ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2013
On self-propagating methodological flaws in performance normalization for strength and power sports.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Handgrip Strength Research in Sports Performance: A Bibliometric Review of Applications, Trends, and Future Directions.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An allometric large-scale analysis of the observed performance limits and sex differences in elite powerlifting.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Age-Associated Rate of Decline in Grip Strength When Engaging in Vigorous Physical Activity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Understanding and Overcoming the Sticking Point in Resistance Exercise.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performance in strength and power sports is greatly affected by a variety of anthropometric factors. The goal of performance normalization is to factor out the effects of confounding factors and compute a canonical (normalized) performance measure from the observed absolute performance. Performance normalization is applied in the ranking of elite athletes, as well as in the early stages of youth talent selection. Consequently, it is crucial that the process is principled and fair. The corpus of previous work on this topic, which is significant, is uniform in the methodology adopted. Performance normalization is universally reduced to a regression task: the collected performance data are used to fit a regression function that is then used to scale future performances. The present article demonstrates that this approach is fundamentally flawed. It inherently creates a bias that unfairly penalizes athletes with certain allometric characteristics, and, by virtue of its adoption in the ranking and selection of elite athletes, propagates and strengthens this bias over time. The main flaws are shown to originate in the criteria for selecting the data used for regression, as well as in the manner in which the regression model is applied in normalization. This analysis brings into light the aforesaid methodological flaws and motivates further work on the development of principled methods, the foundations of which are also laid out in this work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23526417What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.