A comparison of activity demands between trial matches and in-season matches across multiple teams and seasons in semi-professional, male rugby league players.

Trial matches are frequently used for team preparation in rugby league competitions, making it essential to understand the demands experienced to assess their specificity to actual competition. Consequently, this study aimed to compare the activity demands between pre-season trial matches and early in-season rugby league matches. Following a repeated-measures observational design, 39 semi-professional, male rugby league players from two clubs were monitored using microsensors during two trial matches and the first two in-season matches across two consecutive seasons. Total distance, average speed, peak speed, absolute and relative high-speed running (HSR; > 18 km · h-1) and low-speed running (LSR; < 18 km · h-1) distance, as well as absolute and relative impacts, accelerations (total and high-intensity > 3 m · s-2), and decelerations (total and high-intensity < -3 m · s-2) were measured. Linear mixed models and Cohen's d effect sizes were used to compare variables between match types. Playing duration was greater for in-season matches (p < 0.001, d = 0.64). Likewise, higher (p < 0.001, d = 0.45-0.70) activity volumes were evident during in-season matches indicated via total distance, HSR distance, LSR distance, total accelerations, high-intensity accelerations, total decelerations, and high-intensity decelerations. Regarding activity intensities, a higher average speed (p = 0.008, d = 0.31) and relative LSR distance (p = 0.005, d = 0.31) only were encountered during in-season matches. Despite players completing less volume, the average activity intensities and impact demands were mostly similar between trial and early in-season matches. These findings indicate trial matches might impose suitable activity stimuli to assist players in preparing for early in-season activity intensities.

Validity of the PUSH band 2.0 and Speed4lifts to measure velocity during upper and lower body free-weight resistance exercises.

Accuracy and test-retest reliability were assessed for two devices, PUSH Band 2.0 (PUSH) and Speed4lifts. Two identical sessions were performed 6-8 days apart. Twenty rugby league players performed three repetitions with 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of estimated one repetition maximum for back squat (BS), front squat (FS), and bench press (BP). Velocity was recorded using PUSH, Speed4lifts and 3D motion analysis system (gold standard). Passing-Bablok regression analysis assessed agreement of velocity measures with the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV) assessed test-retest reliability. PUSH and Speed4lifts were accurate for BS velocities <1.00 m/s and FS velocities <0.65 m/s. PUSH was accurate for BP velocities <0.65 m/s. Speed4lifts was accurate for BP velocities between 0.65-1.00 m/s. PUSH was reliable at all loads (ICC = 0.79-0.92; CV = 2.63-6.89%) except for 20% FS and BP (ICC = 0.49-0.64; CV = 3.13-3.62%). Speed4lifts was reliable at all loads (ICC = 0.70-0.96; CV = 2.57-4.26%) except for 20% BP (ICC = 0.59; CV = 4.59%). These results suggest that both devices are unsuitable for measuring the velocity of BS, FS and BP at faster velocities and at lighter loads.

Back squat velocity to assess neuromuscular status of rugby league players following a match.

OBJECTIVES: Back squat mean concentric velocity (MV) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance were examined in sub-elite rugby league players post-match to monitor changes in neuromuscular status (NMS) from baseline. Relationships between changes in back squat MV and CMJ performance variables were used to compare back squat MV to an established method to monitor NMS. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational design. METHODS: 18 male sub-elite rugby league players (mean±SD, 20.5±2.4 yr; 180.0±6.7cm; 93.3±11.2kg) performed 3 repetitions of CMJ and back squat with an individualised, pre-determined load at -2h (baseline), +30min, +24h, and +48h in relation to a match. Back squat MV, CMJ height, CMJ peak power, and CMJ peak velocity were measured with a linear position transducer. RESULTS: Significant (p<0.05), small to large decreases (ES=0.52-1.24) were observed in back squat MV up to +48h post-match. Significant (p<0.05), small to moderate decreases (ES=0.52-0.70) in CMJ height were also observed up to +24h post-match, returning to baseline at +48h. CMJ peak power and peak velocity post-match changes were not significant compared to baseline (p>0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between changes in back squat MV and CMJ height at +30min (r=0.59; p=0.009) and +48h (r=0.51; p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest back squat MV may be a suitable alternative or addition to CMJ testing for monitoring NMS in rugby league players.

Validity and Reliability of Using Load-Velocity Relationship Profiles to Establish Back Squat 1 m·s-1 Load.

ABSTRACT: Elsworthy, N, Callaghan, DE, Scanlan, AT, Kertesz, AHM, Kean, CO, Dascombe, BJ, and Guy, JH. Validity and reliability of using load-velocity relationship profiles to establish back squat 1 m·s-1 load. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 340-346, 2021-Although measuring movement velocity during resistance exercise is being increasingly used to monitor player readiness for competition in team sports, the validity and reliability of using set target velocities has not been examined. This study examined test-retest reliability of the load-velocity relationship during the back squat to predict loads corresponding to a mean velocity of 1 m·s-1 (V1Load), test-retest reliability of mean concentric velocity at V1Load, and criterion validity of mean concentric velocity at V1Load. Twenty-seven resistance-trained male rugby league players completed 2 testing sessions on separate days to establish individualized back squat load-velocity relationship profiles (30, 40, 60, and 80% estimated 1 repetition maximum). Velocity during the back squat was assessed at each load and V1Load derived using individualized linear regression equations. A subset of subjects (n = 18) also performed the back squat at predicted V1Load to examine the test-retest reliability and compare the mean concentric velocity with the predicted target of 1 m·s-1. The mean concentric velocity was consistent across all loads during load-velocity relationship testing (p > 0.05, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥0.75, coefficient of variation [CV] ≤5.7%, effect size [ES] ≤0.27), and for predicting V1Load (p = 0.11, ICC = 0.95, CV = 3.9%, ES = 0.11). The mean concentric velocity at V1Load was reliable (ICC = 0.77; CV = 2.6%; ES = 0.39) and not significantly different (p = 0.21) to the target velocity, supporting criterion validity. Individualized load-velocity profiles for the back squat can accurately predict V1Load, and subsequent use of V1Load to assess back squat velocity is valid and reliable. Using V1Load to assess changes in back squat velocity may have application in measuring changes in strength and power or readiness to train.