Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for

  • Author: Shaun McLaren x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Shaun J. McLaren, Michael Graham, Iain R. Spears and Matthew Weston

Purpose:

To investigate the sensitivity of differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) as measures of internal load.

Methods:

Twenty-two male university soccer players performed 2 maximal incremental-exercise protocols (cycle, treadmill) on separate days. Maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), maximal heart rate (HRmax), peak blood lactate concentration (B[La]peak), and the preprotocol-to-postprotocol change in countermovement-jump height (ΔCMJH) were measured for each protocol. Players provided dRPE (CR100) for breathlessness (RPE-B) and leg-muscle exertion (RPE-L) immediately on exercise termination (RPE-B0, RPE-L0) and 30 min postexercise (RPE-B30, RPE-L30). Data were analyzed using magnitude-based inferences.

Results:

There were clear between-protocols differences for V̇O2max (cycle 46.5 ± 6.3 vs treadmill 51.0 ± 5.1 mL · kg−1 · min−1, mean difference –9.2%; ±90% confidence limits 3.7%), HRmax (184.7 ± 12.7 vs 196.7 ± 7.8 beats/min, –6.0%; ±1.7%), B[La]peak (9.7 ± 2.1 vs 8.5 ± 2.0 mmol/L, 15%; ±10%), and ΔCMJH (–7.1 ± 4.2 vs 0.6 ± 3.6 cm, –23.2%; ±5.4%). Clear between-protocols differences were recorded for RPE-B0 (78.0 ± 11.7 vs 94.7 ± 9.5 AU, –18.1%; ±4.5%), RPE-L0 (92.6 ± 9.7 vs 81.3 ± 14.1 AU, 15.3%; ±7.6%), RPE-B30 (70 ± 11 vs 82 ± 13 AU, –13.8%; ±7.3%), and RPE-L30 (86 ± 12 vs 65 ± 19 AU, 37%; ±17%). A substantial timing effect was observed for dRPE, with moderate to large reductions in all scores 30 min postexercise compared with scores collected on exercise termination.

Conclusion:

dRPE enhance the precision of internal-load measurement and therefore represent a worthwhile addition to training-load-monitoring procedures.

Restricted access

Daniel Castillo, Matthew Weston, Shaun J. McLaren, Jesús Cámara and Javier Yanci

The aims of this study were to describe the internal and external match loads (ML) of refereeing activity during official soccer matches and to investigate the relationship among the methods of ML quantification across a competitive season. A further aim was to examine the usefulness of differential perceived exertion (dRPE) as a tool for monitoring internal ML in soccer referees. Twenty field referees (FRs) and 43 assistant referees (ARs) participated in the study. Data were collected from 30 competitive matches (FR = 20 observations, AR = 43 observations) and included measures of internal (Edwards’ heart-rate-derived training impulse [TRIMPEDW]) ML, external (total distance covered, distance covered at high speeds, and player load) ML, and ML differentiated ratings of perceived respiratory (sRPEres) and leg-muscle (sRPEmus) exertion. Internal and external ML were all greater for FRs than for ARs (–19.7 to –72.5), with differences ranging from very likely very large to most likely extremely large. The relationships between internal-ML and external-ML indicators were, in most cases, unclear for FR (r < .35) and small to moderate for AR (r < .40). The authors found substantial differences between RPEres and RPEmus scores in both FRs (0.6 AU; ±90% confidence limits 0.4 AU) and ARs (0.4; ±0.3). These data demonstrate the multifaceted demands of soccer refereeing and thereby highlight the importance of monitoring both internal and external ML. Moreover, dRPE represents distinct dimensions of effort and may be useful in monitoring soccer referees’ ML during official matches.

Restricted access

Jonathan M. Taylor, Tom W. Macpherson, Shaun J. McLaren, Iain Spears and Matthew Weston

Purpose:

To compare the effects of 2 repeated-sprint training programs on fitness in soccer.

Methods:

Fifteen semiprofessional soccer players (age: 24 ± 4 y; body mass: 77 ± 8 kg) completed 6 repeated-sprint training sessions over a 2-week period. Players were assigned to a straight-line (STR) (n = 8; 3–4 sets of 7 × 30 m) or change of direction (CoD) (n = 7; 3–4 sets of 7 × 20-m) repeated-sprint training group. Performance measures included 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprints, countermovement jump, Illinois agility, and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (YYIRTL1) performance. Internal (heart rate) and external (global positioning system-derived measures) training loads were monitored throughout. Data were analyzed using magnitude-based inferences.

Results:

Internal and external loads were higher in the STR group than in the CoD group with large differences in maximum velocity (28.7%; ±90% confidence limits, 3.3%), moderate differences in mean heart rates (7.0%; ±1.4%) and PlayerLoad (17.6%; ±8.6%), and small differences in peak heart rates (3.0%; ±1.6%). Large improvements in 5-m (STR: 9.6%; ±7.0% and CoD: 9.4%; ±3.3%), 10-m (STR: 6.6%; ±4.6% and CoD: 6.7%; ±2.2%), and 20-m (STR: 3.6; ±4.0% and CoD: 4.0; ±1.7%) sprints were observed. Large and moderate improvements in YYIRTL1 performance were observed in the STR (24.0%; ±9.3%) and CoD (31.0%; ±7.5%), respectively. Between-groups differences in outcome measures were unclear.

Conclusions:

Two weeks of repeated-sprint training stimulates improvements in acceleration, speed, and high-intensity running performance in soccer players. Despite STR inducing higher internal and external training loads, training adaptations were unclear between training modes, indicating a need for further research.

Restricted access

Shaun J. McLaren, Jonathan M. Taylor, Tom W. Macpherson, Iain R. Spears and Matthew Weston

Purpose: To quantify changes in differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) across a 2-wk repeated-sprint-training intervention that improved high-intensity intermittent-running ability and linear speed of semiprofessional soccer players. Methods: Thirteen players completed 3 (sessions 1–3) or 4 (sessions 4–6) sets of 7 sprints (group 1 [n = 7]: 30-m straight; group 2 [n = 6]: 2 × 10-m shuttle), with 20 s and 4 min of recovery between sprints and sets, respectively. Postset perceptions of breathlessness (RPE-B) and leg-muscle exertion (RPE-L) were rated using the CR100 scale. Results: Overall, RPE-B (mean [SD]: 46 [13] arbitrary units [AU], “hard”) was most likely higher than RPE-L (39 [13] AU, “somewhat hard,” mean difference: 8 AU; 90% confidence limits [CLs]: ±2). Set-to-set increases in dRPE (in AU; 90% CL: approximately ±2) were large in session 1 (RPE-B: 15; RPE-L: 14), moderate in sessions 2–5 (RPE-B: 7–10; RPE-L: 7–8), and small (RPE-B: 6) to moderate (RPE-L: 7) in session 6. Across the intervention, RPE-B reduced moderately in sets 3 (−13; 90% CL: ±4) and 4 (−12; 90% CL: ±12) and RPE-L reduced by a small magnitude in set 3 (−5; 90% CL: ±6). The set 4 change in RPE-L was unclear (−11; 90% CL: ±13). Conclusions: The authors observed systematic intrasession and intersession changes in dRPE across a 2-wk repeated-sprint-training intervention, with a fixed prescription of external load that improved semiprofessional soccer players’ high-speed-running abilities. These findings could support dRPE as a measure of internal load and highlight its usefulness in evaluating repeated-sprint-training dose–response.

Restricted access

Matthew D. Wright, Francisco Songane, Stacey Emmonds, Paul Chesterton, Matthew Weston and Shaun J. Mclaren

Purpose: To understand the validity of differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) as a measure of girls’ training and match internal loads. Methods: Using the centiMax scale (CR100), session dRPE for breathlessness (sRPE-B) and leg muscle exertion (sRPE-L) were collected across a season of training (soccer, resistance, and fitness) and matches from 33 players (15 [1] y). Differences and associations between dRPE were examined using mixed and general linear models. The authors’ minimal practical important difference was 8 arbitrary units (AU). Results: Mean (AU [SD] ∼16) sRPE-B and sRPE-L were 66 and 61 for matches, 51 and 49 for soccer, 86 and 67 for fitness, and 45 and 58 for resistance, respectively. Session RPE-B was rated most likely harder than sRPE-L for fitness (19 AU; 90% confidence limits: ±7) and most likely easier for resistance (−13; ±2). Match (5; ±4) and soccer (−3; ±2) differences were likely to most likely trivial. The within-player relationships between sRPE-B and sRPE-L were very likely moderate for matches (r = .44; 90% confidence limits: ±.12) and resistance training (.38; ±.06), likely large for fitness training (.51; ±.22), and most likely large for soccer training (.56; ±.03). Shared variance ranged from 14% to 35%. Conclusions: Practically meaningful differences between dRPE following physical training sessions coupled with low shared variance in all training types and matches suggest that sRPE-B and sRPE-L represent unique sensory inputs in girls’ soccer players. The data provide evidence for the face and construct validity of dRPE as a measure of internal load in this population.

Restricted access

Jonathon Weakley, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Shaun McLaren, Nick Dalton-Barron, Dan Weaving, Ben Jones, Kevin Till and Harry Banyard

Purpose: Prescribing resistance training using velocity loss thresholds can enhance exercise quality by mitigating neuromuscular fatigue. As little is known regarding performance during these protocols, we aimed to assess the effects of 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on kinetic, kinematic, and repetition characteristics in the free-weight back squat. Methods: Using a randomized crossover design, 16 resistance-trained men were recruited to complete 5 sets of the barbell back squat. Lifting load corresponded to a mean concentric velocity (MV) of ∼0.70 m·s−1 (115 [22] kg). Repetitions were performed until a 10%, 20%, or 30% MV loss was attained. Results: Set MV and power output were substantially higher in the 10% protocol (0.66 m·s−1 and 1341 W, respectively), followed by the 20% (0.62 m·s−1 and 1246 W) and 30% protocols (0.59 m·s−1 and 1179 W). There were no substantial changes in MV (−0.01 to −0.02 m·s−1) or power output (−14 to −55 W) across the 5 sets for all protocols, and individual differences in these changes were typically trivial to small. Mean set repetitions were substantially higher in the 30% protocol (7.8), followed by the 20% (6.4) and 10% protocols (4.2). There were small to moderate reductions in repetitions across the 5 sets during all protocols (−39%, −31%, −19%, respectively), and individual differences in these changes were small to very large. Conclusions: Velocity training prescription maintains kinetic and kinematic output across multiple sets of the back squat, with repetition ranges being highly variable. Our findings, therefore, challenge traditional resistance training paradigms (repetition based) and add support to a velocity-based approach.