Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- aerobic power (2)
- exercise therapy (2)
- football (2)
- heart rate (2)
- human physical conditioning (2)
- internal load (2)
- linear sprint (2)
- physical fitness (2)
- resistance training (2)
- stretch-shortening cycle (2)
- team sports (2)
Institute
This study sought to analyze the relationship between in-season training workload with changes in aerobic power (VO2max), maximum and resting heart rate (HRmax and HRrest), linear sprint medium (LSM), and short test (LSS), in soccer players younger than 16 years (under-16 soccer players). We additionally aimed to explain changes in fitness levels during the in-season through regression models, considering accumulated load, baseline levels, and peak height velocity (PHV) as predictors. Twenty-three male sub-elite soccer players aged 15.5 ± 0.2 years (PHV: 13.6 ± 0.4 years; body height: 172.7 ± 4.2 cm; body mass: 61.3 ± 5.6 kg; body fat: 13.7% ± 3.9%; VO2max: 48.4 ± 2.6 mL⋅kg–1⋅min–1), were tested three times across the season (i.e., early-season (EaS), mid-season (MiS), and end-season (EnS) for VO2max, HRmax, LSM, and LSS. Aerobic and speed variables gradually improved over the season and had a strong association with PHV. Moreover, the HRmax demonstrated improvements from EaS to EnS; however, this was more evident in the intermediate period (from EaS to MiS) and had a strong association with VO2max. Regression analysis showed significant predictions for VO2max [F(2, 20) = 8.18, p ≤ 0.001] with an R2 of 0.45. In conclusion, the meaningful variation of youth players’ fitness levels can be observed across the season, and such changes can be partially explained by the load imposed.
This study sought to analyze the relationship between in-season training workload with changes in aerobic power (VO2max), maximum and resting heart rate (HRmax and HRrest), linear sprint medium (LSM), and short test (LSS), in soccer players younger than 16 years (under-16 soccer players). We additionally aimed to explain changes in fitness levels during the in-season through regression models, considering accumulated load, baseline levels, and peak height velocity (PHV) as predictors. Twenty-three male sub-elite soccer players aged 15.5 ± 0.2 years (PHV: 13.6 ± 0.4 years; body height: 172.7 ± 4.2 cm; body mass: 61.3 ± 5.6 kg; body fat: 13.7% ± 3.9%; VO2max: 48.4 ± 2.6 mL⋅kg–1⋅min–1), were tested three times across the season (i.e., early-season (EaS), mid-season (MiS), and end-season (EnS) for VO2max, HRmax, LSM, and LSS. Aerobic and speed variables gradually improved over the season and had a strong association with PHV. Moreover, the HRmax demonstrated improvements from EaS to EnS; however, this was more evident in the intermediate period (from EaS to MiS) and had a strong association with VO2max. Regression analysis showed significant predictions for VO2max [F(2, 20) = 8.18, p ≤ 0.001] with an R2 of 0.45. In conclusion, the meaningful variation of youth players’ fitness levels can be observed across the season, and such changes can be partially explained by the load imposed.
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on volleyball players’ vertical jump height (VJH), comparing changes with those observed in a matched control group. A literature search in the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS was conducted. Only randomized-controlled trials and studies that included a pre-to-post intervention assessment of VJH were included. They involved only healthy volleyball players with no restrictions on age or sex. Data were independently extracted from the included studies by two authors. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the risk of bias, and methodological quality, of eligible studies included in the review. From 7,081 records, 14 studies were meta-analysed. A moderate Cohen’s d effect size (ES = 0.82, p <0.001) was observed for VJH, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.4%, p = 0.09) and no publication bias (Egger’s test, p = 0.59). Analyses of moderator variables revealed no significant differences for PJT program duration (≤8 vs. >8 weeks, ES = 0.79 vs. 0.87, respectively), frequency (≤2 vs. >2 sessions/week, ES = 0.83 vs. 0.78, respectively), total number of sessions (≤16 vs. >16 sessions, ES = 0.73 vs. 0.92, respectively), sex (female vs. male, ES = 1.3 vs. 0.5, respectively), age (≥19 vs. <19 years of age, ES = 0.89 vs. 0.70, respectively), and volume (>2,000 vs. <2,000 jumps, ES = 0.76 vs. 0.79, respectively). In conclusion, PJT appears to be effective in inducing improvements in volleyball players’ VJH. Improvements in VJH may be achieved by both male and female volleyball players, in different age groups, with programs of relatively low volume and frequency. Though PJT seems to be safe for volleyball players, it is recommended that an individualized approach, according to player position, is adopted with some players (e.g. libero) less prepared to sustain PJT loads.
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on volleyball players’ vertical jump height (VJH), comparing changes with those observed in a matched control group. A literature search in the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS was conducted. Only randomized-controlled trials and studies that included a pre-to-post intervention assessment of VJH were included. They involved only healthy volleyball players with no restrictions on age or sex. Data were independently extracted from the included studies by two authors. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the risk of bias, and methodological quality, of eligible studies included in the review. From 7,081 records, 14 studies were meta-analysed. A moderate Cohen’s d effect size (ES = 0.82, p <0.001) was observed for VJH, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.4%, p = 0.09) and no publication bias (Egger’s test, p = 0.59). Analyses of moderator variables revealed no significant differences for PJT program duration (≤8 vs. >8 weeks, ES = 0.79 vs. 0.87, respectively), frequency (≤2 vs. >2 sessions/week, ES = 0.83 vs. 0.78, respectively), total number of sessions (≤16 vs. >16 sessions, ES = 0.73 vs. 0.92, respectively), sex (female vs. male, ES = 1.3 vs. 0.5, respectively), age (≥19 vs. <19 years of age, ES = 0.89 vs. 0.70, respectively), and volume (>2,000 vs. <2,000 jumps, ES = 0.76 vs. 0.79, respectively). In conclusion, PJT appears to be effective in inducing improvements in volleyball players’ VJH. Improvements in VJH may be achieved by both male and female volleyball players, in different age groups, with programs of relatively low volume and frequency. Though PJT seems to be safe for volleyball players, it is recommended that an individualized approach, according to player position, is adopted with some players (e.g. libero) less prepared to sustain PJT loads.