REF-529 · McKay et al., 2022 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. · Paper
Defining Training and Performance Caliber: A Participant Classification Framework (6-tier)
The 6-Tier Framework
| Tier | Category | Basis (abstract) |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 0 | Sedentary | training volume and performance metrics |
| Tier 1 | Recreationally Active | training volume and performance metrics |
| Tier 2 | Trained / Developmental | training volume and performance metrics |
| Tier 3 | Highly Trained / National Level | training volume and performance metrics |
| Tier 4 | Elite / International Level | training volume and performance metrics |
| Tier 5 | World Class | training volume and performance metrics |
Full text; not checked against the abstract: the sport-specific benchmarks (e.g. national-level results, international competition, World-Championship/Olympic medals for Tier 5) and the shrinking share of the population at each higher tier.
Key Findings (insight)
Classification by training VOLUME + PERFORMANCE metrics (not by self-labeled "elite" — the paper's premise is that "elite" is one of the most overused and ill-defined terms in the literature)
Intended use: prospectively in participant recruitment and retrospectively in systematic reviews/meta-analyses
Inference, not tested in this paper: the probability of detecting a meaningful effect DECREASES as Tier rises — Tier 4-5 athletes are near the adaptation ceiling — so a null/small effect in a Tier 4-5 study ≠ "the method does not work", and a large effect in Tier 1 may be a novice effect that does not transfer upward
Practical Application (relevance assessment)
A 6-tier participant classification framework (Tier 0 sedentary → Tier 5 world class) based on training volume and performance metrics, built to replace the ill-defined label "elite", with sport-specific examples and consideration of junior, masters and Paralympic athletes. Every base entry carries a
Tier: line in these terms — in whom the study was done.The reader determines their own Tier (user ≈ Tier 2-3)
Not from this paper; the base's own practice — transfer rule:
Study at a Tier ≈ the reader → high relevance
Study at a LOWER Tier (novices) → effect probably OVERSTATED → down-weight
Study at a HIGHER Tier (elite) → effect probably CONSERVATIVE, but a null result may be a ceiling artifact
Limitations
Tier boundaries use sport-specific thresholds — not always unambiguous for hybrid/multisport athletes
Classifies status, NOT individual responsiveness (two Tier 3 athletes may respond differently)
A framework paper, not an empirical test of its own predictive value
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
(field-standard classification)
Content correction 2026-09-27
Table columns "Benchmark" and "% of population" (Largest/Large/Medium/Small/Very small/Tiny; "WR / World-Championship/Olympic medals") -> not in the abstract; replaced by the abstract's basis (training volume and performance metrics) with the benchmarks labelled as full-text content.
"Probability of detecting a meaningful effect decreases as Tier rises" and the transfer rule -> labelled as inference / the base's own practice, not findings of this paper.
Lead bullet now states what the paper is; Sport "cycling, running, strength" -> "general".