Thomas Sawczuk1, Ben Jones2, Sean Scantlebury1, Kevin Till3. 1. 1 Leeds Beckett University and Queen Ethelburga's Collegiate. 2. 2 Leeds Beckett University, Queen Ethelburga's Collegiate, Yorkshire Carnegie Rugby Club , and The Rugby Football League. 3. 3 Leeds Beckett University, Yorkshire Carnegie Rugby Club , and Leeds Rhinos Rugby Club.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the relationships between training load, sleep duration, and 3 daily well-being, recovery, and fatigue measures in youth athletes. METHODS: Fifty-two youth athletes completed 3 maximal countermovement jumps (CMJs), a daily well-being questionnaire (DWB), the perceived recovery status scale (PRS), and provided details on their previous day's training loads (training) and self-reported sleep duration (sleep) on 4 weekdays over a 7-week period. Partial correlations, linear mixed models, and magnitude-based inferences were used to assess the relationships between the predictor variables (training and sleep) and the dependent variables (CMJ, DWB, and PRS). RESULTS: There was no relationship between CMJ and training (r = -.09; ±.06) or sleep (r = .01; ±.06). The DWB was correlated with sleep (r = .28; ±.05, small), but not training (r = -.05; ±.06). The PRS was correlated with training (r = -.23; ±.05, small), but not sleep (r = .12; ±.06). The DWB was sensitive to low sleep (d = -0.33; ±0.11) relative to moderate; PRS was sensitive to high (d = -0.36; ±0.11) and low (d = 0.29; ±0.17) training relative to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The PRS is a simple tool to monitor the training response, but DWB may provide a greater understanding of the athlete's overall well-being. The CMJ was not associated with the training or sleep response in this population.
PURPOSE: To assess the relationships between training load, sleep duration, and 3 daily well-being, recovery, and fatigue measures in youth athletes. METHODS: Fifty-two youth athletes completed 3 maximal countermovement jumps (CMJs), a daily well-being questionnaire (DWB), the perceived recovery status scale (PRS), and provided details on their previous day's training loads (training) and self-reported sleep duration (sleep) on 4 weekdays over a 7-week period. Partial correlations, linear mixed models, and magnitude-based inferences were used to assess the relationships between the predictor variables (training and sleep) and the dependent variables (CMJ, DWB, and PRS). RESULTS: There was no relationship between CMJ and training (r = -.09; ±.06) or sleep (r = .01; ±.06). The DWB was correlated with sleep (r = .28; ±.05, small), but not training (r = -.05; ±.06). The PRS was correlated with training (r = -.23; ±.05, small), but not sleep (r = .12; ±.06). The DWB was sensitive to low sleep (d = -0.33; ±0.11) relative to moderate; PRS was sensitive to high (d = -0.36; ±0.11) and low (d = 0.29; ±0.17) training relative to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The PRS is a simple tool to monitor the training response, but DWB may provide a greater understanding of the athlete's overall well-being. The CMJ was not associated with the training or sleep response in this population.
Entities:
Keywords:
adolescent; athlete monitoring; athletic training; physical performance; sport physiology
Authors: Kevin Till; Rhodri S Lloyd; Sam McCormack; Graham Williams; Joseph Baker; Joey C Eisenmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julio Calleja-González; Stephen P Bird; Thomas Huyghe; Igor Jukic; Francesco Cuzzolin; Francesco Cos; Diego Marqués-Jiménez; Luka Milanovic; Jaime Sampaio; Isaac López-Laval; Sergej M Ostojic; Margaret T Jones; Pedro E Alcaraz; Xavi Schelling; Anne Delextrat; Meeta Singh; Jonatan Charest; Tomás T Freitas; Lorena Torres Ronda; Adam Petway; Daniel Medina; Antonio Tramullas; Juan Mielgo-Ayuso; Nicolas Terrados; Chris McLellan Journal: Sports (Basel) Date: 2021-12-17