Abstract
Both objective (OM) and subjective (SM) methods are used in athletic studies, regardless of sport type, to identify and analyze load and recovery status of athletes. As little information exists about the comparison of these two methodologies, the aim of this study is to compare and contrast information that defines the relationship between both methods. Twelve international male lacrosse athletes participated in this study over the course of which participants heart-rate-variability and questionnaire-data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate changes over time and correlations between used methods. Comparison between baseline values and competition showed a reduction in root-mean-square of successive differences (RMSSD) (p < 0.01) and the proportion of beat-intervals (NN) that differ by more than 50 ms divided by total number of NNs (pNN50) (p < 0.01). Further, RMSSD values showed differences during competition with large effects (p = 0.02; η2 = 0.24). SM (p < 0.01) showed different progression during competition. Correlation was found for used SM and OM, when considered separately. No evidence for a reliable prediction of OM values using SM could be found. According to these findings, we recommend using a combination of SM and OM data to quantify the physiological stress of training and competition, respectively.
Highlights
An increase in long-term and peak performance at certain times are essential prerequisites for success in sports
Findings by Cardinale and Varley [4] show that the assessment of training load (TL) across different sports has increased as well
A negative coincidence with SRS-S values. These findings indicate that athletes with higher load status tended to have better recovery status on the following day
Summary
An increase in long-term and peak performance at certain times are essential prerequisites for success in sports. Improvement in performance is only possible if a sufficient quality and quantity of recovery is provided [1]. In this context, the assessment of the load and recovery status play an ever important role [2,3]. Findings by Cardinale and Varley [4] show that the assessment of training load (TL) across different sports has increased as well. Tracking athletes’ load and recovery status provides a better understanding of training, training loads optimization, and individually structured program design to both improve performance and reduce injuries [6]. Foster et al [5] see a tendency to measure two different aspects in training
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
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.