Search

The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity of selected subjective and objective monitoring assessments in detecting changes in group and individual responses to low and high load bouts of high intensity intermittent exercise. In a counterbalanced crossover design, Thirteen Academy Rugby Union players (mean &plusmn, SD: age: 18 &plusmn, 1 years) performed a low load (15 min) and a high load (90 min) bout of high intensity intermittent exercise (Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test) one week apart. Monitoring assessments were performed immediately prior to and 20 h following each trial. Subjective self-report Well-being Questionnaire (WQ) items showed small to large deteriorations following the high load compared to low load (d = 0.4&ndash, 1.5, p = 0.03&ndash, 0.57). A very large increase in resting HR (HRrest) (d = 2.1, p = 0.02), moderate decrease in heart rate variability (HRV) indices (d = 0.7, p = 0.04 and d = 0.7, p = 0.01 for the natural logarithm of the standard deviation of R-R intervals (ln SDNN) and the root square of the mean squared differences of successive R-R intervals (rMSSD), respectively) and no change in countermovement jump (d = 0.0, p = 0.97) were evident following the high load compared to low load. Individual WQ responses revealed 7/9, 7/9, 6/9, 6/9, 5/9, 3/9 and 1/9 participants reported deteriorations in recovery, sleep quality, motivation, muscle soreness, fatigue, stress and appetite, respectively, following the high load compared to low load. Individual analysis indicated a negative response following the high load compared to low load in HRrest, ln SDNN and ln rMSSD for 4/6, 2/6 and 1/6 participants, respectively. Selected WQ items detected group and individual responses to high load and low load highlighting their potential utility. However, objective assessments lacked the sensitivity to detect small individual changes.

The 2011 English Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) stipulates training volumes that could put elite youth players at high risk of non-functional overreaching. The aim of the study was to assess player perceptions of well-being and physical performance to these high training loads. Fourteen academy football players (mean ± SD: age 17 ± 1 years; stature 179 ± 6 cm; body mass 70.8 ± 8.6 kg, at pre-season) completed a perception of well-being questionnaire 1-4 times per week throughout each training block (pre-season, in-season 1, 2, 3). Physical performance tests were carried out at the end of each training block. Increases in training exposure (P0.05; [Formula: see text] = 0.52) and moderate to large deteriorations in perceptions of well-being (motivation, sleep quality, recovery, appetite, fatigue, stress, muscle soreness P0.05; [Formula: see text] = 0.30-0.53) were evident as the season progressed. A moderate decrease in 30 m sprint performance (P0.05; [Formula: see text] = 0.48), a large improvement in Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test performance (P0.05; [Formula: see text] = 0.93) and small decreases in countermovement jump (P0.05; [Formula: see text] = 0.18) and arrowhead agility (P0.05; [Formula: see text] = 0.24) performance were evident as the season progressed. The present findings show an imbalance between stress and recovery in English elite youth players even when players experience lower training exposure than stipulated by the EPPP.