ISSN: 1899-1955
Human Movement Special Issues
Current issue Archive Human Movement
5/2018
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Analysis of relationships between different training load monitoring tools in elite U-20 soccer

Guilherme de Sousa Pinheiro
1
,
Roberto Chiari Quintao
2
,
Igor Custodio
2
,
David Casamichana
3
,
Bruno Pena Couto
2

1.
University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
2.
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
3.
University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Human Movement 2018 vol. 19(5) special issue, 52-59
Online publish date: 2019/03/12
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Purpose
The study analysed the responses from different training load monitoring tools in the elite U-20 soccer category and checked the level of association between these responses.

Methods
The participants were 10 elite male soccer players (age, 18.61 ± 0.95 years; height, 176.81 ± 5.03 cm; body mass, 70.32 ± 8.41 kg). The progressive test to exhaustion assessed maximum oxygen consumption and maximum heart rate. The athletes were monitored over 15 training sessions with a heart-rate-based method (Edwards) and mechanical load indicators obtained from GPS devices (15 Hz).

Results
Individual training load was calculated with the Foster’s session rating of perceived exertion (session-RPE) procedure. A significant correlation was found between session-RPE and Edwards (0.564, p < 0.05). There were no significant correlations between session-RPE and average speed (–0.161), average heart rate of the training session (–0.187), distance over 20 km/h (0.006), or number of accelerations performed in different zones (–0.194, –0.178, –0.171, –0.236). The Edwards method showed significant correlations with the total distance (0.642, p < 0.01), average heart rate (0.333, p < 0.01), and distances covered at 0–20 km/h (0.634, p < 0.01; 0.568, p < 0.01; 0.424, p < 0.01; 0.289, p < 0.01; 0.201, p < 0.015). There were no significant correlations between Edwards and average speed (0.158), distance over 20 km/h (0.014), number of accelerations performed in different zones (–0.194, –0.178, –0.171, –0.236), or number of normalized accelerations (–0.118, –0.038, –0.058, –0.035).

Conclusions
The Edwards method and session-RPE are limited load monitoring tools to indicate the reality of training situations (high-intensity action with recovery intervals).

keywords:

GPS technology, training control, session-RPE

Quick links
© 2020 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe