A Worldwide Survey on the Practices and Perceptions of Submaximal Fitness Tests in Team Sports
Click name to view affiliation
Search for other papers by Tzlil Shushan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dean Norris in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Institute of Sport, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom
Search for other papers by Shaun J. McLaren in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Laboratory of Sport, Expertise and Performance (EA 7370), French National Institute of Sport (INSEP), Paris, France
Kitman Labs, Performance Research Intelligence Initiative, Dublin, Ireland
Lille Olympic Sporting Club, Lille, France
Search for other papers by Martin Buchheit in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom
Search for other papers by Tannath J. Scott in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Steve Barrett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Antonio Dello Iacono in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Search for other papers by Ric Lovell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose: To survey team-sport practitioners on current practices and perceptions of submaximal fitness tests (SMFTs). Methods: A convenience sample of team-sport practitioners completed an online survey (September to November 2021). Descriptive statistics were used to obtain information of frequencies. A mixed-model quantile (median) regression was employed to assess the differences between the perceived influence of extraneous factors. Results: A total of 66 practitioners (74 discrete protocols) from 24 countries completed the survey. Time-efficient and nonexhaustive nature were considered the most important features of implementation. Practitioners prescribed a range of SMFTs, administered mostly on a monthly or weekly basis, but scheduling strategies appeared to differ across SMFT categories. Cardiorespiratory/metabolic outcome measures were collected in most protocols (n = 61; 82%), with the majority monitoring heart-rate-derived indices. Subjective outcome measures (n = 33; 45%) were monitored exclusively using ratings of perceived exertion. Mechanical outcome measures (n = 19; 26%) included either a combination of locomotor outputs (eg, distance covered) or variables derived from microelectrical mechanical systems. The perceived influence of extraneous factors on measurement accuracy varied according to outcome measure, and there was a lack of consensus among practitioners. Conclusions: Our survey showcases the methodological frameworks, practices, and challenges of SMFTs in team sports. The most important features for implementation perhaps support the use of SMFTs as a feasible and sustainable tool for monitoring in team sports. The wide variety of protocols, scheduling strategies, and outcome measures, along with their associated collection and analytical techniques, may reflect the absence of robust evidence regarding the application of SMFTs in team sports.
Norris https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7744-6233
McLaren https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0480-3209
Buchheit https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5528-2039
Scott https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4336-2370
Barrett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6751-9937
Dello Iacono https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0204-0957
Lovell https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5859-0267
Shushan (Tzlil21092@gmail.com) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0544-1986
Supplementary Materials
- Supplementary Material S1 (PDF 1 MB)
- Supplementary Material S2 (PDF 503 KB)
- Supplementary Material S3 (PDF 867 KB)
© 2024 Human Kinetics