Search

Weakley, J, Munteanu, G, Cowley, N, Johnston, R, Morrison, M, Gardiner, C, Pérez-Castilla, A, and García-Ramos, A. The criterion validity and between-day reliability of the Perch for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-This study aimed to assess the criterion validity and between-day reliability (accounting for technological and biological variability) of mean and peak concentric velocity from the Perch measurement system. On 2 testing occasions, 16 subjects completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of 1-repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess criterion validity, values from the Perch and a 3-dimensional motion capture system (criterion) were compared. Technological variability was assessed by determining whether the differences between the Perch and criterion for each load were comparable for both testing sessions, whereas between-day reliability with both technological and biological variability was calculated from Perch values across days. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate R2 and root mean square error, whereas Bland-Altman plots assessed magnitude of difference between measures. To support monitoring of athletes over time, standard error of measurement and minimum detectable changes (MDC) were calculated. There was excellent agreement between the Perch and criterion device, with mean velocity in both exercises demonstrating a mean bias ranging from -0.01 to 0.01 m·s-1. For peak velocity, Perch underestimated velocity compared with the criterion ranging from -0.08 to -0.12 m·s-1 for the back squat and -0.01 to -0.02 m·s-1 for the bench press. Technological variability between-days were all less than the MDC. These findings demonstrate that the Perch provides valid and reliable mean and peak concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Therefore, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training.

Background With the increasing professionalisation of youth sports, training load monitoring is increasingly common in adolescent athletes. However, the research examining the relationship between training load and changes in physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes is yet to be synthesised in a systematic review. Objective The aim of this review was to systematically examine the research assessing internal and external methods of monitoring training load and physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes. Methods Systematic searches of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL and SCOPUS were undertaken from the earliest possible records to March 2022. Search terms included synonyms relevant to adolescents, athletes, physical qualities, injury, or illness. To be eligible for inclusion, articles were required to (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) include participants aged between 10 and 19 years and participating in competitive sport; (4) report a statistical relationship between a measure of internal and/or external load and physical qualities, injury or illness. Articles were screened and assessed for methodological quality. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted to identify trends in the relationships reported. Results The electronic search yielded 4125 articles. Following screening and a review of references, 59 articles were included. The most commonly reported load monitoring tools were session ratings of perceived exertion (n = 29) and training duration (n = 22). Results of the best-evidence synthesis identified moderate evidence of positive relationships between resistance training volume load and improvement in strength, and between throw count and injury. However, evidence for other relationships between training load and change in physical qualities, injury, or illness were limited or inconsistent. Conclusions Practitioners should consider monitoring resistance training volume load for strength training. Additionally, where appropriate, monitoring throw counts may be useful in identifying injury risk. However, given the lack of clear relationships between singular measures of training load with physical qualities, injury, or illness, researchers should consider multivariate methods of analysing training load, as well as factors that may mediate the load–response relationship, such as maturation.

The importance of contributors that can result in negative player outcomes in sport and the feasibility and barriers to modifying these to optimise player health and well-being have yet to be established. Within rugby codes (rugby league, rugby union and rugby sevens), within male and female cohorts across playing levels (full-time senior, part-time senior, age grade), this project aims to develop a consensus on contributors to negative biopsychosocial outcomes in rugby players (known as the CoNBO study) and establish stakeholder perceived importance of the identified contributors and barriers to their management. This project will consist of three parts; part 1: a systematic review, part 2: a three-round expert Delphi study and part 3: stakeholder rating of feasibility and barriers to management. Within part 1, systematic searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL) will be performed. The systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO. Studies will be searched to identify physical, psychological and/or social factors resulting in negative player outcomes in rugby. Part 2 will consist of a three-round expert Delphi consensus study to establish additional physical, psychological and/or social factors that result in negative player outcomes in rugby and their importance. In part 3, stakeholders (eg, coaches, chief executive officers and players) will provide perceptions of the feasibility and barriers to modifying the identified factors within their setting. On completion, several manuscripts will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this project have worldwide relevance for stakeholders in the rugby codes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022346751.

Weakley, J, McCosker, C, Chalkley, D, Johnston, R, Munteanu, G, and Morrison, M. Comparison of sprint timing methods on performance, and displacement and velocity at timing initiation. J Strength Cond Res 37(1): 234-238, 2023-Sprint testing is commonly used to assess speed and acceleration in athletes. However, vastly different outcomes have been reported throughout the literature. These differences are likely due to the sprint timing method rather than differences in athlete ability. Consequently, this study compared different sprint starting methods on sprint time and quantified the velocity and displacement of the athlete at the moment timing is initiated. Starting in a staggered 2-point stance, 12 team sport athletes were required to accelerate 10 meters for 10 repetitions. During each repetition, 5 independent timing methods were triggered. The methods were (a) triggering a Move sensor; (b) starting 50 cm behind the line; (c) triggering a front-foot switch; (d) triggering a rear-foot switch; and (e) starting with the front foot on the line. Timing for each method was initiated at different points during the acceleration phase, and the displacement and velocity of the centroid of the pelvis at the point of timing initiation was assessed under high-speed motion capture. The Move sensor had the smallest displacement and lowest velocity at the point of timing initiation, whereas the front-foot trigger demonstrated the largest displacement and highest velocities. Trivial to very large effect size differences were observed between all methods in displacement and velocity at the point of timing initiation. Furthermore, small to very large differences in time to 5 m were found. These findings emphasize that sprint outcomes should not be compared, unless starting methods are identical. In addition, to detect real change in performance, consistent standardized protocols should be implemented.