Search Results

You are looking at 61 - 70 of 70 items for

  • Author: Aaron J. Coutts x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Training Periodization of Professional Australian Football Players During an Entire Australian Football League Season

Alexandre Moreira, Johann C. Bilsborough, Courtney J. Sullivan, Michael Cianciosi, Marcelo Saldanha Aoki, and Aaron J. Coutts

Purpose:

To examine the training periodization of an elite Australian Football team during different phases of the season.

Methods:

Training-load data were collected during 22 wk of preseason and 23 wk of in-season training. Training load was measured using the session rating of perceived exertion (session-RPE) for all training sessions and matches from 44 professional Australian Football players from the same team. Training intensity was divided into 3 zones based on session-RPE (low, <4; moderate, >4 AU and <7 AU; and high, >7 AU). Training load and intensity were analyzed according to the type of training session completed.

Results:

Higher training load and session duration were undertaken for all types of training sessions during the preseason than in-season (P < .05), with the exception of “other” training (ie, re/prehabilitation training, cross-training, and recovery activities). Training load and intensity were higher during the preseason, with the exception of games, where greater load and intensity were observed during the in-season. The overall distribution of training intensity was similar between phases with the majority of training performed at moderate or high intensity.

Conclusions:

The current findings may allow coaches and scientists to better understand the characteristics of Australian Football periodization, which in turn may aid in developing optimal training programs. The results also indicate that a polarized training-intensity distribution that has been reported in elite endurance athletes does not occur in professional Australian Football.

Restricted access

Athlete-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring Training Responses: A Systematic Review of Risk of Bias and Measurement Property Quality According to the COSMIN Guidelines

Annie C. Jeffries, Lee Wallace, Aaron J. Coutts, Shaun J. McLaren, Alan McCall, and Franco M. Impellizzeri

Background: Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties. Objectives: Part 1—identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2—assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria. Results: Part 1—from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2—from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items. Conclusions: The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.

Restricted access

Is a Head-Worn Inertial Sensor a Valid Tool to Monitor Swimming?

Stephanie J. Shell, Brad Clark, James R. Broatch, Katie Slattery, Shona L. Halson, and Aaron J. Coutts

Purpose: This study aimed to independently validate a wearable inertial sensor designed to monitor training and performance metrics in swimmers. Methods: A total of 4 male (21 [4] y, 1 national and 3 international) and 6 female (22 [3] y, 1 national and 5 international) swimmers completed 15 training sessions in an outdoor 50-m pool. Swimmers were fitted with a wearable device (TritonWear, 9-axis inertial measurement unit with triaxial accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer), placed under the swim cap on top of the occipital protuberance. Video footage was captured for each session to establish criterion values. Absolute error, standardized effect, and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to determine the validity of the wearable device against video footage for total swim distance, total stroke count, mean stroke count, and mean velocity. A Fisher exact test was used to analyze the accuracy of stroke-type identification. Results: Total swim distance was underestimated by the device relative to video analysis. Absolute error was consistently higher for total and mean stroke count, and mean velocity, relative to video analysis. Across all sessions, the device incorrectly detected total time spent in backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, and freestyle by 51% (15%). The device did not detect time spent in drill. Intraclass correlation coefficient results demonstrated excellent intrarater reliability between repeated measures across all swimming metrics. Conclusions: The wearable device investigated in this study does not accurately measure distance, stroke count, and velocity swimming metrics or detect stroke type. Its use as a training monitoring tool in swimming is limited.

Restricted access

Development and Validation of Single Items for Fatigue and Recovery in Dancers

Annie C. Jeffries, Andrew R. Novak, Aaron J. Coutts, Alan McCall, Shaun J. McLaren, and Franco M. Impellizzeri

Purpose: To examine the construct validity and reliability of 2 single items for fatigue and recovery in dancers. The construct validity was assessed using reference instruments: the fatigue items of the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS) and the Short Recovery and Stress Scale (SRSS). A secondary aim was to explore the respondent interpretation of these 2 items using a concept identification approach. Methods: Two hundred forty-three (N = 243) dancers completed single-item fatigue and recovery (unipolar and bipolar), BRUMS, and SRSS once for construct validity. For reliability,  49 dancers completed the questionnaires twice, 1 week apart. Using a concept identification approach, 49 dancers were also asked comprehension and interpretation of fatigue and recovery. Results: The fatigue item correlated with SRSS stress items (r s = .37–.51) and BRUMs fatigue items (r s = .63–.66). The recovery item was only partially confirmed in terms of construct validity, when using the SRSS recovery items as reference (r s = .39–.43). Reliability was confirmed for the single items of fatigue (κ = .77–.78) and recovery (κ = .71–.78). Main responses for the concept of fatigue were tiredness (34.7%), muscle soreness (17.3%), and energy (13.0%). Main responses for the concept of recovery were muscle soreness (43.0%), tiredness (27.9%), and fatigue (24.0%). Conclusion: We provide preliminary confirmation of the validity and reliability of the single item fatigue in dancers. The recovery item was only partially confirmed in terms of construct validity, when using the SRSS recovery items as reference, but did display acceptable reliability and agreement. Further research is warranted further exploring other measurement properties.

Restricted access

Effects of a Very Congested Match Schedule on Body-Load Impacts, Accelerations, and Running Measures in Youth Soccer Players

Ademir F.S. Arruda, Christopher Carling, Vinicius Zanetti, Marcelo S. Aoki, Aaron J. Coutts, and Alexandre Moreira

Purpose:

To analyze the effects of a very congested match schedule on the total distance (TD) covered, high-intensity-running (HIR) distance, and frequency of accelerations and body-load impacts (BLIs) performed in a team of under-15 soccer players (N = 10; 15.1 ± 0.2 y, 171.8 ± 4.7 cm, 61 ± 6.0 kg) during an international youth competition.

Methods:

Using global positioning systems, player performances were repeatedly monitored in 5 matches performed over 3 successive days.

Results:

Significant differences were observed between matches (P < .05) for the frequency of accelerations per minute, BLIs, and BLIs per minute. No differences were observed for the TD covered, TD run per minute, number of high-intensity runs, distance covered in HIR, per-minute peak running speed attained, or frequency of accelerations. The frequency of accelerations per minute decreased across the competition while BLIs were higher during the final than in all other matches.

Conclusions:

These results suggest that BLIs and acceleration might be used as an alternative means to represent the external load during congested match schedules rather than measures related to running speed or distance covered.

Restricted access

Concurrent Heat and Intermittent Hypoxic Training: No Additional Performance Benefit Over Temperate Training

Erin L. McCleave, Katie M. Slattery, Rob Duffield, Stephen Crowcroft, Chris R. Abbiss, Lee K. Wallace, and Aaron J. Coutts

Purpose: To examine whether concurrent heat and intermittent hypoxic training can improve endurance performance and physiological responses relative to independent heat or temperate interval training. Methods: Well-trained male cyclists (N = 29) completed 3 weeks of moderate- to high-intensity interval training (4 × 60 min·wk−1) in 1 of 3 conditions: (1) heat (HOT: 32°C, 50% relative humidity, 20.8% fraction of inspired oxygen, (2) heat + hypoxia (H+H: 32°C, 50% relative humidity, 16.2% fraction of inspired oxygen), or (3) temperate environment (CONT: 22°C, 50% relative humidity, 20.8% fraction of inspired oxygen). Performance 20-km time trials (TTs) were conducted in both temperate (TTtemperate) and assigned condition (TTenvironment) before (base), immediately after (mid), and after a 3-week taper (end). Measures of hemoglobin mass, plasma volume, and blood volume were also assessed. Results: There was improved 20-km TT performance to a similar extent across all groups in both TTtemperate (mean ±90% confidence interval HOT, −2.8% ±1.8%; H+H, −2.0% ±1.5%; CONT, −2.0% ±1.8%) and TTenvironment (HOT, −3.3% ±1.7%; H+H, −3.1% ±1.6%; CONT, −3.2% ±1.1%). Plasma volume (HOT, 3.8% ±4.7%; H+H, 3.3% ±4.7%) and blood volume (HOT, 3.0% ±4.1%; H+H, 4.6% ±3.9%) were both increased at mid in HOT and H+H over CONT. Increased hemoglobin mass was observed in H+H only (3.0% ±1.8%). Conclusion: Three weeks of interval training in heat, concurrent heat and hypoxia, or temperate environments improve 20-km TT performance to the same extent. Despite indications of physiological adaptations, the addition of independent heat or concurrent heat and hypoxia provided no greater performance benefits in a temperate environment than temperate training alone.

Restricted access

Impaired Heat Adaptation From Combined Heat Training and “Live High, Train Low” Hypoxia

Erin L. McCleave, Katie M. Slattery, Rob Duffield, Philo U. Saunders, Avish P. Sharma, Stephen Crowcroft, and Aaron J. Coutts

Purpose: To determine whether combining training in heat with “Live High, Train Low” hypoxia (LHTL) further improves thermoregulatory and cardiovascular responses to a heat-tolerance test compared with independent heat training. Methods: A total of 25 trained runners (peak oxygen uptake = 64.1 [8.0] mL·min−1·kg−1) completed 3-wk training in 1 of 3 conditions: (1) heat training combined with “LHTL” hypoxia (H+H; FiO2 = 14.4% [3000 m], 13 h·d−1; train at <600 m, 33°C, 55% relative humidity [RH]), (2) heat training (HOT; live and train <600 m, 33°C, 55% RH), and (3) temperate training (CONT; live and train <600 m, 13°C, 55% RH). Heat adaptations were determined from a 45-min heat-response test (33°C, 55% RH, 65% velocity corresponding to the peak oxygen uptake) at baseline and immediately and 1 and 3 wk postexposure (baseline, post, 1 wkP, and 3 wkP, respectively). Core temperature, heart rate, sweat rate, sodium concentration, plasma volume, and perceptual responses were analyzed using magnitude-based inferences. Results: Submaximal heart rate (effect size [ES] = −0.60 [−0.89; −0.32]) and core temperature (ES = −0.55 [−0.99; −0.10]) were reduced in HOT until 1 wkP. Sweat rate (ES = 0.36 [0.12; 0.59]) and sweat sodium concentration (ES = −0.82 [−1.48; −0.16]) were, respectively, increased and decreased until 3 wkP in HOT. Submaximal heart rate (ES = −0.38 [−0.85; 0.08]) was likely reduced in H+H at 3 wkP, whereas CONT had unclear physiological changes. Perceived exertion and thermal sensation were reduced across all groups. Conclusions: Despite greater physiological stress from combined heat training and “LHTL” hypoxia, thermoregulatory adaptations are limited in comparison with independent heat training. The combined stimuli provide no additional physiological benefit during exercise in hot environments.

Restricted access

Intersubjective Comparisons Are Possible with an Accurate Use of the Borg CR Scales

Franco M. Impellizzeri, Elisabet Borg, Aaron J. Coutts, Michael Ian Lambert, Jill Borresen, Jason Kai Wei Lee, and Peter Peeling

Open access

Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement

Pitre C. Bourdon, Marco Cardinale, Andrew Murray, Paul Gastin, Michael Kellmann, Matthew C. Varley, Tim J. Gabbett, Aaron J. Coutts, Darren J. Burgess, Warren Gregson, and N. Timothy Cable

Monitoring the load placed on athletes in both training and competition has become a very hot topic in sport science. Both scientists and coaches routinely monitor training loads using multidisciplinary approaches, and the pursuit of the best methodologies to capture and interpret data has produced an exponential increase in empirical and applied research. Indeed, the field has developed with such speed in recent years that it has given rise to industries aimed at developing new and novel paradigms to allow us to precisely quantify the internal and external loads placed on athletes and to help protect them from injury and ill health. In February 2016, a conference on “Monitoring Athlete Training Loads—The Hows and the Whys” was convened in Doha, Qatar, which brought together experts from around the world to share their applied research and contemporary practices in this rapidly growing field and also to investigate where it may branch to in the future. This consensus statement brings together the key findings and recommendations from this conference in a shared conceptual framework for use by coaches, sport-science and -medicine staff, and other related professionals who have an interest in monitoring athlete training loads and serves to provide an outline on what athlete-load monitoring is and how it is being applied in research and practice, why load monitoring is important and what the underlying rationale and prospective goals of monitoring are, and where athlete-load monitoring is heading in the future.

Full access

Recovery and Performance in Sport: Consensus Statement

Michael Kellmann, Maurizio Bertollo, Laurent Bosquet, Michel Brink, Aaron J. Coutts, Rob Duffield, Daniel Erlacher, Shona L. Halson, Anne Hecksteden, Jahan Heidari, K. Wolfgang Kallus, Romain Meeusen, Iñigo Mujika, Claudio Robazza, Sabrina Skorski, Ranel Venter, and Jürgen Beckmann

The relationship between recovery and fatigue and its impact on performance has attracted the interest of sport science for many years. An adequate balance between stress (training and competition load, other life demands) and recovery is essential for athletes to achieve continuous high-level performance. Research has focused on the examination of physiological and psychological recovery strategies to compensate external and internal training and competition loads. A systematic monitoring of recovery and the subsequent implementation of recovery routines aims at maximizing performance and preventing negative developments such as underrecovery, nonfunctional overreaching, the overtraining syndrome, injuries, or illnesses. Due to the inter- and intraindividual variability of responses to training, competition, and recovery strategies, a diverse set of expertise is required to address the multifaceted phenomena of recovery, performance, and their interactions to transfer knowledge from sport science to sport practice. For this purpose, a symposium on Recovery and Performance was organized at the Technical University Munich Science and Study Center Raitenhaslach (Germany) in September 2016. Various international experts from many disciplines and research areas gathered to discuss and share their knowledge of recovery for performance enhancement in a variety of settings. The results of this meeting are outlined in this consensus statement that provides central definitions, theoretical frameworks, and practical implications as a synopsis of the current knowledge of recovery and performance. While our understanding of the complex relationship between recovery and performance has significantly increased through research, some important issues for future investigations are also elaborated.