Cargando…

Match and Training High Intensity Activity-Demands Profile During a Competitive Mesocycle in Youth Elite Soccer Players

The monitoring of the high intensity activity-demands profile during official matches (OMs) and training sessions (TSs) provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between training and competition loads as well as players’ fitness characteristics. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oliva-Lozano, José María, Gómez-Carmona, Carlos David, Pino-Ortega, José, Moreno-Pérez, Víctor, Rodríguez-Pérez, Manuel Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sciendo 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7706676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33312307
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2020-0050
Descripción
Sumario:The monitoring of the high intensity activity-demands profile during official matches (OMs) and training sessions (TSs) provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between training and competition loads as well as players’ fitness characteristics. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe the training and match high intensity activity-demands profile in U-19 soccer players; 2) compare the profile depending on the type of session (OM or TS) throughout match-weeks; and 3) differentiate between profiles depending on the match location (home or away). Twenty-five U-19 Spanish soccer players were monitored during TSs and OMs for a one-month competitive period using a WIMU PRO(TM) wearable inertial device. The variables of the study were: high speed running distance (HSRD), total sprints (SPs), maximum speed (MS) and player load (PL). OMs required higher demands than TSs in HSRD (460.99 ± 206.18 vs. 315.45 ± 180.12 m; p < 0.01; d = 0.75), SPs (10.86 ± 6.64 vs. 7.23 ± 4.82; p < 0.01; d = 0.69), MS (29.99 ± 2.54 vs. 28.50 ± 2.4 km/h; p < 0.01; d = 0.59) and PL (103.08 ± 24.15 vs. 83.18 ± 17.96 a.u.; p < 0.01; d = 0.94). The interaction between the type of session and mean week’s demands presented differences with medium effect size in MS (p < 0.01; ω(p)(2) = 0.06) and small effect size in HSRD (p = 0.04; ω(p)(2) = 0.03), and SP (p = 0.05; ω(p)(2) = 0.03), but there were no differences in PL (p = 0.18; ω(p)(2) = 0). Finally, no differences were found in the match location comparison (p > 0.33; d = 0.22–0.33). Therefore, the profiles presented could be useful for future scientific purposes and serve as valid information for coaches trying to optimize performance.