External Responsiveness of the Yo-Yo IR Test Level 1 in High-level Male Soccer Players.

The aim of this study was to assess the external responsiveness, construct validity and internal responsiveness of the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test level 1 and its sub-maximal version in semi-professional players. Tests and friendly matches were performed during the preseason and regular season. The distance covered above 15 km·h(-1) was considered as an indicator of the physical match performance. Construct validity and external responsiveness were examined by correlations between test and physical match performance (preseason and regular season) and training-induced changes. Internal responsiveness was determined as Cohen's effect size, standardized response mean and signal-to-noise ratio. The physical match performance increased after training (34.8%). The Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test level 1 improved after training (40.2%), showed longitudinal (r=0.69) and construct validity (r=0.73 and 0.59, preseason and regular season) and had higher internal responsiveness compared to its sub-maximal version. The heart rate at the 6(th) minute in the sub-maximal version did not show longitudinal (r=-0.38) and construct validity (r=0.01 and -0.06, preseason and regular season) and did not significantly change after training (-0.3%). The rate of perceived exertion decreased in the sub-maximal version (- 29.8%). In conclusion, the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test level 1 is valid and responsive, while the validity of its sub-maximal version is questionable.

What Role Do Chronic Workloads Play in the Acute to Chronic Workload Ratio? Time to Dismiss ACWR and Its Underlying Theory.

AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the associations between the injury risk and the acute (AL) to chronic (CL) workload ratio (ACWR) by substituting the original CL with contrived values to assess the role of CL (i.e., the presence and implications of statistical artefacts). METHODS: Using previously published data, we generated a contrived ACWR by dividing the AL by fixed and randomly generated CLs, and we compared these results to real data. We also reproduced previously reported subgroup analyses, including dichotomising players' data above and below the median CL. Our analyses follow the same, previously published modelling approach. RESULTS: The analyses with original data showed effects compatible with higher injury risk for ACWR only (odd ratios, OR: 2.45, 95% CI 1.28-4.71). However, we observed similar effects by dividing AL by the "contrived" fixed and randomly generated CLs: OR 1.95 (1.18-3.52) dividing by 1510 (average CL); and OR ranging from 1.16 to 2.07, using random CL 1.53 (mean). Random ACWRs reduced the variance relative to the original AL and further inflated the ORs (mean OR 1.89, from 1.42 to 2.70). ACWR causes artificial reclassification of players compared to AL alone. Finally, neither ACWR nor AL alone confer a meaningful predictive advantage to an intercept-only model, even within the training sample (c-statistic 0.574/0.544 vs. 0.5 in both ACWR/AL and intercept-only models, respectively). DISCUSSION: ACWR is a rescaling of the explanatory variable (AL, numerator), in turn magnifying its effect estimates and decreasing its variance despite conferring no predictive advantage. Other ratio-related transformations (e.g., reducing the variance of the explanatory variable and unjustified reclassifications) further inflate the OR of AL alone with injury risk. These results also disprove the etiological theory behind this ratio and its components. We suggest ACWR be dismissed as a framework and model, and in line with this, injury frameworks, recommendations, and consensus be updated to reflect the lack of predictive value of and statistical artefacts inherent in ACWR models.

Exercise-Based Strategies to Prevent Muscle Injury in Male Elite Footballers: An Expert-Led Delphi Survey of 21 Practitioners Belonging to 18 Teams from the Big-5 European Leagues.

PURPOSE: To define based on expert opinion and practical experience using a systematic and scientific approach, (1) the perceived most effective exercise-based strategies to prevent muscle injury in elite footballers; and, (2) when and how these exercise programs are prescribed based on the number of days between games i.e. implementation strategy. METHODS: A Delphi survey obtained opinions and assessed for agreement. Delphi respondents consisted of 21 experienced sports practitioners (12 ± 5.3 years in elite football and with an academic background) belonging to 18 teams from the Big-5 European football leagues; England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. Three teams were represented collaboratively by two experts. The Delphi process involves sequential rounds each evolving based on the responses from the previous. The number of rounds is not pre-defined and continues until an agreement is either achieved or it is clear that no agreement will be reached. Frequency of responses was recorded where the agreement was sought (i.e. in closed questions) and an agreement was achieved if ≥ 13/18 (70%) respondents agreed. For open-ended questions, a qualitative content analysis was performed to identify recurring themes and when themes were specified by ≥ 13 (70%), these were also considered as reaching an agreement. Practitioners had the opportunity to raise concerns if they disagreed with the 'agreement from recurrent themes'. RESULTS: There were four Delphi rounds (100% response for each round). Sprinting and High-Speed Running (HSR) focused exercises were agreed as most effective (perceived) to prevent muscle injuries. Eccentric exercise was perceived as the next most effective. It was agreed that sprinting and HSR be integrated into coaches training, and target 100% of players worst-case match scenario (e.g. volume, intensity) based on individual maximum speeds. Eccentric exercise was recommended to be implemented according to the context of the main football session and planned/actual sprinting and HSR content. It was agreed that eccentrics can be performed before or after training, context dependent. The day to perform specific sprinting and HSR or eccentric exercises depended on the proximity of previous and upcoming matches. Other exercises reaching agreement as 'somewhat effective' included concentric and isometric, horizontal and vertical plyometrics, coordination, core and dynamic flexibility in addition to core stability. No agreement was reached for multi-joint, resisted sprinting, kicking or agility exercises nor simultaneous single-leg strength and stability. Finally, no agreement was reached regarding programming variables e.g. sets, repetitions as deemed too contextual. CONCLUSION: Regarding exercise-based strategies, particular importance agreed by the Delphi expert group was to focus on sprinting, HSR and eccentric exercises, integrated with a variety of other exercise modes which also carry some level of effectiveness in a multidimensional programme. Context was agreed to be key and decision-making about when to undertake/ how to prescribe exercise strategies to be made according to the content of normal football training and the proximity of matches.