Matteo Campagna
ITEN
Menu
Menu

One study found that training at a fixed distance, short or long, does not improve concentration more than ordinary training

2 studies · 64 archers measured

ForContextAgainst2022202420262024, for, n = 402023, context, n = 24
Each circle is a study: its position gives the year, its row whether it is for, against or context, its size how many participants it measured. Light circles are studies on other populations or without archers.

The question has only one readable study, and the answer is no. Forty sub-elite archers aged 14-20 from the East Java training centre trained for twelve weeks, three sessions a week of 108 arrows with a ten-second limit per arrow, at 20, 50 or 70 metres, or as usual, also at 70 metres but without the programme. On the mirror drawing test all four groups get faster, and errors do not differ between the groups (p = 0.995). The group that improves its time the most is the control group, from 74.5 to 47 seconds, against 54.8 for those shooting at 70 metres: the authors present 70 metres as better than the control, but the means in their own table say the opposite. That everyone improves suggests above all that the test is learnt by repeating it, and the test itself measures eye-hand coordination at a table rather than concentration on the shooting line. A Chinese study from 2023 on twenty-four archers reports gains in attention after technical stability training, but it appears in a journal with questionable editorial standards and its two tables contradict each other, so it cannot be counted in either direction.

Also phrased as: "shooting a lot trains concentration"; "short or long distance training and attention"; "arrow volume and concentration"; "you train concentration by shooting"

In practice

People say that shooting a lot, always at the competition distance, also trains the mind, and that concentration is built arrow by arrow on the range.

Evidence

  • 2023
    Context Archers Published later

    24 Chinese archers in three score levels of 8, each split between technical stability training and a control: in the best group attention stability rises from 6.98 ± 1.39 to 9.24 ± 1.56 (p = 0.0008) against a flat control, but in the same table the experimental groups at middle and lower levels fall (from 9.86 to 8.24 and from 9.95 to 9.24), while the text presents them as improvements. A second table gives much larger gains in the experimental groups at all three levels, and the starting value 6.98 ± 1.39 appears identically in three rows out of six. Journal with questionable editorial standards; with tables that contradict each other, the result cannot be counted either for or against.

    IMPROVING PHYSICAL FUNCTION BY FOCUSING ON SPORTS ARCHERY TRAINING Questionable venue · Jinglong Geng, Jing Wang, Ting Wang, Xiao Yan

  • 2024
    For Archers Published later

    40 sub-elite archers (20 men and 20 women, aged 14-20, at least 5 years of competition) divided into four groups of 10, twelve weeks: three sessions a week of 3 sets of 36 arrows with the recurve and a 10-second limit per arrow, at 20, 50 or 70 m, against a control group training as usual at 70 m. Time on the mirror drawing test: control from 74.5 to 47.0 s, 70 m from 74.0 to 54.8 s, 50 m from 73.2 to 60.1 s, 20 m from 74.1 to 62.2 s (all p ≤ 0.001 within group); errors fall in every group, significantly only at 20 m and in the control, and with no difference between groups (p = 0.995). The authors declare 70 m better than the control for time (p = 0.008), but the control is the group that improves most.

    The Impact of Training Distances (20 m, 50 m, and 70 m) on Concentration and Anaerobic Endurance in Archery Sub-Elite Athletes · Lilies Handayani, Nurhasan, Hari Setijono, Oce Wiriawan, Dwi Cahyo Kartiko, Mochamad Purnomo, et al.

Status history

  1. 2023 Not studied The first study linking shooting training to a measure of attention comes from China: in twenty-four archers divided by level, the best group gains attention stability after technical stability training, but in the same table the experimental groups at middle and lower levels fall, a second table says they all rise, and three rows out of six start from exactly the same value. With data that contradict each other and a journal with questionable editorial standards, the study cannot be read in either direction, and there is still no usable evidence.
  2. 2024 Reported Forty sub-elite archers aged 14-20 train for twelve weeks at 20, 50 or 70 metres or as usual: on the mirror drawing test they all get faster, the control group more than the others, and errors do not differ between the groups. The only readable study gives a null result, on a test that improves with repetition: the evidence points the way the claim says, and it is a single study.

Related

Related articles

Research lines

Cite
APA

Campagna, M. (2026). One study found that training at a fixed distance, short or long, does not improve concentration more than ordinary training (Version 1). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/training-distance-concentration

BibTeX
@misc{campagna2026_allenamentotecnicoconcentrazione,
  author = {Campagna, Matteo},
  title = {One study found that training at a fixed distance, short or long, does not improve concentration more than ordinary training},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
  url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/training-distance-concentration},
  note = {Version 1; accessed 2026-10-16}
}

Other claims in this domain

See all claims on mind and attention