4.6 Article

Characteristics impacting on session rating of perceived exertion training load in Australian footballers

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 467-475

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.947311

关键词

team sport; athlete monitoring; internal training load; prescribing training; external training load

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between external training load and session rating of perceived exertion (s-RPE) training load and the impact that playing experience, playing position and 2-km time-trial performance had on s-RPE training load were explored. From 39 Australian Football players, 6.9 +/- 4.6 training sessions were analysed, resulting in 270 samples. Microtechnology devices provided external training load (distance, average speed, high-speed running distance, player load (PL) and player load(slow) (PLslow)). The external training load measures had moderate to very large associations (r, 95% CI) with s-RPE training load, average speed (0.45, 0.35-0.54), high-speed running distance (0.51, 0.42-0.59), PLslow (0.80, 0.75-0.84), PL (0.86, 0.83-0.89) and distance (0.88, 0.85-0.90). Differences were described using effect sizes (d +/- 95% CL). When controlling for external training load, the 4- to 5-year players had higher s-RPE training load than the 0- to 1- (0.44 +/- 0.33) and 2- to 3-year players (0.51 +/- 0.30), ruckmen had moderately higher s-RPE training load than midfielders (0.82 +/- 0.58), and there was a 0.2% increase in s-RPE training load per 1s increase in time-trial (95% CI: 0.07-0.34). Experience, position and time-trial performance impacted the relationship between external training load and s-RPE training load. This suggests that a given external training load may result in different internal responses between athletes, potentially leaving individuals at risk of overtraining or failing to elicit positive adaptation. It is therefore vital that coaches and trainers give consideration to these mediators of s-RPE training load.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据