Physical Preparation in Female Rugby Codes: An Investigation of Current Practices

Abstract

Female sports have recently seen a dramatic rise in participation and professionalism world-wide. Despite progress, the infrastructure and general sport science provisions in many female sports are behind their male counterparts. From a performance perspective, marked differences in physical and physiological characteristics can be seen between the sexes. Although physical preparation practices for male athletes are known, there are currently no published literature pertaining exclusively to female athletes. This information would provide invaluable data for both the researcher and practitioner alike. This survey therefore aimed to examine current practices utilized in female rugby codes (union, league, and sevens). A questionnaire assessing seasonal physical preparation practices, recovery, monitoring and sport science technology, and unique aspects in female rugby was developed. Thirty-seven physical preparation practitioners (32 males, 5 females) responded to the questionnaire. Most participants (78%) worked with national or regional/state level female athletes. Performance testing was more frequently assessed in the pre- (97%) and in-season (86%), than off-season (23%). Resistance, cardiovascular, sprint and plyometric training, and recovery sessions were all believed to be important to enhancing performance and implemented by most participants (≥ 89%). Sport science technologies were commonly (54%) utilized to inform current practice. Menstrual cycle phase was monitored by 22% of practitioners. The most frequently reported unique considerations in female rugby codes included psycho-social aspects (41%), the menstrual cycle (22%), and physical differences (22%). Practitioners working with female rugby can use the presented data to inform and develop current practices.

Sprint development practices in elite football code athletes

“…Survey responses showed that 98% of respondents indicated that they evaluated sprint performance, presenting a higher frequency than previously reported (e.g., 77 AE 25% in rugby and American football [16][17][18]38 ). Of which 92% reported using the data to inform training practices.…”

“…9,20,22,25 Consistent with previous findings, performance development is being approached using combined methods of specific and non-specific training methods, targeting the underpinning determinants of sprint performance. 16–18,38 However, the content (i.e., exercise selection, training load prescription) varied across practitioners, as previously reported in football cohorts (rugby and American football) and even in elite sprinters. 16,17,46…”

“…Consistent with previous research, sprint performance evaluation is being achieved using velocity or time for distance measurements across a range of distances common in the football codes (e.g., “ 0, 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 m” 16–18,38 ). For practitioners to evaluate changes in sprint performance or inform training prescription effectively, they require valid and reliable testing equipment.…”

“…Most practitioners reported prescribing 1–3 or 2–4d·wk −1 for both specific (pre- and in-season =>92%) and non-specific (pre- and in-season = >77%) training methods. Previous surveys reported that the most common training frequencies reported were 1–2d·wk −1 for specific methods 38 and 3–4 d·wk −1 for non-specific training methods. 16,17,38 These training frequencies align with the ranges prevalent in the training literature, presenting an evidence base for effective training programme design.…”

“…Previous surveys reported that the most common training frequencies reported were 1–2d·wk −1 for specific methods 38 and 3–4 d·wk −1 for non-specific training methods. 16,17,38 These training frequencies align with the ranges prevalent in the training literature, presenting an evidence base for effective training programme design. 20,22 Despite the consistency in the training frequency, there are variable weekly practices across both pre- and in-season periods ranging from a minimum of 1–2 to at most 3–4d·wk −1 .…”