During in-season, half the total load came from games and the remaining half from training, predominantly skills and upper-body weights. Total distance, high-intensity running, andPlayerload showed large to very large reductions from pre-season to in-season, whereas changes in mean speed were trivial across all blocks. All these effects were clear at the 99% level. Conclusions: These data provide useful information about targeted periods of loading and unloading across different stages of a season. Our study also provides a framework for further investigation of training periodization in AF teams.

By using a cost-effective monitoring tool, this study provides information about the intensity, duration, and intensity distribution of all training types across different phases of a season, thus allowing a greater understanding of the training and competition demands of Australian footballers.

Despite injured athletes' obtaining comparable TLs to uninjured players, training distribution is different until after RTP, indicating the importance of monitoring all types of training that athletes complete.

Little is known about the effect of preceding endurance-exercise bouts on subsequent resistance-training (RT) performance in team-sport players. Purpose: To examine the effect of prior skills/endurance training and different recovery time periods on subsequent same-day RT performance in professional Australian football players. Methods: Sport-specific endurance-running loads (duration [in minutes], total distance [in meters], mean speed [in meters per minute], high-speed running >15 km·h−1, and relative high-speed running [>75% and >85% of maximal velocity]) were obtained for 46 professional Australian football players for each training session across an entire competitive season. RT was prescribed in 3 weekly mesocycles with tonnage (in kilograms) lifted recorded as RT performance. Endurance and RT sessions were interspersed by different recovery durations: ∼20 min and 1, 2, and 3 h. Fixed- and mixed-effect linear models assessed the influence of skills/endurance-running loads on RT performance. Models also accounted for season period (preseason vs in-season) and recovery duration between concurrent training bouts. Results: An increase in high-speed running and distance covered >75% and >85% of maximal velocity had the greatest reductions on RT performance. In-season total distance covered displayed greater negative effects on subsequent RT performance compared with preseason, while ∼20-min recovery between skills/endurance and RT was associated with greater reductions in RT performance, compared with 1-, 2-, and 3-h recovery. Conclusions: Sport-specific endurance-running loads negatively affect subsequent same-day RT performance, and this effect is greater in-season and with shorter recovery durations between bouts.

Sprint capacity is an important attribute for team-sport athletes, yet the most appropriate method to analyze it is unclear. Purpose: To examine the relationship between sprint workloads using relative versus absolute thresholds and lower-body soft-tissue and bone-stress injury incidence in professional Australian rules football. Methods: Fifty-three professional Australian rules football athletes’ noncontact soft-tissue and bone-stress lower-body injuries (N = 62) were recorded, and sprint workloads were quantified over ∼18 months using the global positioning system. Sprint volume (m) and exposures (n) were determined using 2 methods: absolute (>24.9 km·h−1) and relative (≥75%, ≥80%, ≥85%, ≥90%, ≥95% of maximal velocity). Relationships between threshold methods and injury incidence were assessed using logistic generalized additive models. Incidence rate ratios and model performances’ area under the curve were reported. Results: Mean (SD) maximal velocity for the group was 31.5 (1.4), range 28.6 to 34.9 km·h−1. In comparing relative and absolute thresholds, 75% maximal velocity equated to ~1.5 km·h−1 below the absolute speed threshold, while 80% and 85% maximal velocity were 0.1 and 1.7 km·h−1 above the absolute speed threshold, respectively. Model area under the curve ranged from 0.48 to 0.61. Very low and very high cumulative sprint loads ≥80% across a 4-week period, when measured relatively, resulted in higher incidence rate ratios (2.54–3.29), than absolute thresholds (1.18–1.58). Discussion: Monitoring sprinting volume relative to an athlete’s maximal velocity should be incorporated into athlete monitoring systems. Specifically, quantifying the distance covered at >80% maximal velocity will ensure greater accuracy in determining sprint workloads and associated injury risk.

Background Little is known about contrast training and post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) in a same day concurrent training model. The aim of the current study was to examine the use of two short duration (1-min and 4-min) recovery periods on drop jump performance in same day concurrently trained athletes. Methods Ten professional Australian Rules footballers (age, 20.6 ± 1.9 yr; height, 184.8 ± 6.9 cm; body mass, 85.8 ± 8.4 kg) completed two resistance training sessions with different PAPE recovery durations; 1-min and 4-min, 1 h following a field-based endurance session. Baseline (pre) drop jumps were compared to post-test maximal drop jumps, performed after each set of three squats (where each participant was encouraged to lift as heavy as they could), to determine changes between 1-min and 4-min recovery periods. Data were analysed by fitting a mixed model (significance was set at P ≤ 0.05). Corrected Hedges’ g standardised effect sizes ±95% confidence limits were calculated using group means ± SDs. Results There were no significant differences between baseline and experimental sets 1, 2 and 3 for reactive strength index (RSI), flight time, and total and relative impulse for either recovery duration. However, for contact time, 1-min baseline was significantly different from set 2 (mean difference; 95% CI [0.029; 0.000–0.057 s], P = 0.047, ES; 95% CI [−0.27; −1.20 to 0.66]). For RSI and flight time, 1-min was significantly higher than 4-min (RSI: 0.367; 0.091 to 0.642, P = 0.010, ES; 95% CI [0.52; −0.37 to 1.42]; flight time: 0.033; 0.003 to 0.063 s, P = 0.027, ES; 95% CI [0.86; −0.06 to 1.78]). Discussion Short recovery periods of 1-min may be a time-efficient form of prescribing strength-power exercise in contrast loading schemes. Longer recovery periods do not appear to benefit immediate, subsequent performance.

No abstract