A Worldwide Survey on The Practices and Perceptions of Submaximal Fitness Tests in Team Sports

Abstract

Purpose: To survey team-sports practitioners on current practices and perceptions of submaximal fitness tests (SMFT). Methods: A convenience sample of team-sports practitioners completed an online survey (September to November 2021). Descriptive statistics was used to obtain information of frequencies. A mixed-model quantile (median) regression was employed to assess the differences between perceived influence of extraneous factors. Results: A total of 66 practitioners (74 protocols) from 24 countries completed the survey. Time-efficient and non-exhaustive nature were considered as the most important features of implementation. Practitioners prescribed a range of SMFT, administered mostly on a monthly or weekly basis, but scheduling strategies appeared to differ across SMFT categories. Cardiorespiratory/metabolic outcome measures were collected in most protocols (n=61; 82%), with the majority monitoring heart rate-derived indices. Subjective outcome measures (n=33; 45%) were monitored exclusively using ratings of perceived exertion. Mechanical outcome measures (n=19; 26%) included either a combination of locomotor outputs (e.g., distance covered), or variables derived from micro-electrical mechanical systems. The perceived influence of extraneous factors on measurement accuracy varied according to outcome measure, and a lack of consensus amongst practitioners was present. Conclusions: Our survey showcases the methodological frameworks, practices, and challenges of SMFT in team sports. The most important features for implementation perhaps support the use of SMFT as a feasible and sustainable tool for monitoring in team sports. The wide variety of protocols, scheduling strategies, outcome measures, along with their associated collection and analytical techniques may reflect the absence of robust evidence regarding the application of SMFT in team sports.

A Methodological Comparison of Protocols and Analytical Techniques to Assess Submaximal Fitness Tests Outcome Measures

“…The reliability of HRex, as observed in this study (TE ranging from 1.0 to 1.6 % points, and ICC values ranging from 0.92 to 0.96), lies within the prediction interval ranges of a recent meta-analysis exploring its measurement properties in team sports 27 . Building on these insights 27 , we demonstrated that exercise intensity during the SMFT has no meaningful effects on HRex reliability (Table 2), suggesting that practitioners can choose from a range of fixed intensities that best suits their training targets (e.g., integrated into the warm-up 19 , individualised approach 5 ) and are feasible to be routinely administered in a standardised fashion. Further, although collection timeframes do not appear to affect reliability 27 , using the last 30-60 s of exercise is advisable because it is often less influenced by outliers 27 .…”

“…Building on these insights 27 , we demonstrated that exercise intensity during the SMFT has no meaningful effects on HRex reliability (Table 2), suggesting that practitioners can choose from a range of fixed intensities that best suits their training targets (e.g., integrated into the warm-up 19 , individualised approach 5 ) and are feasible to be routinely administered in a standardised fashion. Further, although collection timeframes do not appear to affect reliability 27 , using the last 30-60 s of exercise is advisable because it is often less influenced by outliers 27 . For example, quantifying HRex with a lower number of data points (i.e., peak, fixed value) may result in erroneous results due to measurement noise or HR spikes.…”