4.6 Article

Influence of Fatigue on Tackling Ability in Rugby League Players: Role of Muscular Strength, Endurance, and Aerobic Qualities

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163161

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the influence of repeated high-intensity effort exercise on tackling ability in rugby league players, and determined the relationship between physical qualities and tackling ability under fatigued conditions in these athletes. Eleven semi-professional rugby league players underwent measurements of speed (10 m and 40 m sprint), upper-body strength (4 repetition maximum [RM] bench press and weighted chin-up), upper-body muscular endurance (body mass maximum repetition chin-up, body mass maximum repetition dips), lower-body strength (4RM squat), and estimated maximal aerobic power (multi-stage fitness test). Tackling ability was assessed using a standardized one-on-one tackling test, before, during, and following four bouts of repeated high-intensity effort (RHIE) exercise. The relationship between physical qualities and fatigue-induced decrements in tackling ability were determined using Pearson product moment correlation coefficients. Each cycle of the RHIE protocol induced progressive reductions in tackling ability. A moderate reduction (Effect Size = similar to-1.17 +/- 0.60, -34.1 +/- 24.3%) in tackling ability occurred after the fourth cycle of the RHIE protocol. Players with greater relative lower-body strength (i.e. 4RM squat/kg) had the best tackling ability under fatigued conditions (r = 0.72, p = 0.013). There were no significant relationships between tackling ability under fatigued conditions and any other physical quality. These findings suggest that lower-body strength protects against fatigue-induced decrements in tackling ability. The development of lower-body strength should be a priority to facilitate the development of robust tackling skills that are maintained under fatigue.

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