Poignard Mathilde, Guilhem Gaël, de Larochelambert Quentin, Montalvan Bernard, Bieuzen François
French Institute of Sport (INSEP), Laboratory Sport, Expertise and Performance (EA 7370), Paris, France.
French Tennis Federation, Paris, France.
Front Sports Act Living. 2020 Sep 2;2:109. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2020.00109. eCollection 2020.
Modern tennis players face congested schedules that force the adoption of various recovery strategies. Thus, recovery must be fine-tuned with an accurate quantification of its impacts, especially with regards to training-induced fatigue. The present study aimed to examine the training type clusters and recovery practices adopted by elite tennis players under ecological training conditions. The respective impacts of training type clusters and recovery techniques on subjective variables, which reflect the players' recovery perceptions, were subsequently determined. During 15 consecutive months, a total of 35 elite tennis players filled out questionnaires to report their daily training load, training session content, adopted recovery modalities after training, and perceived recovery. The hierarchical analysis identified three clusters: "combined tennis and S&C training," "predominant tennis training" and "predominant S&C training." and were not significantly different among these three clusters ( = 0.07-0.65). Across the 146 recorded training and recovery sessions, players primarily employed a combination of 2 or 3 modalities, with cooling strategies being the most widely used technique (87.6%). Mixed linear models revealed that independent of training clusters, cooling strategies significantly reduced muscle soreness (Δ: β = -1.00, = 0.02). Among the cooling techniques used, whole-body cryotherapy induced a greater perceived recovery than cold-water immersion ( = 0.02). These results showed that perceived recovery was not sensitive to training clusters or the associated acute training load. However, cooling strategies were relevant for the alleviation of tennis training-induced soreness. This study represents an initial step toward a periodized approach of recovery interventions, based on the interactions between training load, training contents, and perceived recovery.
现代网球运动员面临着紧凑的赛程安排,这迫使他们采取各种恢复策略。因此,必须通过准确量化恢复的影响来对其进行微调,尤其是在训练引起的疲劳方面。本研究旨在考察精英网球运动员在生态训练条件下采用的训练类型聚类和恢复方法。随后确定了训练类型聚类和恢复技术对反映运动员恢复感知的主观变量的各自影响。在连续15个月的时间里,共有35名精英网球运动员填写了问卷,报告他们的每日训练负荷、训练课内容、训练后采用的恢复方式以及感知到的恢复情况。层次分析确定了三个聚类:“网球与体能训练相结合”、“主要网球训练”和“主要体能训练”。这三个聚类之间的[具体内容未明确,原文此处表述不完整]没有显著差异(=0.07 - 0.65)。在记录的146次训练和恢复课中,运动员主要采用2种或3种方式的组合,其中冷却策略是使用最广泛的技术(87.6%)。混合线性模型显示,与训练聚类无关,冷却策略显著减轻了肌肉酸痛(差异:β = -1.00,= 0.02)。在所使用的冷却技术中,全身冷冻疗法比冷水浸泡引起的恢复感知更强(= 0.02)。这些结果表明,感知到的恢复对训练聚类或相关的急性训练负荷不敏感。然而,冷却策略对于减轻网球训练引起的酸痛是有效的。本研究代表了基于训练负荷、训练内容和感知恢复之间的相互作用,朝着恢复干预的周期化方法迈出的第一步。