3.8 Article

Changes in training load, running performance, lower body power and biochemical characteristics of back players throughout a professional Rugby Union season

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT AND EXERCISE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 1-16

出版社

UNIV ALICANTE
DOI: 10.14198/jhse.2017.121.01

关键词

LONGITUDINAL STUDY; GPS; S-RPE; TRAINING LOAD; BLOOD SAMPLES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to observe and quantify changes in training load (TL), running performance, lower body power and biochemical characteristics of professional rugby union back players over an entire season. Eight professional players (age: 25.8 +/- 4.6 y) participated in this study. Session-RPE (S-RPE) and microtechnologies (GPS) were used for assessing training load (TL). During the season, running performance was monitored using the YoYo Recovery Test Level-2 (YYRT2) and lower body power performance using the drop jump (DJ) test. Changes in hematological, endocrine and muscle damage parameters were examined through 3 blood samples taken at separate times throughout the season. TL progressively and significantly (p < 0.001) decreased throughout the season particularly due to the decrease in the training volume. The last blood sample of the season revealed a significant (p < 0.001) increase in hematological parameters and a significant increase (p < 0.01) in cortisol blood concentration without change in the testosterone/cortisol ratio. No significant change in YYRT2 performance was observed over the season, while DJ test performance was significantly lower during the first 2 blocks of the season compared to other blocks. The training volume showed a significant negative correlation with DJ-test performances (TD: r = -0.49 and S-RPE: r = -0.40, p < 0.001). Although there was a decrease in training volume throughout the season, there was no significant changes in running performance. Furthermore, lower body power production showed a significant increase in particular during the last part of the season.

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

3.8
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