Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 18 items for

  • Author: Franco M. Impellizzeri x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Together We Are Stronger: Multicenter Studies

Franco M. Impellizzeri

Full access

Social Media in Sport Science and Medicine: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Franco M. Impellizzeri

Restricted access

Test Validation in Sport Physiology: Lessons Learned From Clinimetrics

Franco M. Impellizzeri and Samuele M. Marcora

We propose that physiological and performance tests used in sport science research and professional practice should be developed following a rigorous validation process, as is done in other scientific fields, such as clinimetrics, an area of research that focuses on the quality of clinical measurement and uses methods derived from psychometrics. In this commentary, we briefly review some of the attributes that must be explored when validating a test: the conceptual model, validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Examples from the sport science literature are provided.

Restricted access

Internal and External Training Load: 15 Years On

Franco M. Impellizzeri, Samuele M. Marcora, and Aaron J. Coutts

Exercise is a stressor that induces various psychophysiological responses, which mediate cellular adaptations in many organ systems. To maximize this adaptive response, coaches and scientists need to control the stress applied to the athlete at the individual level. To achieve this, precise control and manipulation of the training load are required. In 2003, the authors introduced a theoretical framework to define and conceptualize the measurable constructs of the training process. They described training load as having 2 measurable components: internal and external load. The aim of this commentary is to extend, clarify, and refine both the theoretical framework and the definitions of internal and external training load to avoid misinterpretation of this concept.

Restricted access

Effects of 1 Versus 2 Games a Week on Physical and Subjective Scores of Subelite Soccer Players

Ian Rollo, Franco M. Impellizzeri, Matteo Zago, and F. Marcello Iaia

The physical-performance profiles of subelite male footballers were monitored during 6 wk of a competitive season. The same squad of players played either 1 (1G, n = 15) or 2 (2G, n = 15) competitive matches per week. On weeks 0, 3, and 6, 48 h postmatch, players completed countermovement jump (CMJ), 10- and 20-m sprints, the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test (YYIRT), and the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire. Both groups undertook 2 weekly training sessions. The 2G showed after 6 wk lower YYIRT (–11% to 3%, 90% CI –15.8% to –6.8%; P < .001) and CMJ performances (–18.7%, –21.6 to –15.9%; P = .007) and higher 10-m (4.4%, 1.8–6.9%; P = .007) and 20-m sprints values (4.7%, 2.9% to 6.4%; P < .001). No differences were found at 3 wk (.06 < P < .99). No changes over time (.169 < P < .611) and no differences time × group interactions (.370 < P < .550) were found for stress, recovery, and the Stress Recovery Index. In conclusion players’ ability to sprint, jump, and perform repeated intense exercise was impaired when playing 2 competitive matches a week over 6 wk.

Restricted access

Peer Presence Increases Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion

Geoffrey M. Minett, Valentin Fels-Camilleri, Joshua J. Bon, Franco M. Impellizzeri, and David N. Borg

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the effect of peer presence on session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) responses. Method: Fourteen males, with mean (SD) age 22.4 (3.9) years, peak oxygen uptake 48.0 (6.6) mL·kg−1·min−1, and peak power output 330 (44) W, completed an incremental cycling test and 3 identical experimental sessions, in groups of 4 or 5. Experimental sessions involved 24 minutes of cycling, whereby the work rate alternated between 40% and 70% peak power output every 3 minutes. During cycling, heart rate was collected every 3 minutes, and session-RPE was recorded 10 minutes after cycling, in 3 communication contexts: in written form unaccompanied (intrapersonal communication), verbally by the researcher only (interpersonal communication), and in the presence of the training group. Session-RPE was analyzed using ordinal regression and heart rate using a linear mixed-effects model, with models fit in a Bayesian framework. Results: Session-RPE was voted higher when collected in the group’s presence compared with when written (odds ratio = 4.26, 95% credible interval = 1.27–14.73). On average, the posterior probability that session-RPE was higher in the group setting than when written was .53. Session-RPE was not different between the group and verbal, or verbal and written collection contexts. Conclusions: This study suggests that contextual psychosocial inputs influence session-RPE and highlights the importance of session-RPE users controlling the measurement environment when collecting votes.

Restricted access

Consistency of Commercial Devices for Measuring Elevation Gain

Paolo Menaspà, Franco M. Impellizzeri, Eric C. Haakonssen, David T. Martin, and Chris R. Abbiss

Purpose:

To determine the consistency of commercially available devices used for measuring elevation gain in outdoor activities and sports.

Methods:

Two separate observational validation studies were conducted. Garmin (Forerunner 310XT, Edge 500, Edge 750, and Edge 800; with and without elevation correction) and SRM (Power Control 7) devices were used to measure total elevation gain (TEG) over a 15.7-km mountain climb performed on 6 separate occasions (6 devices; study 1) and during a 138-km cycling event (164 devices; study 2).

Results:

TEG was significantly different between the Garmin and SRM devices (P < .05). The between-devices variability in TEG was lower when measured with the SRM than with the Garmin devices (study 1: 0.2% and 1.5%, respectively). The use of the Garmin elevation-correction option resulted in a 5–10% increase in the TEG.

Conclusions:

While measurements of TEG were relatively consistent within each brand, the measurements differed between the SRM and Garmin devices by as much as 3%. Caution should be taken when comparing elevation-gain data recorded with different settings or with devices of different brands.

Restricted access

Effect of Training-Session Intensity Distribution on Session Rating of Perceived Exertion in Soccer Players

Maurizio Fanchini, Roberto Ghielmetti, Aaron J. Coutts, Federico Schena, and Franco M. Impellizzeri

Purpose:

To examine the effect of different exercise-intensity distributions within a training session on the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and to examine the timing of measure on the rating.

Methods:

Nineteen junior players (age 16 ± 1 y, height 173 ± 5 cm, body mass 64 ± 6 kg) from a Swiss soccer team were involved in the study. Percentage of heart rate maximum (%HR) and RPE (Borg CR100®) were collected in 4 standardized training sessions (conditions). The Total Quality of Recovery scale (TQR) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain of the lower limbs were used to control for the effect of pretraining fatigue. Every session consisted of three 20-min blocks of different intensities (ie, low-moderate-high) performed in a random order. RPE was collected after every block (RPE5), immediately after the session (RPE-end), and 30 min after the session (RPE30).

Results:

RPE5s of each block were different depending on the distribution sequence (P < .0001). RPE-end, TQR, and VAS values were not different between conditions (P = .57, P = .55, and P = .96, respectively). The %HR was significantly different between conditions (P = .008), with condition 3 higher than condition 2 (74.1 vs 70.2%, P = .02). Edwards training loads were not significantly different between conditions (P = .09). RPE30 was not different from RPE-end (P > .05).

Conclusions:

The current results show that coaches can design training sessions without concern about the influence of the within-session distribution of exercise intensity on session-RPE and that RPE can be collected at the end of the session or 30 min later.

Restricted access

Use of the CR100 Scale for Session Rating of Perceived Exertion in Soccer and Its Interchangeability With the CR10

Maurizio Fanchini, Ivan Ferraresi, Roberto Modena, Federico Schena, Aaron J. Coutts, and Franco M. Impellizzeri

Purpose:

To examine the construct validity of the session rating perceived exertion (s-RPE) assessed with the Borg CR100 scale to measure training loads in elite soccer and to examine if the CR100 is interchangeable and can provide more-accurate ratings than the CR10 scale.

Methods:

Two studies were conducted. The validity of the CR100 was determined in 19 elite soccer players (age 28 ± 6 y, height 180 ± 7 cm, body mass 77 ± 6 kg) during training sessions through correlations with the Edwards heart-rate method (study 1). The interchangeability with CR10 was assessed in 78 soccer players (age 19.3 ± 4.1 y, height 178 ± 5.9 cm, body mass 71.4 ± 6.1 kg) through the Bland–Altman method and correlations between change scores in different sessions. To examine whether the CR100 is more finely graded than the CR10, the proportions of responses corresponding to the verbal expressions were calculated (study 2).

Results:

Individual correlations between the Edwards method and s-RPE were large to very large (.52–.85). The mean difference between the 2 scales was –0.3 ± 0.33 AU (90% CI –0.41 to –0.29) with 95% limits of agreements (0.31 to –0.96 AU). Correlations between scales and between-changes scores were nearly perfect (.95 and .91–.98). Ratings corresponding to the verbal anchors were 49% in CR10 and 26% in CR100.

Conclusions:

The CR100 is valid for assessing the training load in elite soccer players. It can be used interchangeably with the CR10 and may provide more-precise measures of exercise intensity.

Restricted access

Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio: Conceptual Issues and Fundamental Pitfalls

Franco M. Impellizzeri, Matthew S. Tenan, Tom Kempton, Andrew Novak, and Aaron J. Coutts

The number of studies examining associations between training load and injury has increased exponentially. As a result, many new measures of exposure and training-load-based prognostic factors have been created. The acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is the most popular. However, when recommending the manipulation of a prognostic factor in order to alter the likelihood of an event, one assumes a causal effect. This introduces a series of additional conceptual and methodological considerations that are problematic and should be considered. Because no studies have even tried to estimate causal effects properly, manipulating ACWR in practical settings in order to change injury rates remains a conjecture and an overinterpretation of the available data. Furthermore, there are known issues with the use of ratio data and unrecognized assumptions that negatively affect the ACWR metric for use as a causal prognostic factor. ACWR use in practical settings can lead to inappropriate recommendations, because its causal relation to injury has not been established, it is an inaccurate metric (failing to normalize the numerator by the denominator even when uncoupled), it has a lack of background rationale to support its causal role, it is an ambiguous metric, and it is not consistently and unidirectionally related to injury risk. Conclusion: There is no evidence supporting the use of ACWR in training-load-management systems or for training recommendations aimed at reducing injury risk. The statistical properties of the ratio make the ACWR an inaccurate metric and complicate its interpretation for practical applications. In addition, it adds noise and creates statistical artifacts.