Back to Search Start Over

Relationships Between Model Estimates and Actual Match-Performance Indices in Professional Australian Footballers During an In-Season Macrocycle.

Authors :
Graham, Stuart R.
Cormack, Stuart
Parfitt, Gaynor
Eston, Roger
Source :
International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance; Mar2018, Vol. 13 Issue 3, p339-346, 8p, 2 Charts, 4 Graphs
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Purpose: To assess and compare the validity of internal and external Australian football (AF) training-load measures for predicting match exercise intensity (MEI/min) and player-rank score (PR<subscript>Score</subscript>) using a variable dose-response model. Methods: A cohort of 25 professional AF players (23 ± 3 y, 188.3 ± 7.2 cm, 87.7 ± 8.4 kg) completed a 24-wk in-season macrocycle. In-season internal training and match load were quantified using session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and external load from satellite and accelerometer data. Using a training-impulse (TRIMP) calculation, external load (au) was represented as distance (TRIMP<subscript>Dist</subscript>), distance ≥4.16 m/s (TRIMP<subscript>HSDist</subscript>), and PlayerLoad (TRIMP<subscript>PL</subscript>). In-season training load, MEI/min, and PR<subscript>Score</subscript> were applied to a variable dose-response model, which provided estimates of MEI/min and PR<subscript>Score</subscript>. Predicted MEI/min and PR<subscript>Score</subscript> were correlated with actual measures from each match. The magnitude of the difference between MEI/min and PR<subscript>Score</subscript> estimates for each model input and the difference between the precision of internal and external load measures to predict MEI/min and PR<subscript>Score</subscript> were calculated using the effect size ± 90% confidence interval (CI). Results: Estimates of MEI/min demonstrated very large associations with actual MEI/min (r, 90% CI) (eg, TRIMP<subscript>Dist</subscript> .76 ± .13, and sRPE<subscript>Skills</subscript> .73 ± .14). Estimates of PR<subscript>Score</subscript> demonstrated associations of large magnitude with actual PR<subscript>Score</subscript> using the same inputs. Precision of actual MEI/min was lowest using sRPE compared with (ES ± 90% CI) TRIMP<subscript>Dist</subscript>, -.67 ± .34, and TRIMP<subscript>PL</subscript>, -.91 ± .39. There were trivial and unclear differences in the precision of PR<subscript>Score</subscript> estimates between TRIMP and sRPE inputs. Conclusions: Dose-response models from multiple training-load inputs can predict within-individual variation of MEI/min and PR<subscript>Score</subscript>. Internal and external training-input methods exhibited comparable predictive power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
15550265
Volume :
13
Issue :
3
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
128885661
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0026