4.4 Article

ACCELEROMETER AND GPS-DERIVED RUNNING LOADS AND INJURY RISK IN ELITE AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALLERS

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 2244-2252

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000362

关键词

odd ratios; injury prevention; load monitoring; team sports

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between overall physical workload (global positioning systems [GPS]/accelerometer) measures and injury risk in elite Australian football players (n = 46) during a season. Workload data and (intrinsic) injury incidence were monitored across preseason and in-season (18 matches) phases. Multiple regression was used to compare cumulative (1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-weekly loads) and absolute change (from previous-to-current week) in workloads between injured and uninjured players for all GPS/accelerometer-derived variables: total distance, V1 distance (total distance above individual's aerobic threshold speed), sprint distance, force load, velocity load, and relative velocity change. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to determine the relative injury risk. Cumulative loads showed the strongest relationship with greater intrinsic injury risk. During preseason, 3-weekly distance (OR = 5.489, p = 0.008) and 3-weekly sprint distance (OR = 3.667, p = 0.074) were most indicative of greater injury risk. During in-season, 3-weekly force load (OR = 2.530, p = 0.031) and 4-weekly relative velocity change (OR = 2.244, p = 0.035) were associated with greater injury risk. No differences in injury risk between years of Australian Football League system experience and GPS/accelerometer data were seen. From an injury risk (prevention) perspective, these findings support consideration of several GPS/accelerometer running load variables in Australian football players. In particular, cumulative weekly loads should be closely monitored, with 3-weekly loads most indicative of a greater injury risk across both seasonal phases.

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

4.4
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