Abstract
This study investigated differences in external training load between microcycle lengths and its variation between microcycles, players, and head coaches. Commonly used external training load variables including total-, high-speed- (5-7 m∙s-1), and sprint-distance (> 7 m∙s-1) alongside combined high acceleration and deceleration distance (> 2 m∙s-2). Which were also expressed relative to time were collected using microtechnology within a repeated measures design from 54 male rugby league players from one Super League team over four seasons. 4337 individual observations across ninety-one separate microcycles and six individual microcycle lengths (5 to 10 day) were included. Linear mixed effects models established the differences in training load between microcycle-length and the variation between-microcycles, players and head coaches. The largest magnitude of difference in training load was seen when comparing 5-day with 9-day (ES = 0.31 to 0.53) and 10-day (ES = 0.19 to 0.66) microcycles. The greatest number of differences between microcycles were observed in high- (ES = 0.3 to 0.53) and sprint-speed (ES = 0.2 to 0.42) variables. Between-microcycle variability ranged between 11% to 35% dependent on training load variable. Training load also varied between players (5-65%) and head coaches (6-20%) with most variability existing within high-speed (19-43%) and sprinting (19-65%). Overall, differences in training load between microcycle lengths exist, likely due to manipulation of session duration. Furthermore, training load varies between microcycle, player and head coach.
Highlights
ObjectivesThe primary aim of this study was to quantify and compare commonly used external training load metrics between different between-match microcycle lengths
Rugby league is played professionally in England and France in the Super League (SL) and in Australia and New Zealand in the National Rugby League (NRL)
Comparison of weekly training load during different microcycle lengths are presented in Fig 1 as forest plots of effect size (ES)
Summary
The primary aim of this study was to quantify and compare commonly used external training load metrics between different between-match microcycle lengths
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.