Measured and Estimated Energy Cost of Constant and Shuttle Running in Soccer Players

Abstract

Shuttle running raised the player's energy cost of running compared to constant running at the same average speed. Although actual energy cost of constant running was significantly overestimated by di Prampero's approach using LPM data as input, actual energy cost of shuttle running was significantly underestimated.

Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load in professional Dutch Eredivisie football players

“…We acknowledge that care should be taken using both estimated energy expenditure as well as the (arbitrarily chosen) distance ran at high power (>20 W · kg −1 ) as measures for external load, especially when applied at an individual level (Stevens et al 2016). Currently, energy expenditure is underestimated, even when measured with a highly accurate LPM system, and most likely even more when using GPS (Stevens et al 2015). Moreover, although energy expenditure would potentially be a better indicator of total workload than distance covered (Polglaze et al 2016), in the present study estimated energy expenditure provided very similar information as total distance covered during training (Pearson's correlation = 0.99).…”

“…Integrated metabolic power calculation, based on the equation of Di Prampero et al (2005), which was extended by Osgnach et al (2010) for use in team sports, was employed to estimate metabolic power and therewith energy expenditure. Adjustable terrain factor (KT) and energy cost of constant running on flat terrain (in J • kg −1 • m −1 ) were set at 1.05 and 4.0, respectively (Sassi et al 2011;Stevens et al 2015).…”

“…Indeed, numerous studies have provided detailed information about the external load of elite football players during matches (see Sarmento et al 2014 for a review), including acceleration and metabolic variables (Osgnach et al 2010;Varley & Aughey 2013;Russell et al 2014;Wehbe et al 2014;Ingebrigtsen et al 2015;Dalen et al 2016), since these variables have been considered both metabolically and mechanically relevant (Greig et al 2006;Stevens et al 2015). Only recently, however, several studies have described the in-season training periodization practices of elite football teams in detail, including a comparison of training days within weekly micro-cycles (Akenhead, Harley, & Tweddle, 2016;Malone et al 2015;Anderson et al 2016).…”

Validity and reliability of 6-a-side small-sided game locomotor performance in assessing physical fitness in football players

“…The Yo-Yo IR2 is often used in football to evaluate the player's ability to perform intense intermittent exercise with high rates of aerobic and anaerobic energy turnover (Krustrup et al, 2006) set at 1.1 and 4.0 respectively (Sassi et al, 2011;Stevens et al, 2015). Total distance (m), average estimated metabolic power (W·kg -1 ) and distance (m) above 14.4 km·h -1 (high speed), 2 m·s -2 (high acceleration), 20 W·kg -1 (high power) and 35 W·kg -1 (very high power) were calculated.…”

“…Most likely, the 30% additional cost represents an underestimation of the true difference, because calculated metabolic power still underestimates the true metabolic power, with the amount of underestimation depending on the tracking technique and exercise mode (Stevens et al, 2015). Even though metabolic power is still underestimated, estimated metabolic power can potentially discriminate better between true differences in locomotor performance compared to total distance covered.…”