Training intensity monitoring is a daily practice in soccer which allows soccer academies to assess the efficacy of its developmental interventions and management strategies. The current systematic review’s purpose is to: (1) identify and summarize studies that have examined external and internal training intensity monitoring, and to (2) provide references values for the main measures for young male soccer players. A systematic review of EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From the 2404 studies initially identified, 8 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. From them, the following range intervals were found for training: rated perceived exertion (RPE) 2.3–6.3 au; session-RPE, 156–394 au; total distance, 3964.5–6500 m and; distance >18 km/h, 11.8–250 m. Additionally, a general tendency to decrease the intensity in the day before the match was Found. This study allowed to provide reference values of professional young male players for the main internal and external measures. All together, they can be used by coaches, their staff, or practitioners in order to better adjust training intensity.
One of the possibilities for organising different studies and providing some reference values or benchmarks is to summarise all information. Such a possibility could help coaches and practitioners identify typical values based on specific conditions and eventually use benchmark values to compare players against The current systematic review was carried out to identify and summarise studies that have examined external and internal training intensity monitoring and to provide references values for the main measures in professional male soccer players. A systematic review of EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From the 2404 studies initially identified, 25 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analysed. From these, the following range intervals by overall team were found: session rated perceived exertion (s-RPE) = 26–936 AU, total distance = 2143–9540 m and distance >14 km/h = 410–1884 m, distance >18 km/h = 7–541 m, distance >24 km/h = 1–190 m, acceleration number >3 m.s−2 = 9–195, deceleration number >-3 m.s−2 = 10–157 and player load = 310–774 AU. Additionally, range intervals for player positions and a match-day minus approach were provided. This study provided reference values of professional male players for the main internal and external intensity measures. Altogether, they can be used by coaches, their staff, or practitioners to achieve desired competitive levels. They can replicate such values or even increase the numbers presented in training sessions.
Although there is a wide range of validated devices to measure vertical jump height, the degree of interchangeability among them is currently unknown. Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent validity and reliability of multiple devices to measure jump height in men’s handball players. Methods: Sixteen players (age = 24.0 ± 3.7 years old) performed three types of jumps (n= 144—squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ) and Abalakov jump (ABK)) on a contact platform (CHRONOJUMP®) while simultaneously being measured with two inertial devices (WIMU® and VERT®) and recorded with a high-speed camera. Vertical jump height was analyzed according to each type of jump. Results: The t-test showed statistically significant differences (p = 0.001) between the contact platform (reference standard) and the rest of the tools that tended to overestimate jump height in all jumps. SJ and CMJ proved to be the jump tests with the most stable reliability values in all devices (ICC: 0.92–0.98), except in the comparison with VERT®. Conclusions: Although all the analyzed devices proved to be valid and reliable in previous studies, they are not interchangeable. Therefore, it is suggested to always use the same type of device to evaluate vertical height jump.
The present study aimed to determine which of the neuromuscular status (NMS) monitoring tests (1: Counter-movement jump, CMJ; 2: back squat with additional load) is the most sensitive and effective for evaluating the state of fatigue in futsal players during the preseason. Seventeen professional futsal players were recruited for this study (age: 23.07 ± 6.76 years; height: 1.75 ± 0.06 m; body mass: 75.47 ± 7.47 kg; playing experience in elite: 5.38 ± 2.03 years). All of them were evaluated during the preseason phase in two tests (CMJ and back squat with additional load) before and after each training session (pre- vs. post-test). A jump platform was used to extract jump height during CMJ, while a linear position transducer was used to extract mean velocity (MV) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) during the back squat exercise. Significant differences were obtained for intra-subject analysis for MV and MPV in loaded back squat exercise (p < 0.001), finding lower values during the post-test. In conclusion, the monitoring of NMS through the back squat provides greater sensitivity and objectivity in comparison with CMJ, due to a more direct neuromuscular extrapolation to the physical demands of futsal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.