Abstract
Tapering, a progressive reduction in training load before competition, is essential for optimising swimming performance, where outcomes can be determined by milliseconds. This study surveyed and described the self-reported knowledge, opinions and practices of swimming coaches, athletes and performance support staff regarding tapering, and examined the extent to which reported practices aligned with existing scientific recommendations. A total of 93 participants (coaches: n = 28, athletes: n = 38, support staff: n = 27) completed an online questionnaire on changes in training volume, intensity, frequency, and duration during a taper. Results showed consensus on reducing training volume (mean reduction: 39–49%) while maintaining training frequency. However, taper duration preferences varied, with coaches and athletes preferring shorter tapers (6–10 days), while support staff preferred evidence-based durations (∼14 days). Regarding training intensity, support staff advocated for maintaining or increasing intensity to preserve adaptations, while many coaches preferred intensity reductions to manage fatigue. Only 55% of athletes reported receiving individualised taper plans, highlighting a potential gap between theory and practice. These findings highlight the need for improved collaboration and education among coaches, athletes, and support staff. Additionally, future research should prioritise examining the efficacy of individualised tapering strategies informed by athlete-specific physiological and psychological factors in enhancing swimming performance.
Introduction
The pre-competition taper is an important part of an athlete's preparation for competition. 1 Tapering, a progressive reduction in training load leading into competition, aims to alleviate training-induced fatigue, which ultimately improves performance. 1 To effectively implement successful tapering strategies, coaches and support staff must understand how to effectively manipulate training load variables, which affect physiological and psychological function. 2 When programmed appropriately, tapering strategies typically improve performance by 2–3% (compared with pre-taper performance).3–7 This improvement is particularly crucial in swimming, where milliseconds can separate winners, medallists, and non-medallists.
Although general guidelines for taper design exist, 8 the tapering process is complex due to differing physiological demands across sports and variation in practices within and between disciplines. Specific to swimming, positive changes in psychological, physiological, and performance related variables occurred in tapers lasting between 7 and 28 days. 8 Competition schedule, event duration or distance, and individual athlete responses to training all play a role in optimal taper duration.6,9–11 Personal preference and coaching philosophy also impact taper design. 12 Broad recommendations across multiple sports suggest a 40–60% reduction in training volume for a duration of two weeks can enhance performance by 2–3%.9,11,13,14 Reducing training volume by 50–70% during a 21-day taper is effective in retaining and possibly improving training adaptations, with studies showing maintained performance in cyclists 15 and well-trained runners.16–19 Training intensity is crucial during a taper, 20 with recommendations indicating that intensity should be maintained throughout a tapering period. 8 When training intensity was reduced below 70% of VO2 max over a 2–4 week taper period, declines in sprint performance and muscle power in swimmers were observed.17,18 Alternatively, when high intensity efforts (maintaining or exceeding 90% of VO2 max) were incorporated within taper protocols, enhanced training-induced adaptations and improved performance in swimming and distance running were reported.9,17,21,22 However, the application of these recommendations to swimming is not straightforward. In contrast to sports such as running and cycling, swimming performance may be influenced by stroke-specific technical demands, differences in efficiency between strokes, and a broad range of event distances, all of which may shape how taper strategies are designed and implemented.
The range of tapering strategies used in original studies reflects the variability between athlete populations and sports.
8
This may create confusion for coaches and practitioners responsible for designing tapers for athletes. Swimming-specific evidence is needed because taper design occurs within a technically complex sport and may involve input from multiple stakeholder groups, including coaches, athletes, and performance support staff. In addition, there is growing interest in athlete-monitoring variables that may influence recovery and readiness, such as heart rate variability, sleep, hydration, mental fatigue, and menstrual-cycle-related factors, yet it is unclear how these variables are incorporated into taper decision-making in practice, or whether coaches and performance support staff differ in how they use such information. Several coaches reported consulting scientific literature to better understand tapering, and to develop a template for their tapering strategies.
2
Coaches also report development of tapering strategies through personal experience,
2
and rely heavily on subjective observation for other aspects of program design.
23
Although research findings and prior experience reportedly inform taper design, prior research discusses the physiological focus of tapering research, while other considerations (e.g., social factors) also influence the taper design.
2
Ultimately, coaches may use scientific principles as a broad framework but may rely heavily on experiential and informal learning when designing a taper.2,23 Characterising coach and support staff knowledge of tapering practices may inform future research targeting potential gaps between research and applied practice, thereby supporting improved translation to high-performance settings. The primary aim of this study was to survey and describe the self-reported knowledge, opinions, and current tapering practices of swimming coaches, athletes and support staff. A secondary aim was to examine whether physiological variables (heart rate variability, sleep quantity/quality, hydration, or mental fatigue) were reportedly considered when designing a taper. These aims were addressed via the following research questions:
What tapering practices (e.g., change in training volume, frequency, intensity, and duration) are reported by swimming coaches, athletes and support staff? Are there differences in reported tapering practices and perspectives between coaches, athletes, and support staff? To what extent do reported tapering practices align with current scientific recommendations? Do performance staff incorporate physiological variables (e.g., heart rate variability) in their decision-making when designing a taper?
Methods
Participants
Ninety-three participants completed this cross-sectional survey study (38 athletes, 28 coaches and 27 support staff). The survey was conducted through a self-administered online questionnaire using Qualtrics. Coaches, athletes, and support staff represented a range of competitive levels, from regional to international. All athletes were currently swimming and at least 18 years of age. Coaches and support staff were currently working in swimming and consisted of physiologists, movement scientists, biomechanists, dietitians, and strength & conditioning coaches. Participants were recruited internationally and based in Australia (n = 81), United Kingdom (n = 6), United States (n = 3), Ukraine (n = 1), Belgium (n = 1), and Turkey (n = 1). This study was approved by the University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Ethics Committee (S231839).
Questionnaire development and design
Three separate questionnaires were created using Qualtrics, tailored for each participant group. The research team, including applied sport scientists and researchers, developed the questionnaires. Item generation was informed by existing literature and practical considerations commonly reported in swimming environments to ensure relevance to applied practice. The questionnaires were designed to capture self-reported taper programming strategies, decision-making factors, and monitoring practices. Pilot testing of the questionnaires involved former state and national-level swimmers, coaches, and support staff to assess clarity, wording, and content relevance. Minor refinements to wording and structure were made following feedback. No pilot testing data were used as part of the main investigation.
The questionnaires were purpose-developed for this study to descriptively capture self-reported tapering practices and decision-making factors within high-performance swimming. As these questionnaires were developed to descriptively capture reported practices rather than measure underlying constructs, formal psychometric testing of construct validity and reliability was not conducted. Content validity was supported through literature-informed item development and pilot testing to ensure clarity and relevance.
The questionnaires contained a combination of multiple-choice, Likert scale (1–5), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 (0 was labelled ‘not at all important’ and 100 was labelled ‘extremely important’). Demographic information including geographical location, gender, the highest level of competition or involvement, years of experience in coaching, working, or competing, classification (para-athletes), main events for swimmers, and roles and qualifications for coaches and support staff were collected at the beginning of the survey. The questionnaires included four sections with different themes, including training programming variables; collaboration with other staff/athletes; typical taper type and implementation; and importance of different variables (e.g., heart rate variability, sleep duration, menstrual cycle, and mental fatigue).
Data collection
The questionnaires were designed to take ∼15 min to complete and were administered using Qualtrics, an online survey platform. Questionnaires were distributed by members of the investigative team through email and via LinkedIn and X. Prior to beginning the survey, participants were presented with the participant information sheet and informed consent form and were required to provide electronic consent before continuing. These questionnaires were completed anonymously.
Data analysis
All analyses were descriptive in nature, as the primary aim of the study was to characterise reported tapering practices and perspectives rather than formally test hypotheses regarding differences between groups. Consequently, inferential statistical comparisons between coaches, athletes, and support staff were not undertaken, and responses were summarised using descriptive statistics only. Responses to questions were summarised using counts, percentages, means, medians, standard deviations, and ranges. Means and standard deviations were used to summarise responses to questions answered on a continuous scale (e.g., sliding 0–100). Counts and percentages were used to summarise categorical responses (e.g., Likert scale). All statistical analyses were conducted using RStudio.24,25
Results
The results section details findings based solely on valid survey responses provided by participants, with instances of non-response excluded from analysis. Descriptive characteristics of the surveyed athletes, coaches and support staff are displayed in Table 1. There were 93 respondents to the survey (n = 47 female, n = 46 male), including coaches (n = 28), athletes (n = 38), and support staff (n = 27). The mean experience for coaches was 8.5 ± 3.2 years (mean ± SD) and for support staff was 7.5 ± 3.7 years. Athletes reported an average of 9.0 ± 2.9 years of swimming experience.
Descriptive characteristics of the surveyed coaches, athletes and performance support staff.
Changes in training variables
All responses regarding taper practices refer to changes relative to regular training. As shown in Figure 1, most respondents (76–92%) believe training volume should be reduced, while 4% suggested it remains the same. Regarding cumulative intensity modification (total intensity performed throughout the session), 41% of coaches recommended a decrease, 28% no change, and 10% an increase. Among support staff, 39% favoured an increase, and 39% no change. Athletes’ responses varied: 34% reported an increase, 24% a decrease, and 21% no change. For volume of work at a given intensity (total amount of work completed at a specific intensity), 38% of coaches suggested no change, 24% an increase, and 17% a decrease. Support staff largely agreed, with 65% recommending no change, 31% an increase, and 4% a decrease.
Proportion of survey responses from coaches (A), athletes (B), and support staff (C) regarding modification of different training load variables during a taper. Training load variables are depicted on the x-axis, while the y-axis displays the proportion of responses for each question. Each bar is divided into coloured segments, indicating the distribution of responses within each question.
Training frequency during a taper should remain consistent, according to coaches (69%), support staff (85%), and athletes (58%). Regarding training duration, 66% of coaches and 85% of support staff suggested a reduction, while 53% of athletes reported a decrease and 30% no change.
Figure 2 shows the percentage reductions recommended by coaches and support staff. Coaches reported mean decreases in training volume (49% ± 18%) and session duration (39% ± 29%), while support staff suggested reductions of 45% ± 18% and 38% ± 18% in training volume and session duration respectively. Coaches reported reducing work at a given intensity by 35% ± 34% (46% increased intensity, while the remainder made no change), and support staff reported reducing work at a given intensity by 18% ± 32% (28% increased intensity, while the remainder made no change). Training frequency was reduced by 29% ± 37% for coaches and 21% ± 27% for support staff.
Proportion of survey responses from coaches (A) and support staff (B) on percentage changes in tapering variables, including cumulative intensity, work at a given intensity, training duration, frequency, and volume (x-axis). The y-axis shows the reported percentage change, with each box plot representing the median, interquartile range, and the overall distribution of responses for each variable.
Taper duration preferences, perceived importance, and collaboration in taper design
Table 2 shows taper duration preferences, perceived importance, and collaboration in taper design. Coaches preferred tapers of 6–10 days (43%) or 11–15 days (18%), while support staff favoured 11–15 days (38%) or 21–25 days (17%). Athletes preferred 6–10 days (34%) or 0–5 days (24%).
Taper duration preferences, perceived importance, and collaboration in taper design.
The perceived importance of tapering was consistent with coaches rating it 84% ± 13%, support staff 84% ± 12%, and athletes 83% ± 13%, where 0% represented “not at all important” and 100% represented “extremely important”. Many coaches (68%) and support staff (76%) believed tapers should be individualised, while 55% of athletes reported their taper was usually individualised, and 26% followed a generic taper.
Regarding taper design, 46% of coaches collaborated with athletes, and 46% worked with support staff. However, 25% of coaches reported not having access to support staff. Among support staff, 45% collaborated with coaches and athletes, including 70% of physiologists, 80% of strength and conditioning coaches, and 50% of sports science generalists. Additionally, 21% collaborated occasionally, while 14% did not engage in taper design.
Taper modification based on specific variables
Figure 3 shows the likelihood of modifying taper programs based on specific variables. More than half of coaches were “likely” (45%) or “highly likely” (14%) to adjust based on sleep quality/quantity. Adjustments were also considered for mental fatigue (38%), hydration (29%), and heart rate variability (24%). Menstrual cycle was less influential, with 21% “unlikely” and 21% “unsure.”
Proportion of survey responses from coaches (A), athletes (B) and support staff (C) regarding modification of different physiological variables during a taper. Physiological variables are depicted on the x-axis, while the y-axis displays the proportion of responses for each question. Each bar is divided into coloured segments, including the distribution of responses within each question.
Among athletes, 26% reported coaches “likely” or “highly likely” to adjust based on mental fatigue. Of female athletes (n = 27), 19% reported taper adjustments for menstrual cycle, while 7% found it “highly unlikely.” Sleep adjustments were “likely” for 18%, and hydration adjustments were “highly unlikely” for 21%.
Support staff were “likely” to adjust for sleep (28%), mental fatigue (24%), and heart rate variability (21%). They showed less certainty for hydration and menstrual cycle (∼13% across categories) and had high rates of “unsure” or non-responses (>50%).
Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to survey and describe the reported taper design practices, knowledge, and perspectives among coaches, support staff, and athletes. Respondents generally reduced training volume and maintained training frequency during the taper; however, preferred taper durations varied, with coaches favouring 6–10 days and support staff aligning with the two-week recommendation.8,20 Intensity prescriptions were variable, but support staff favoured maintaining or increasing cumulative intensity during the taper, while 40% of coaches preferred decreasing cumulative intensity. Regarding work at a given intensity, athletes reported inconsistent experiences, whereas coaches and support staff predominantly recommended maintaining or increasing intensity. Additionally, while both coaches and support staff typically endorsed individualising tapers, only about half of the athletes reported receiving tailored taper plans. The relatively low levels of collaboration reported between groups reinforce the need for improved research translation to ensure both coaches and athletes are fully informed and engaged in their tapering process. Importantly, this apparent divergence from experimental taper recommendations is not unique to swimming, with previous studies in endurance and strength/power sports also reporting substantial variation in taper duration and in how intensity and frequency are manipulated in applied settings.26,27
Taper duration
Coaches predominantly favoured a 6–10 day taper, while athletes favoured 0–5 and 6–10 day tapers. These findings diverge from the literature, which suggests an optimal taper of two weeks.8,20 In contrast, support staff preferred a duration of 11–15 days, aligning with current guidelines.5,6,8,28 Support staff, particularly those with physiological backgrounds, may prioritise evidence derived from controlled taper studies, which typically demonstrate optimal recovery occurring over two weeks. In contrast, athletes and coaches may prioritise practical experience, favouring shorter taper durations. These findings suggest that taper duration decisions are likely shaped by differing conceptual models of fatigue and readiness. This pattern is consistent with previous practice-based tapering research showing that applied taper strategies are strongly context-dependent. For example, Spilsbury et al. 26 reported that in elite endurance athletes, taper duration is dependent upon the amount of training completed in the previous block, while Pritchard et al. 29 found that elite CrossFit athletes typically used shorter tapers (5.4 ± 2.7 days). Kenitzer and Raymond 5 observed that, in a cohort of 15 well-trained swimmers, improvements in performance time during a 6 × 200 m test set aligned with a taper duration of 2 weeks, beyond which detraining occurs. Similarly, a review by Kubukeli and colleagues 30 proposed that highly trained athletes required approximately 2 weeks to fully recover from a high-intensity interval training block, while still maintaining optimal training adaptations. This variation observed in responses related to taper duration may reflect the complexity of tapering, variable knowledge among coaches and staff, and varying competition schedules. 12
Training volume
Respondents reported a mean decrease of 39%–49% in training volume during a taper. This magnitude is also comparable with previous work in elite CrossFit athletes, who reported a mean reduction in training volume of 41.2 ± 15.5% during tapering, suggesting that substantial volume reduction may be one of the more consistent features of taper implementation across sports. 29 However, methods for determining pre-taper volume may vary, with studies calculating it across periods ranging from 4 to 12 weeks prior to the start of a taper. These variations may stem from the diversity of training plans, athlete experience levels, and targeted events. For instance, sprint swimmers might benefit from slightly larger volume reductions compared to distance swimmers, who need to maintain aerobic capacity. 31 Additionally, logistical constraints, such as managing large training groups or adapting to competition schedules, may limit taper customisation. The absence of standardised methods for calculating pre-taper volume could also contribute to inconsistencies within the literature and real-world practice. If coaches base pre-taper volume on different timeframes or training phases, the resulting taper reductions might not align optimally with individual athletes’ needs. Despite these sources of variability, the relative consistency across coaches and support staff regarding volume reduction suggests a strong consensus on this taper variable. This likely reflects the more robust and consistent evidence base supporting volume manipulation, facilitating clearer translation of research findings into applied practice.
Training intensity
In this survey, training intensity was categorised into two distinct types: cumulative intensity of the session and volume of work at a given intensity within a session. Most support staff indicated that cumulative intensity should remain constant or increase during the taper. In contrast, approximately 40% of coaches indicated that cumulative intensity should be decreased during a taper. Current evidence supports the maintenance of training intensity during a taper, which is associated with improved time trial performance, while reductions in training intensity are associated with slower time trial performance. 20 A similar proportion of athletes reported increases, decreases, or no change in work at a given intensity during a taper, while most coaches and support staff suggested that work at a given intensity should be maintained or increased to preserve performance. Discrepancies in responses regarding intensity between athletes and coaches/support staff may reflect poor communication of the taper plan, leading to differences in the training intensity prescribed by coaches, and that performed by athletes within a session. Research indicates that reducing training intensity below 70% of VO₂ max during a 2–4 week taper can impair performance up to 3–4% in distance runners.17,18 In contrast, maintaining higher intensity efforts of 90% of VO2 max or above during a taper in trained swimmers and middle-distance runners helps sustain physiological adaptations critical for maintaining performance.13,19,22 The findings of the present study, particularly regarding cumulative intensity and work performed at specific intensities, reveal discrepancies not only between coaches, support staff, and athletes, but also when compared with experimental taper literature.26,29,32 Spilsbury et al. 26 showed that taper content in elite endurance runners was shaped by the training completed before the taper, while Pritchard et al. 29 reported that elite CrossFit athletes showed mixed changes in intensity and frequency during tapering. Together, these findings suggest that manipulation of intensity may be one of the least standardised aspects of taper implementation in applied sport. Moreover, taper implementation in practice is flexible and context-dependent, highlighting the need for more ecologically valid research in high-performance swimming, thereby improving the practical application of evidence-based recommendations.
Training frequency
Coaches, support staff and athletes generally agreed that training frequency should remain constant during the taper period, while a small proportion (approximately 15–20%) indicated training frequency should decrease. While current evidence does not support training frequency reduction during a taper, training frequency impacts training volume and intensity. 8 This interplay makes it difficult to determine the exact impact of reduced training frequency on overall performance. 33 Meta-analyses examining the effect of training frequency on pre vs. post taper performance report a statistically significant improvement in time trial performance when training frequency is maintained during a taper (standardised mean difference = −0.53; 95% CI −0.82 to 0.25). 20 There was no difference in pre vs. post taper performance in studies that reduced training frequency (standardised mean difference = −0.32; 95% CI −0.82 to 0.13). 20 Despite a larger effect size in studies maintaining training frequency, there was no statistical difference between studies maintaining and reducing training frequency in terms of performance improvements. Maintenance of training frequency during taper has been suggested to help preserve athletes’ perception of “feel” for the water and technical proficiency. However, the direct impact of maintaining training frequency on performance outcomes has not been empirically established.34,35
Individualisation of taper
Perspectives differed regarding taper individualisation: while both coaches and support staff advocated for tailoring tapers to each athlete, only about half of the athletes reported their taper was individualised. Recent literature suggests that generic tapers may overlook individual characteristics, potentially impacting swimmer performance.2,36,37 For instance, taper individualisation is preferred by coaches of Olympic swimmers. 2 In our study, many coaches (68%) and support staff (76%) supported the use of individualised tapers. An additional 14% (of coaches) and 7% (of support staff) advocated for taper individualisation on a case-by-case basis (only for specific meets or specific athletes within their training group). However, only 55% of athletes reported that their tapers were individualised by their coach and support team, while 26% noted that they would often follow a generic taper along with the rest of their training group. This inconsistency might arise from logistical challenges like managing large training groups, time constraints, or limited resources such as access to support staff or assistant coaches. Addressing this gap requires enhanced communication and collaboration between coaches, support staff, and athletes to ensure that the intention to individualise tapers is effectively translated into practice.
Taper collaboration
A majority of coaches reported collaborating with athletes, although this mostly occurred intermittently. The reported extent of athlete involvement varies depending on the coach, which may be influenced by an athlete's experience. 2 Nearly half of the surveyed coaches and support staff reported collaborating on taper design including physiologists, strength and conditioning coaches, sports science generalists, and physiotherapists; while 14% of support staff indicated they do not engage in the taper process at all. Greater integration of performance staff within taper planning may provide coaches with valuable physiological and load-monitoring insights to support decision-making. Establishing structured interdisciplinary planning meetings and shared taper monitoring frameworks may help standardise communication and ensure that relevant performance data meaningfully inform taper design. Such approaches could enhance alignment across stakeholder groups and strengthen the translation of evidence-based strategies into applied swimming environments.
Modification of taper based on specific variables
A secondary aim of this study was to determine if any specific physiological variables influence taper design. Several coaches (59%) and almost one third of athletes and support staff reported they were either ‘likely’ or ‘highly likely’ to make changes to the taper based on sleep quality/quantity. While training and competition can impair sleep and negatively affect performance,21,38,39 this does not directly justify altering the taper based on sleep alone. However, tapering may influence sleep patterns, and poor sleep during this phase could alter alertness and recovery, as well as performance. 40 Approximately one quarter of coaches and support staff reported they were ‘likely’ to modify taper strategies based on heart rate variability. Relationships between heart rate variability and aerobic performance have been researched extensively. Generally, there is a positive relationship between heart rate variability (i.e., increased variability) and markers of performance (e.g., the yo-yo intermittent recovery test). 41 However, the relationship is complex, as HRV often decreases during a tapering phase, while still indicating positive physiological adaptations and enhanced readiness for performance. Therefore, context should be considered when making changes to training loads based on heart rate variability. Several methodological factors can affect its measurement 41 and construct validity of frequency components of heart rate variability may be limited. 42 Despite its reported use in this study, coaches and support staff should carefully consider whether, and how, they modify taper strategies based on heart rate variability.
Coaches, support staff and athletes generally reported that it was unlikely, or they were uncertain, that taper strategies should be modified based on the menstrual cycle. In contrast, more than half of the coaches (55%) reported gender as an important consideration when designing a taper. This discrepancy may reflect an uncertainty on how the menstrual cycle impacts female athlete performance. The menstrual cycle does not influence performance-related variables in endurance athletes, 43 but it can influence sleep. 44 However, there is a lack of research specifically examining how the menstrual cycle impacts athletic performance, therefore there is currently insufficient evidence to confidently determine its effects. Given this uncertainty, coaches and support staff may benefit from adopting an individualised approach, including menstrual cycle tracking and athlete consultation, when planning taper strategies in female swimmers. For example, athletes in specific phases of their menstrual cycle may benefit from larger reductions in training load, or training load in specific intensity zones during a taper which differ from generic recommendations. Furthermore, targeted research examining the interaction between menstrual cycle phases and taper-induced performance adaptations is warranted to better inform evidence-based practice. Regarding hydration and mental fatigue, there was uncertainty among coaches, athletes and support staff when asked if they would modify the taper based on these variables, likely reflecting contextual factors or individual preferences.
Limitations and future directions
The collection of self-reported data in this study presents a limitation, as responses may reflect perceived rather than objectively verified taper practices and may be subject to recall or social desirability bias. As the questionnaire was purpose-developed for this study, formal psychometric evaluation of validity and reliability was not undertaken and should be considered when interpreting these findings. However, as the items were designed to capture respondents’ own training practices and decision-making processes, the responses are likely to reasonably reflect participants’ experiences within their applied environments. The cross-sectional design of this study limits the ability to assess how taper knowledge and practices may evolve over time. Consequently, findings represent a snapshot of perspectives at a single time point rather than stable or longitudinal trends. Additionally, taper preferences were not linked to objective performance outcomes; therefore, findings describe reported practice rather than taper efficacy. These results may not accurately represent the views of swimmers, coaches and support staff globally as most respondents were based in Australia. Thus, the findings should be interpreted primarily within the context of high-performance swimming environments similar to those represented in this sample. Finally, while the survey design enabled broad data collection, nuanced or context-specific reasoning underlying taper decisions may not have been fully captured. As such, the findings provide descriptive insight into reported practices rather than in-depth explanations of decision-making processes, which may be better explored through qualitative methodologies. Our aim was to capture a broad overview of knowledge and perspectives regarding taper design, and more detailed information may be better captured by alternate study designs such as focus groups or interviews. Expanding the sample size and ensuring a more balanced geographic representation could also help provide a more comprehensive understanding of global tapering practices.
Conclusion
This study highlights key disparities and areas of alignment in the knowledge and perceptions of coaches, support staff, and athletes regarding taper design in swimming. While there was general consensus on reducing volume and maintaining frequency, views on taper duration were more variable, and training intensity strategies and individualisation practices underscored the complexities of implementing effective tapers. These findings emphasise the discrepancies between theoretical guidelines and practical application, and highlight the need for improved communication, collaboration, and research translation to bridge the gap between evidence-based guidelines and real-world practices. Future research should focus on the impact of individualised tapering strategies in high-performance settings and investigate the factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based tapering practices to optimise athlete performance.
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Ethics Committee (S231839).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in the anonymous online survey.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available.