4.2 Article

Match and Training High Intensity Activity-Demands Profile during a Competitive Mesocycle in Youth Elite Soccer Players

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN KINETICS
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 195-205

出版社

SCIENDO
DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2020-0050

关键词

workload; competition; team sports; inertial devices; performance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The monitoring of the high intensity activity-demands profile during official matches (OMs) and training sessions (TSs) provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between training and competition loads as well as players' fitness characteristics. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe the training and match high intensity activity-demands profile in U-19 soccer players; 2) compare the profile depending on the type of session (OM or TS) throughout match-weeks; and 3) differentiate between profiles depending on the match location (home or away). Twenty-five U-19 Spanish soccer players were monitored during TSs and OMs for a one-month competitive period using a WIMU PROTM wearable inertial device. The variables of the study were: high speed running distance (HSRD), total sprints (SPs), maximum speed (MS) and player load (PL). OMs required higher demands than TSs in HSRD (460.99 +/- 206.18 vs. 315.45 +/- 180.12 m; p < 0.01; d = 0.75), SPs (10.86 +/- 6.64 vs. 7.23 +/- 4.82; p < 0.01; d = 0.69), MS (29.99 +/- 2.54 vs. 28.50 +/- 2.4 km/h; p < 0.01; d = 0.59) and PL (103.08 +/- 24.15 vs. 83.18 +/- 17.96 a.u.; p < 0.01; d = 0.94). The interaction between the type of session and mean week's demands presented differences with medium effect size in MS (p < 0.01; wp(2) = 0.06) and small effect size in HSRD (p = 0.04; wp(2) = 0.03), and SP (p = 0.05; wp(2) = 0.03), but there were no differences in PL (p = 0.18; wp(2) = 0). Finally, no differences were found in the match location comparison (p > 0.33; d = 0.22-0.33). Therefore, the profiles presented could be useful for future scientific purposes and serve as valid information for coaches trying to optimize performance.

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

4.2
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