Scholarlink

Background <p>Generic neuromuscular assessments are widely used to monitor training responses in team sports. Emerging running-based measures have been proposed to offer greater sensitivity to residual neuromuscular training effects by aligning more closely with the exercise dose, yet their practical utility remains ambiguous. Concurrent evaluation is thus necessary to identify athlete monitoring assessments that best capture meaningful responses.</p> Objectives <p>We examined within-athlete relationships among common training response measures and their associations with prior weekly external training load in professional Australian Football athletes.</p> Design <p>Repeated-measures, observational.</p> Methods <p>Forty-three male athletes were regularly assessed over two pre-seasons following 48-hours of no training. Outcome measures were derived from maximal performances in adductor strength and countermovement jump (CMJ) assessments, the final minute of a continuous-fixed submaximal fitness test (CF-SMFT: 3-minutes, 12&#xa0;km⋅h<sup>–1</sup>), and the plateau-phase of a high-intensity intermittent-fixed run (HI-IR<sub>plateau</sub>: 50&#xa0;m, ~ 25&#xa0;km⋅h<sup>–1</sup>). External loads were derived from Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Repeated-measures correlations assessed relationships between the response measures, while linear mixed-effects models evaluated measurement variability. Generalised Additive Models examined associations between prior weekly external training loads and the response measures.</p> Results <p>Adductor strength and CMJ measures showed low within-athlete variability (coefficient of variation, CV = 4.3–6.6%) and limited associations with weekly external loads. Conversely, 2 standard deviation (SD) increases in weekly total distance were associated with reductions in CF-SMFT HR<sub>ex</sub> of − 1.3%-points (95% Confidence Intervals, CI: − 0.9, − 1.8), and as large as − 3.2%-points. Similarly, 2 SD increases in very-high speed running (&gt; 25&#xa0;km.h<sup>–1</sup>) were associated with declines in HI-IR<sub>plateau</sub> velocity of − 0.4&#xa0;km·h<sup>–1</sup> (95% CI: − 0.1, − 0.8), and as much as − 1.2&#xa0;km·h<sup>–1</sup>. Both effects exceeded thresholds of practical significance, as indicated by the typical error of measurement. Accelerometer-vector measures presented inconsistent associations.</p> Conclusions <p>Weekly external load changes were reflected in CF-SMFT HR<sub>ex</sub> and HI-IR<sub>plateau</sub> velocity, supporting their practical utility for athlete monitoring; whereas measures derived from generic neuromuscular tests (adductor strength, and CMJ) showed limited responsiveness. Associations between external loads and accelerometer-derived measures presented significant uncertainty, which currently limits confident recommendations on the utility of these emerging techniques.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Divergent Responses to Training Load in Professional Australian Football: Are Insights Obtained from Generic and Running-based Assessments Complementary or Redundant?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月21日

查看全文
  • Adriano Arguedas-Soley,
  • Tzlil Shushan,
  • Andrew Murphy,
  • Nicholas Poulos,
  • Ric Lovell,
  • Dean Norris

摘要

Background

Generic neuromuscular assessments are widely used to monitor training responses in team sports. Emerging running-based measures have been proposed to offer greater sensitivity to residual neuromuscular training effects by aligning more closely with the exercise dose, yet their practical utility remains ambiguous. Concurrent evaluation is thus necessary to identify athlete monitoring assessments that best capture meaningful responses.

Objectives

We examined within-athlete relationships among common training response measures and their associations with prior weekly external training load in professional Australian Football athletes.

Design

Repeated-measures, observational.

Methods

Forty-three male athletes were regularly assessed over two pre-seasons following 48-hours of no training. Outcome measures were derived from maximal performances in adductor strength and countermovement jump (CMJ) assessments, the final minute of a continuous-fixed submaximal fitness test (CF-SMFT: 3-minutes, 12 km⋅h–1), and the plateau-phase of a high-intensity intermittent-fixed run (HI-IRplateau: 50 m, ~ 25 km⋅h–1). External loads were derived from Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Repeated-measures correlations assessed relationships between the response measures, while linear mixed-effects models evaluated measurement variability. Generalised Additive Models examined associations between prior weekly external training loads and the response measures.

Results

Adductor strength and CMJ measures showed low within-athlete variability (coefficient of variation, CV = 4.3–6.6%) and limited associations with weekly external loads. Conversely, 2 standard deviation (SD) increases in weekly total distance were associated with reductions in CF-SMFT HRex of − 1.3%-points (95% Confidence Intervals, CI: − 0.9, − 1.8), and as large as − 3.2%-points. Similarly, 2 SD increases in very-high speed running (> 25 km.h–1) were associated with declines in HI-IRplateau velocity of − 0.4 km·h–1 (95% CI: − 0.1, − 0.8), and as much as − 1.2 km·h–1. Both effects exceeded thresholds of practical significance, as indicated by the typical error of measurement. Accelerometer-vector measures presented inconsistent associations.

Conclusions

Weekly external load changes were reflected in CF-SMFT HRex and HI-IRplateau velocity, supporting their practical utility for athlete monitoring; whereas measures derived from generic neuromuscular tests (adductor strength, and CMJ) showed limited responsiveness. Associations between external loads and accelerometer-derived measures presented significant uncertainty, which currently limits confident recommendations on the utility of these emerging techniques.