Search

This study aims to establish the validity and reliability of the prone Yo-YoIRL1 in elite female rugby league players (part one) and determine the anthropometric and physical characteristics contributing to 15m prone Yo-YoIRL1 performance (part two). Part one, 21 subjects completed one Yo-YoIRL1, one 20m and two 15m prone Yo-YoIRL1 tests over four sessions, with 7-14 days in-between. Part two, ten subjects completed a testing battery, including body mass, height, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, isometric mid-thigh pull, isometric bench-press, 10m and 20m sprints and an incremental treadmill test ([Formula: see text]). The 15m prone YoYoIRL1 demonstrated poor reliability with a typical error of 68m (21%) and a smallest worthwhile change of 54m (9%). Validity analysis found the prone versions of the YoYoIRL1 were not sensitive measures of intermittent running performance. Both prone YoYoIRL1 test distances demonstrated large mean bias (76% and -37% respectively) and typical error of the estimate (19% and 21%, respectively) in comparison to the YoYoIRL1. Body mass (r = -0.89), lean mass (r = -0.64), body fat % (r = -0.68), [Formula: see text] (l∙min-1) (r = -0.64), IMTP (r = -0.69), IBP (r = -0.15), 10m (r = -0.77) and 20m (r = -0.72) momentum displayed large negative relationships with 15m prone Yo-YoIRL1 performance. Due to the poor validity of the 20m prone YoYoIRL1, the poor validity and reliability of the 15m prone YoYoIRL1, and the anthropometric and physical characteristics which negatively impact performance, practitioners should reconsider the use of the prone YoYoIRL1 test to monitor high intensity intermittent running performance.

The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of an affordable wireless force sensor in measuring mean and peak forces during resistance training.A Suiff Pro wireless force sensor (Suiff, Spain) and a MuscleLab force platform (Ergotest, Norway) were used concurrently to assess tensile load and the ground reaction force resulting from an upright row exercise. Thirteen participants (28.2 ± 5.7 years, 76.2 ± 9.6 kg, 178.2 ± 9.2 cm) performed the exercise under three velocity conditions and isometrically. Each condition involved three sets of exercise. Mean (Fmean) and peak (Fpeak) force values from both sensors were collected and compared.Suiff Pro exhibited excellent reliability for Fmean and Fpeak (ICCs = 0.99). When compared to the criterion measures, Suiff Pro showed trivial standardized bias for Fmean (Mean = 0.00 [CI 95% = 0.00 to 0.01]) and Fpeak (-0.02 [-0.04 to 0.00]). The standardized typical error was also trivial for Fmean (0.03 [0.02 to 0.03]) and Fpeak (0.07 [0.05 to 0.09]). Correlations with the MuscleLab force platform were nearly perfect: Fmean (0.97 [0.94 to 0.98]; p

BackgroundElite rugby players experience poor sleep quality and quantity. This lack of sleep could compromise post-exercise recovery. Therefore, it appears central to encourage sleep in order to improve recovery kinetics. However, the effectiveness of an acute ergogenic strategy such as sleep extension on recovery has yet to be investigated among athletes.AimTo compare the effects of a single night of sleep extension to an active recovery session (CON) on post-exercise recovery kinetics.MethodsIn a randomised cross-over design, 10 male rugby union players participated in two evening training sessions (19:30) involving collision activity, 7-days apart. After each session, participants either extended their sleep to 10 hours or attended an early morning recovery session (07:30). Prior to (PRE), immediately after (POST 0 hour [h]), 14h (POST 14) and 36h (POST 36) post training, neuromuscular, perceptual and cognitive measures of fatigue were assessed. Objective sleep parameters were monitored two days before the training session and over the two-day recovery period.ResultsThe training session induced substantial decreases in countermovement jump mean power and wellness across all time points, while heart rate recovery decreased at POST 0 in both conditions. Sleep extension resulted in greater total sleep time (effect size [90% confidence interval]: 5.35 [4.56 to 6.14]) but greater sleep fragmentation than CON (2.85 [2.00 to 3.70]). Between group differences highlight a faster recovery of cognitive performance following sleep extension (-1.53 [-2.33 to -0.74]) at POST 14, while autonomic function (-1.00 [-1.85 to -0.16]) and upper-body neuromuscular function (-0.78 [-1.65 to 0.08]) were better in CON. However, no difference in recovery status between groups was observed at POST 36.ConclusionThe main finding of this study suggests that sleep extension could affect cognitive function positively but did not improve neuromuscular function the day after a late exercise bout.

This study aims to establish the validity and reliability of the prone Yo-YoIRL1 in elite female rugby league players (part one) and determine the anthropometric and physical characteristics contributing to 15m prone Yo-YoIRL1 performance (part two). Part one, 21 subjects completed one Yo-YoIRL1, one 20m and two 15m prone Yo-YoIRL1 tests over four sessions, with 7–14 days in-between. Part two, ten subjects completed a testing battery, including body mass, height, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, isometric mid-thigh pull, isometric bench-press, 10m and 20m sprints and an incremental treadmill test (V˙O2max). The 15m prone YoYoIRL1 demonstrated poor reliability with a typical error of 68m (21%) and a smallest worthwhile change of 54m (9%). Validity analysis found the prone versions of the YoYoIRL1 were not sensitive measures of intermittent running performance. Both prone YoYoIRL1 test distances demonstrated large mean bias (76% and -37% respectively) and typical error of the estimate (19% and 21%, respectively) in comparison to the YoYoIRL1. Body mass (r = -0.89), lean mass (r = -0.64), body fat % (r = -0.68), V˙O2max (l∙min-1) (r = -0.64), IMTP (r = -0.69), IBP (r = -0.15), 10m (r = -0.77) and 20m (r = -0.72) momentum displayed large negative relationships with 15m prone Yo-YoIRL1 performance. Due to the poor validity of the 20m prone YoYoIRL1, the poor validity and reliability of the 15m prone YoYoIRL1, and the anthropometric and physical characteristics which negatively impact performance, practitioners should reconsider the use of the prone YoYoIRL1 test to monitor high intensity intermittent running performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of an affordable wireless force sensor in measuring mean and peak forces during resistance training.A Suiff Pro wireless force sensor (Suiff, Spain) and a MuscleLab force platform (Ergotest, Norway) were used concurrently to assess tensile load and the ground reaction force resulting from an upright row exercise. Thirteen participants (28.2 ± 5.7 years, 76.2 ± 9.6 kg, 178.2 ± 9.2 cm) performed the exercise under three velocity conditions and isometrically. Each condition involved three sets of exercise. Mean (Fmean) and peak (Fpeak) force values from both sensors were collected and compared.Suiff Pro exhibited excellent reliability for Fmean and Fpeak (ICCs = 0.99). When compared to the criterion measures, Suiff Pro showed trivial standardized bias for Fmean (Mean = 0.00 [CI 95% = 0.00 to 0.01]) and Fpeak (-0.02 [-0.04 to 0.00]). The standardized typical error was also trivial for Fmean (0.03 [0.02 to 0.03]) and Fpeak (0.07 [0.05 to 0.09]). Correlations with the MuscleLab force platform were nearly perfect: Fmean (0.97 [0.94 to 0.98]; p<0.001); Fpeak (0.96 [0.92 to 0.97]; p<0.001).The findings demonstrate that the Suiff Pro sensor is reliable and valid device for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance training exercises. Therefore, practitioners can confidently use this device to monitor kinematic variables of resistance training exercises and to obtain real-time augmented feedback during a training session. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]