Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, SDU Sport and Health Sciences Cluster (SHSC), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Centre of Health Science, Faculty of Health, University of the Faroe Islands, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands.
Biomed Res Int. 2022 Mar 17;2022:6822385. doi: 10.1155/2022/6822385. eCollection 2022.
We determined player-to-player distance, body-to-ball contact, and exercise intensity during three training modalities in various football populations. 213 participants were recruited, ranging from 9-year-old boys to young men and 11-year-old girls to middle-aged women. All groups were analysed with video-filming and GPS-based Polar Pro monitors during three types of football training for 20 min, i.e., COVID-19-modified training (CMT) with >2-metre player-to-player distance, small-sided games (SSG), and simulated match-play with normal rules (SMP), in randomised order. Time spent in a danger zone (1.5 m) per-percent-infected-player (DZ PPIP) ranged from 0.015 to 0.279% of playing time. DZ PPIP for SSG was higher ( < 0.05) than CMT and SMP. The average number of contacts (within 1.5 m) with a potentially infected player ranged from 12 to 73 contacts/hour. SSG had more ( < 0.05) contacts than CMT and SMP, with SMP having a higher ( < 0.05) number of contacts than CMT. Time/contact ranged from 0.87 to 3.00 seconds for the groups. No player-to-player and body-to-ball touches were registered for CMT. Total player-to-player contacts were 264% higher ( < 0.05) in SSG than SMP, ranging from 80 to 170 and 25 to 56 touches, respectively. In all groups, a greater total distance was covered during SMP compared to CMT (38-114%; < 0.05). All groups performed more high-intensity running (33-54%; < 0.05) and had higher heart rates during SMP compared to CMT. Different types of football training all appear to exert a minor COVID-19 infection risk; however, COVID-19-modified training may be safer than small-sided game training, but also match-play. In contrast, exercise intensity is lower during COVID-19-modified training than match-play.
我们在不同的足球人群中确定了球员之间的距离、身体与球的接触以及三种训练模式下的运动强度。共有 213 名参与者，年龄从 9 岁男孩到年轻男子，11 岁女孩到中年妇女不等。所有组均使用视频拍摄和基于 GPS 的 Polar Pro 监测仪，在三种类型的足球训练中进行了 20 分钟的分析，即有>2 米球员间距离的 COVID-19 改良训练（CMT）、小场比赛（SSG）和正常规则的模拟比赛（SMP），随机顺序进行。每个受感染球员的危险区（1.5 米）内的时间百分比（DZ PPIP）为总比赛时间的 0.015%至 0.279%。SSG 的 DZ PPIP （<0.05）高于 CMT 和 SMP。与潜在受感染球员的接触次数（在 1.5 米范围内）平均每小时为 12 至 73 次接触。SSG 的接触次数（<0.05）多于 CMT 和 SMP，而 SMP 的接触次数（<0.05）多于 CMT。各小组的时间/接触时间范围为 0.87 至 3.00 秒。CMT 未记录到球员之间和球与身体之间的接触。SSG 中的总球员之间的接触次数比 SMP 高 264%（<0.05），分别为 80 至 170 次和 25 至 56 次接触。在所有组中，SMP 的总距离均大于 CMT（38-114%；<0.05）。与 CMT 相比，所有组在 SMP 中进行的高强度跑步次数更多（33-54%；<0.05），并且 SMP 中的心率更高。不同类型的足球训练似乎都有较小的 COVID-19 感染风险；但是，CMT 比小场比赛训练更安全，但也更接近比赛。相比之下，CMT 的运动强度低于比赛。
