protocol of medical science, how science is applied in daily physical training?
If the basis for a proper methodological approach should be:
-
Knowledge - The know-how
- Knowing how to do
from critical examination of our daily work, how many different answers to "know" we develop with our work?
The conclusion by citing a maximum of Prof. C. Bosco think to say, after a rigorous introspective analysis that "the best coach is not one who is mistaken."
[taken from the records of the national convention FIAS '96 Ischia by Prof. Pasquale Iodice lecturer at the Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Cassino]
The pain caused by plantar fasciitis, inflammation of the plantar aponeurosis may be contrasted with the stretching. According to a U.S. study, published by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, stretching is a good ally in the acute forms, even more effective than shock waves. The research was conducted on one hundred patients: half followed a program of stretching exercises three times daily for 8 weeks, the others were subjected to 3 sessions of therapy with shock waves, one per week. Following treatment, 65% of patients who did stretching were satisfied the results, compared with 29% of those who were treated with shock waves. 
