4.4 Article

Sleep quantity and quality in elite youth soccer players: A pilot study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 410-417

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2013.843024

Keywords

Actigraphy; fatigue; training; cold water immersion

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the effect of early evening high-intensity training on the sleep of elite male youth soccer players (n = 12) using wrist actigraphy. High-intensity training (TRAIN) nights were compared with a home environment (HOME) condition, created by averaging sleep variables on the night before and after TRAIN nights. Additionally, after TRAIN athletes alternately used cold water immersion (TRAIN+CWI) or none, to assess whether cold water immersion (CWI) had any impact on sleep quality and quantity. Ratings of perceived exertion, fatigue and recovery were recorded after training. Actigraphy sleep measures were bedtime, wake time, sleep duration, sleep onset latency, sleep efficiency and wake after sleep onset. Self-rated scores of sleepiness at bedtime and wake, plus overall sleep quality were also recorded. Only fatigue ratings were higher in TRAIN compared to TRAIN+CWI at bedtime, there were no other differences in training data. Both TRAIN and TRAIN+CWI conditions had significant later (07:45 +/- 1:09 h p < 0.01 and 07:34 +/- 1:20 h p = 0.01) wake times than HOME (06:44 +/- 0:41 h). The TRAIN condition had a significantly higher (7 +/- 2; p < 0.01) rating of sleepiness at bedtime compared to HOME (6 +/- 1), but no further differences were found in any of the sleep (actigraphy and self-reported) measures. Across all conditions, time spent asleep was approximate to 7:30 (+/- 0:52) h:min and sleep efficiency was approximate to 89% (+/- 6.1). In conclusion, early evening high-intensity training had no impact on subsequent sleep quality and quantity, nor was there any effect on sleep after performing CWI post-training.

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