4.4 Article

Training Periodization of Professional Australian Football Players During an Entire Australian Football League Season

Journal

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2014-0326

Keywords

team sports; monitoring training; ratings of perceived exertion; training load; session-RPE

Funding

  1. CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil [BEX 17762/12-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the training periodization of an elite Australian Football team during different phases of the season. Methods: Training-load data were collected during 22 wk of preseason and 23 wk of in-season training. Training load was measured using the session rating of perceived exertion (session-RPE) for all training sessions and matches from 44 professional Australian Football players from the same team. Training intensity was divided into 3 zones based on session-RPE (low, <4; moderate, >4 AU and <7 AU; and high, >7 AU). Training load and intensity were analyzed according to the type of training session completed. Results: Higher training load and session duration were undertaken for all types of training sessions during the preseason than in-season (P < .05), with the exception of other training (ie, re/prehabilitation training, cross-training, and recovery activities). Training load and intensity were higher during the preseason, with the exception of games, where greater load and intensity were observed during the in-season. The overall distribution of training intensity was similar between phases with the majority of training performed at moderate or high intensity. Conclusions: The current findings may allow coaches and scientists to better understand the characteristics of Australian Football periodization, which in turn may aid in developing optimal training programs. The results also indicate that a polarized training-intensity distribution that has been reported in elite endurance athletes does not occur in professional Australian Football.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available