Aughey Robert J, Elias George P, Esmaeili Alireza, Lazarus Brendan, Stewart Andrew M
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Australia.
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Australia.
J Sci Med Sport. 2016 Feb;19(2):182-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2015.02.005. Epub 2015 Feb 21.
To compare recent internal training load and strain of elite Australian football players for match outcome.
Case study.
Load was quantified from session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) for individual players from one team in 141 professional Australian football matches over six seasons, then averaged for players that competed for the team each week. Internal weekly-load and weekly-strain (load×monotony) was compared to recent-load and recent-strain (four-week rolling average) as a marker of training-stress balance for each player against the match outcome. Covariates for relative position of teams in the competition and days between matches were modelled. Differences were standardised (effect size; ES) and interpreted using magnitude based inferences.
Weekly-load was likely higher for match wins (ES±90% confidence limits; 0.43±0.27), and when days-break was used as a covariate (0.45±0.27) but only possibly higher with relative ladder position covaried (RLP, 0.29±0.33). There was a possibly greater positive training-stress balance for load in wins (0.31; ±0.38) with db (0.39; ±0.39) and RLP covaried (0.27; ±0.48). There were no clear differences for strain for wins and losses or with either covariate. There was a likely greater positive training-stress balance for strain in wins (0.51; ±0.41) with days-break (0.48; ±0.41) but not RLP covaried.
Weekly-load and a positive training-stress balance for strain were the best predictors of match success. The higher weekly-load and training-stress balance for strain highlight the conflict between maintaining the training stimulus and minimising fatigue in Australian football players between matches.
比较澳大利亚精英足球运动员近期的内部训练负荷和压力与比赛结果之间的关系。
案例研究。
通过对一个球队的球员在六个赛季的141场职业澳大利亚足球比赛中的主观用力程度（sRPE）进行量化，然后计算每周参赛球员的平均值。将每周的内部负荷和每周压力（负荷×单调性）与近期负荷和近期压力（四周滚动平均值）进行比较，以此作为每个球员训练压力平衡的指标，并与比赛结果进行对比。对比赛中球队的相对排名和比赛间隔天数等协变量进行建模。差异进行标准化处理（效应量；ES），并基于量级推断进行解释。
比赛获胜时每周负荷可能更高（ES±90%置信区间；0.43±0.27），当将比赛间隔天数作为协变量时也是如此（0.45±0.27），但只有在将相对排名作为协变量时可能更高（RLP，0.29±0.33）。在将比赛间隔天数（db，0.39；±0.39）和相对排名（RLP，0.27；±0.48）作为协变量时，获胜时负荷的训练压力平衡可能更积极（0.31；±0.38）。胜负之间的压力或在任何一个协变量情况下均无明显差异。在将比赛间隔天数作为协变量时，获胜时压力的训练压力平衡可能更积极（0.51；±0.41），但在将相对排名作为协变量时并非如此。
每周负荷和压力的正向训练压力平衡是比赛成功的最佳预测指标。较高的每周负荷和压力训练压力平衡凸显了澳大利亚足球运动员在比赛期间维持训练刺激与最小化疲劳之间的矛盾。
