Influence of Faster and Slower Recovery-Profile Classifications, Self-Reported Sleep, Acute Training Load, and Phase of the Microcycle on Perceived Recovery in Futsal Players.

PURPOSE

To determine whether daily perceived recovery is explained from a multifactorial single-session classification of recovery (ie, faster vs slower) or other circumstantial factors (ie, previous training load, self-reported sleep, or phase of the microcycle).

METHODS

Nineteen elite male futsal players were initially allocated to a recovery-classification group (faster recovery, slower physiological, or slower perceptual) based on previous research using a multifactorial cluster-analysis technique. During 4 ensuing weeks of preseason, training loads were monitored via player load, training impulse, and session rating of perceived exertion. Before each day's training, players reported their perception of recovery (Total Quality of Recovery scale [TQR]) and the number of hours and perceived quality of sleep the night prior. A hierarchical linear mixed model was used to analyze the effect of the different recovery profiles, training load, sleep, and phase of the microcycle (ie, start, middle, end) on daily TQR.

RESULTS

The recovery classification of players (P = .20), training load (training impulse, P = .32; player load, P = .23; session rating of perceived exertion, P = .46), and self-reported hours slept the night before (P = .45) did not significantly influence TQR. However, perceived sleep quality (P < .01) and phase of the microcycle (P < .01) were significantly associated with TQR (r2 = .41).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither recovery classification nor prior training load influenced perceived recovery during the preseason. However, higher TQR was evident with better self-reported sleep quality, whereas lower values were associated with phases of the training week.