Wen XiaoYuan, Silva Rui Miguel, Xu Qi, González-Fernández Francisco Tomás, Silva Ana Filipa, Badicu Georgian, Guo Xiaodan, Clemente Filipe Manuel
ChengDu Sports Univ, Chengdu 610041, Peoples R China.
Research Center in Sports Performance, Recreation, Innovation and Technology (SPRINT), 4960-320 Melgaço, Portugal.
Biol Sport. 2024 Oct;41(4):219-230. doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2024.139074. Epub 2024 Apr 25.
The objective of this study was to characterize surveyed coaches and elucidate the practices of physical fitness assessment and monitoring for both male and female athletes across three countries. A total of 165 coaches participated by completing a comprehensive 32-question survey. Pre-season assessments are a priority for coaches, with a significant range from 60.5% to 87.7% in Romania, while Portuguese and Spanish coaches tend to prefer testing during the competition (26.3% and 16.9%, respectively). Portuguese and Spanish coaches predominantly favor aerobic tests (50% and 46.8% respectively), whereas Romanian coaches exhibit a preference for sprint (56.9%) and skill tests (52.3%). Notably, change of direction tests are less commonly employed, ranging from 10.5% to 21% across the countries. In terms of exercise intensity determination, Portuguese coaches predominantly employ maximal heart rate (31.6%), while Spanish coaches often rely on the 220-age formula or perceived exertion (27.4%). For strength assessment, Portuguese coaches lean towards direct (34.2%) or estimated (31.6%) maximal repetition methods. When it comes to maximal speed sprint, Portuguese and Romanian coaches show preference (50% and 43.1% respectively), while Spanish coaches exhibit a relative lack of emphasis on individualized speed measures (37.1%). Perceptual scales are the preferred method for recovery monitoring, with adoption rates of 57.9% in Portugal, 53.2% in Spain, and 44.6% in Romania. In summary, this study underscores the distinct assessment and monitoring practices employed by coaches in Portugal, Spain, and Romania. These findings are in alignment with established literature standards, highlighting the diversity of approaches used in different countries.
本研究的目的是对参与调查的教练进行特征描述,并阐明三个国家男女运动员的体能评估和监测方法。共有165名教练参与了一项包含32个问题的全面调查。季前评估是教练们的首要任务,在罗马尼亚,这一比例在60.5%至87.7%之间,差异显著,而葡萄牙和西班牙的教练则倾向于在比赛期间进行测试(分别为26.3%和16.9%)。葡萄牙和西班牙的教练主要倾向于进行有氧测试(分别为50%和46.8%),而罗马尼亚的教练则更喜欢短跑(56.9%)和技能测试(52.3%)。值得注意的是,变向测试的使用频率较低,三个国家的这一比例在10.5%至21%之间。在运动强度测定方面,葡萄牙教练主要采用最大心率(31.6%),而西班牙教练则经常依赖220减去年龄的公式或主观用力程度(27.4%)。在力量评估方面,葡萄牙教练倾向于直接(34.2%)或估计(31.6%)的最大重复次数方法。在最大速度短跑方面,葡萄牙和罗马尼亚教练表现出偏好(分别为50%和43.1%),而西班牙教练相对不太强调个性化速度测量(37.1%)。感知量表是恢复监测的首选方法,在葡萄牙的采用率为57.9%,在西班牙为53.2%,在罗马尼亚为44.6%。总之,本研究强调了葡萄牙、西班牙和罗马尼亚教练所采用的不同评估和监测方法。这些发现与既定的文献标准一致,突出了不同国家使用方法的多样性。