Positional Differences in Running and Nonrunning Activities During Elite American Football Training

Abstract

Ward, PA, Ramsden, S, Coutts, AJ, Hulton, AT, and Drust, B. Positional differences in running and nonrunning activities during elite American football training. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2017-The aim of this investigation was to describe differences in training loads between position groups within professional American football. Integrated micro technology data were collected on 63 NFL football players during an American football training camp. Five key metrics (total distance, high-speed distance, player load (PL), PL per minute, and total inertial movement analysis [IMA]) served to quantify both running and nonrunning activities. Players were classified into position groups (defensive back [DB], defensive linemen [DL], linebacker, offensive linemen [OL], quarterback, running back, tight end, and wide receiver [WR]). Training sessions were identified by their relationship to the upcoming match (e.g., -4, -3, and -2). Running and nonrunning activities varied between position groups relative to the training day. Differences in total distance between DB and WR were observed to be unclear across the 3 training days (game day [GD] -4: 74 ± 392 m; GD -3: -122 ± 348 m; and GD -2: -222 ± 371 m). However, moderate to large differences were observed between these 2 positions and the other positional groups. A similar relationship was observed in PL and PL per minute, with the DB and WR groups performing greater amounts of load compared with other positional groups. Differences in high-speed distance varied across positional groups, indicating different outputs based on ergonomic demands. The OL and DL groups ran less but engaged in a higher amount of nonrunning activities (total IMA) with differences ranging from moderate to large across the 3 training days. Total IMA differences between offensive and defensive linemen were unclear on GD -4 (-4 ± 9) and GD -2 (-2 ± 8) and likely moderate on GD -3 (-9 ± 9). Positional differences with regard to running and nonrunning activities highlight the existence of position-specific training within a training microcycle. In addition, total IMA provides a useful metric for quantifying sport-specific movements within the game of American football.

Associations Between Two Athlete Monitoring Systems Used to Quantify External Training Loads in Basketball Players

“…These results are likely related to the large lateral component of basketball, as well as the frequent accelerations and decelerations, dictated by the size of the player and the intermittent nature of the sport. Acceleratory and decelerator movements would produce more horizontal and less vertical ground reaction forces than the top-end speed running [27] commonly performed in the larger areas of play among outdoor sports [17,28]. As previously proposed, these data suggest the vertical component of basketball activity plays a smaller role in masking a minor increase in anteroposterior and mediolateral vectors of movement than that experienced in other sports [16,18,19].…”

“…While not specifically characterized in the present study, the majority of drill work was performed in the half court setting, with focus on individual skill development and less live or simulated game action in the full court. Evidence from alternative sports suggests that the training phase [37] and the number of days out from a competition [28] influence eTL due to tactical periodization strategies. Therefore, these preliminary observations of eTL among collegiate basketball players in the off-season highlights the need for future investigations in this area, which may provide insights useful for enhancements in tactical periodization to ensure coaches and performance practitioners are preparing athletes for the volume of work experienced during the competitive phase of the training cycle.…”

“…To the author's knowledge, no available data have examined differences in distance traveled between positions in collegiate basketball athletes, which may be a key index warranting investigation in the future. Additionally, expanding the information available from the IPS to include velocity information, similar to outdoor GPS systems, may be clinically relevant as work rate by velocity zones has been used as key performance indicators among outdoor sports [5,6,28], which may ultimately pair well the sensitivity of the IMU to detect micro-movements and develop the most comprehensive movement signature.…”

Positional differences in anticipation timing, reaction time and dynamic balance of American football players

“…Introduction 1 American football is one of the most competitive, and popular team sports in the United States [1]. The game is played at the college level in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and at the professional level in the National Football League (NFL) [2]. The NFL is the highest athletic competition level for American football, and competing in NFL requires exceptional skills and physical abilities [1].…”

“…American football is a crash-based sport including intense physical collisions, and characterized by intermittent short duration maximum high intensity activities separated by short rest times between games. It requires physical performance characteristics such power, strength, speed, acceleration, deceleration [2][3][4][5][6], and also skills such as catching, throwing, backpedalling, stealing, blocking, backpedalling, and back-pedaling, and sudden multi-directional running in-match performance [7]. The game is played by 11 players on each team.…”