...

Scientific Programme

Applied Sports Sciences

OP-AP17 - Fatigue and recovery measurements

Date: 03.07.2024, Time: 09:30 - 10:45, Lecture room: Boisdale 2

Description

Chair TBA

Chair

TBA
TBA
TBA

ECSS Paris 2023: OP-AP17

Speaker A Patrick Eggenberger

Speaker A

Patrick Eggenberger
OST - Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences, Departement of Health, Institute of Physiotherapy
Switzerland
"Development and evaluation of a multiparameter prediction model for recovery and stress monitoring in elite ice hockey: a longitudinal study"

INTRODUCTION: Youth and adult athletes in high-level sports experience an elevated risk for injury and illness during phases of higher training and competitive load. When recovery is neglected under these circumstances, psychological and physical health problems might arise. These are referred to as nonfunctional overreaching or overtraining syndrome, OTS (1,2,3). OTS is characterized by athletic performance beeing reduced for more than 3-4 weeks up to months. Concurrent symptoms include mood and sleep disturbances, feelings of depression, respiratory tract infections, and weight loss, among others. This condition is highly prevalent, with 10-20% of young adult and about 29% of young athletes from various sports beeing affected (4). To our knowledge, no validated and reliable measurement system currently exists, that would allow for preventive, early diagnosis of overreaching states that might lead to OTS (5). The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a multiparameter prediction model to assess the recovery and stress state of athletes. METHODS: Twenty-five male ice hockey players from the highest level Swiss leagues, at their respective age groups, participated (i.e., National League, n = 11, age = 24.8+-4.1 years and U20, n = 14, age = 18.5+-1.5 years). Over 5 - 10 weeks during the in-season (i.e., competition phase) measurements were performed on 10 separate days, either after 1 day of recovery or after a day with match/intensive training. The test battery comprised 40 predictor variables from counter movement jump (CMJ), heart rate variability (HRV), executive function, tympanic temperature, weekly rating of perceived exertion, and sleep measurements. The Stress Recovery Short Scale (SRSS) served as reference variable. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regularized regression analysis was performed for variable selection, training, and cross-validation of a binomial prediction model. RESULTS: Based on 163 timepoints of measurement, our developed LASSO regression model predicted SRSS scores < 5 (i.e., highly stressed state) with very good performance (area under curve, AUC = 0.921, sensitivity = 0.889, specificity = 0.843). The prediction model retained variables from all applied measurement methods, with HRV, CMJ, and sleep beeing represented among the 10 most important predictive variables. CONCLUSION: Due to the multisystemic nature of overreaching and OTS states, we conclude that a multiparameter prediction model, containing relatively easily measurable parameters, might be most reliable and practicable for long-term monitoring in athletes. REFERENCES: 1) Daly, E., et al. (2022). Front Sports Act Living, 4, 1058326. 2) Jones, C. M., et al. (2017). Sports Med, 47(5), 943-974. 3) Kiely, J. (2018). Sports Med, 48(4), 753-764. 4) Matos, N. F., et al. (2011). Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(7), 1287-1294. 5) Weakley, J., et al. (2022). Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 17(5), 675-681.

Read CV Patrick Eggenberger

ECSS Paris 2023: OP-AP17

Speaker B Tom Macpherson

Speaker B

Tom Macpherson
Northumbria University, Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation
United Kingdom
"What is the difference between central and peripheral ratings of perceived exertion? A meta-analysis"

INTRODUCTION: Despite the potential of dRPE to provide a more precise appraisal of exercise exertion, questions exist of its usefulness and worthwhileness due to lack of differences between the two constructs. We aimed to quantify the magnitude of the difference between RPE-P and RPE-C (P–Cdifference) and to explore the moderating influence of methodological factors that could impact P–Cdifference. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines. we searched five academic databases for original research articles published up to October 2023 and available in English. A Boolean search phrase was created to include search terms relevant to internal load / ratings of perceived exertion (19 keywords), dRPE (20 keywords) and exercise/ training sessions (60 keywords). We obtained the mean difference between peripheral and central RPE, as well as the standard deviation of the difference, by extracting individual data and calculating the mean difference in ratings manually (i.e. peripheral exertion score minus central exertion score), allowing dominance between the two perceptual ratings to be assessed. The final data sample included 94 datasets, from 70 individual studies and included 2167 participants from a mixture of activity levels. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted on each dataset to determine the extent of the P–Cdifference. To explore moderator effects of the P–Cdifference, we utilised subgroup comparison analysis when two of more studies were available for analysis. The categorical moderators that we used were study population, exercise modality and whether familiarisation was reported in the study. Magnitude-based decisions provided interpretation of the P–Cdifference in relation to a threshold of 10% of the mean dRPE scores (0.6 arbitrary units [au]). A P–Cdifference was only declared clear if the probability for the difference was ≥ 95% (i.e., very likely). RESULTS: Random effects meta-analysis revealed no clear rating dominance between RPE-P and RPE-C (0.6 Category–Ratio 10 arbitrary units [au]; 95%CI: 0.4 to 0.7). Moderator analysis showed study population explained 27% of the variance in the P–Cdifference (τ = 0.76, r² = 0.27), with RPE-P clearly dominant in disabled (1.3 au; 95%CI 0.7 to 1.8 au) and normal/ healthy (0.9 au; 95%CI 0.5 to 1.3 au) participants when compared to RPE-C. Exercise mode explained 13% of the heterogeneity of the P–Cdifference (τ = 0.76, r² = 0.13), with RPE-P clearly dominating during arm crank (2.1 au; 95%CI 1.4 to 2.8 au) and cycling (0.8 au; 95%CI 0.5 to 1.1 au) exercise when compared to RPE-C. Familiarisation failed to explain the heterogeneity of the P–Cdifference (τ = 0.76, r² = 0.00), although when studies reported habituation to RPE procedures, RPE-P was dominant (0.8 au; 95%CI 0.6 to 1.0 au). CONCLUSION: We found the pooled effect to show no clear dominance for either RPE-P or RPE-C but our moderator analysis helped to explain the variance in P–Cdifference and thus supporting dRPE to be sensitive in detecting methodological changes.

Read CV Tom Macpherson

ECSS Paris 2023: OP-AP17

Speaker C Asier Gonzalez-Artetxe

Speaker C

Asier Gonzalez-Artetxe
Faculty of Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Musical, Visual Arts and Physical Education Didactics
Spain
"Respiratory and muscular perceived exertions in young female footballers"

INTRODUCTION: The rating of perceived exertion (PE) provides a simple, non-invasive, no-cost, and valid method for assessing internal workload of the training sessions (1). Since this gestalt could represent an oversimplification of the psychophysiological construct (2), several studies suggested the deconstruction of PE to assess training related perceptual sensations in male footballers (3,4). Respiratory and muscular PEs (i.e., PEres and PEmus) were recently assessed in female football (5,6). However, the differences between PEres and PEmus within and between training sessions remained unclear in female players (6). It was therefore deemed necessary to further clarify and analyse the quantification of the perceived training load differentiating between PEres and PEmus in female young footballers. METHODS: Sixteen female trained footballers (age: 17 ± 1 years; range: 15 to 21) belonging to the third team of a Spanish first-division club declared their PEres and PEmus after each training session (3,4) during seven weeks of the in-season competitive period. They performed three training sessions during the habitual week: I) Tuesday: football specific training, II) Thursday: strength and football specific training, and III) Friday: football specific training. Only the players that completed all training sessions were considered. RESULTS: Observations registered were 104 per each type of training, and 5-7 per player in each type of training. Players declared greater PEres than PEmus for all type of trainings: I) Tuesday (PEres: 4.94 ± 0.82, PEmus: 3.64 ± 0.79; p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.21), II) Thursday (PEres: 4.13 ± 0.76, PEmus: 3.52 ± 1.12; p = .031, Cohen’s d = 0.60), and III) Friday (PEres: 3.63 ± 0.69, PEmus: 2.90 ± 0.54; p = .003; Cohen’s d = 0.89). Players declared greater PEres after Tuesday training in comparison to Thursday (p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.36) and Friday (p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.82), and after Thursday in comparison to Friday (p = .005, Cohen’s d = 0.83). Players declared greater PEmus after Tuesday (p = .002; Cohen’s d = 0.95) and Thursday (p = .021; Cohen’s d = 0.65) trainings in comparison to Friday, but significant differences were not found between Tuesday and Thursday sessions (p = .540; Cohen’s d = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Training PEres was always greater than PEmus, being the differences higher for the hardest training session. This suggests that the deconstruction of PE provides additional information about the female footballers’ internal workload. These outcomes are of interest for the strength and conditioning staff to adjust conditional specific contents, especially strength exercises, during the training week in this population. Furthermore, the internal workload decreased as the match got closer. REFERENCES 1. Foster et al. 2001 2. Hutchinson and Tenenbaum 2006 3. Los Arcos et al. 2014 4. Los Arcos et al. 2015 5. Romero-Moraleda et al. 2023 6. Wright et al. 2020

Read CV Asier Gonzalez-Artetxe

ECSS Paris 2023: OP-AP17