0 avis
Physical fatigue in sprinting Force-Velocity profile: effect of maturation in rugby players
Archive ouverte
Edité par CCSD -
International audience. Introduction: The effects of fatigue on neuromuscular function in adolescence are poorly researched, despite the potential impact on managing training loads and recovery in maturing children 1. Impaired sprint performance is commonly used as an indicator of fatigue but does not provide information on underlying biomechanical parameters of theoretical maximal force and velocity (F0 and v0) which are also impacted by growth and maturation. Only a few studies have investigated the effect of physical fatigue on force-velocity-power qualities of sprinting in rugby players 2,3. Furthermore, neuromuscular fatigue differs according to maturation. This study aimed to assess the effect of maturation on the impact of physical fatigue on F-v profile and sprint performance.Methods: This study involved 15 prepubertal (Pre) (155 ± 8 cm; 46.2 ± 8.6 kg) and 17 post-pubertal (Post) (179 ± 7 cm; 75.3 ± 8.9 kg) rugby players, who underwent 2 experimental sessions separated by at least 24 hours. Anthropometric characteristics and maturity status were assessed in the first session. In the second session and after a standardised 15-minute warm-up, subjects performed 7 blocks consisting of a 30m sprint and 5 minutes of high-intensity exercise (accelerations, decelerations, etc.) with one minute of passive recovery. Raw speed-time data for 7 maximal 30m sprints were measured with a radar (Stalker ATS II). The decrement in performance was assessed through a fatigue index (FI) computed from 30m times4. To analyse the effect of physical fatigue on the F–v profile, technical parameters, and sprint performance according to maturation and block (B1 to B7), a mixed two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was performed.Results: Significant main effects of block were found for Pmax, v0, 30m time, RFmax, and DRF (p < 0.0001 for all) with no significant differences between groups. For Pre and Post, deltas (∆ %) between B1 and B7 for Pmax, v0, 30m time, RFmax and DRF were -15% and -20%; -11% and -10%; +10% and +11%; -5% and -9%; +8% and +5%, respectively. They were all non-significant. Only F0 showed a significant main effect of block (p < 0.0001) and maturation (p = 0.02). Deltas were -5% and -12% for Pre and Post without significance. The intensity of the fatiguing task was controlled using the rate of perceived exertion and FI for which there was no significant effect between groups.Discussion & Conclusion: The results showed a decrease in all parameters for both groups due to the fatiguing protocol, with no significant differences between Pre and Post (except for F0). However, none of the deltas was significantly different. The differences in F0 did not impact Pmax and sprint performance. Finally, both groups experienced similar fatigue kinetics, regardless of maturation (similar FI). References: [1]Ratel et Martin, 2015. doi: 10.3390/sports3040346[2]Pedro Jiménez-Reyes et al., 2019. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1542032[3]Marrier et al., 2017. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0030[4]Morin et al., 2011. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e075a3
Consulter en ligne
Suggestions
Du même auteur
