运动员在计划减负荷期间的阻力训练处方:对力量与体能教练的调查

Ms Kristen De Marco, Dr Paul Goods, Dr Kate Baldwin, Dr Daniel Hiscock, A. P. B. Scott
{"title":"运动员在计划减负荷期间的阻力训练处方:对力量与体能教练的调查","authors":"Ms Kristen De Marco, Dr Paul Goods, Dr Kate Baldwin, Dr Daniel Hiscock, A. P. B. Scott","doi":"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Implementing resistance training (RT) for athletes may be difficult during some training-phases due to competing demands. However, it is currently unknown how strength and conditioning coaches prescribe RT during periods of planned de-loading. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the RT prescription practices of coaches during four common de-loading periods (taper, competitive season, tournament, travel).\n \n \n \n An anonymous online survey was shared globally to coaches, with data analysed from 204 responders (current level of athlete coached: world class n=68, elite/international n=62, highly-trained n=64, trained n=10). Coaches only provided answers about prescription for de-loading periods which they reported encountering. Where a coach indicated not prescribing RT for specific de-loading periods, they provided information on any barriers preventing RT prescription.\n \n \n \n Weekly RT prescription across all de-load periods was typically reported as: 1-2 sessions, 30-60 min, 1-3 sets, 1-6 repetitions. Most coaches reported decreasing volume during all periods (taper: 89.1%, competitive season: 70.4%, tournament: 84.1%, travel: 74.6%), with the most common reduction in RT volume reported as 0-25%. Most coaches also decreased intensity during a taper (52.9%), tournament (54.8%) and travel (53.6%), with a 0-25% reduction most common. ‘Lack of equipment and facilities’ and ‘scheduling/time’ were common barriers cited to RT prescription during the competitive season (100% for scheduling/time), tournament (55.6% and 50.0%), and travel (57.3% and 60.0%). During a taper, ‘recovery’ was the most reported reason (41.7%).\n \n \n \n During planned de-loading periods, both training volume and intensity are generally decreased by coaches compared to periods of normal training. The similarity of barriers to RT prescription during de-load periods suggests the experiences of coaches are not influenced by the phase. To address barriers experienced by some coaches, researchers should examine the use of alternative RT strategies for periods of planned de-loading to maintain training stimulus.\n","PeriodicalId":92070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RESISTANCE TRAINING PRESCRIPTION FOR ATHLETES DURING PERIODS OF PLANNED DE-LOADING: A SURVEY OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES\",\"authors\":\"Ms Kristen De Marco, Dr Paul Goods, Dr Kate Baldwin, Dr Daniel Hiscock, A. P. B. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Implementing resistance training (RT) for athletes may be difficult during some training-phases due to competing demands. However, it is currently unknown how strength and conditioning coaches prescribe RT during periods of planned de-loading. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the RT prescription practices of coaches during four common de-loading periods (taper, competitive season, tournament, travel).\\n \\n \\n \\n An anonymous online survey was shared globally to coaches, with data analysed from 204 responders (current level of athlete coached: world class n=68, elite/international n=62, highly-trained n=64, trained n=10). Coaches only provided answers about prescription for de-loading periods which they reported encountering. Where a coach indicated not prescribing RT for specific de-loading periods, they provided information on any barriers preventing RT prescription.\\n \\n \\n \\n Weekly RT prescription across all de-load periods was typically reported as: 1-2 sessions, 30-60 min, 1-3 sets, 1-6 repetitions. Most coaches reported decreasing volume during all periods (taper: 89.1%, competitive season: 70.4%, tournament: 84.1%, travel: 74.6%), with the most common reduction in RT volume reported as 0-25%. Most coaches also decreased intensity during a taper (52.9%), tournament (54.8%) and travel (53.6%), with a 0-25% reduction most common. ‘Lack of equipment and facilities’ and ‘scheduling/time’ were common barriers cited to RT prescription during the competitive season (100% for scheduling/time), tournament (55.6% and 50.0%), and travel (57.3% and 60.0%). During a taper, ‘recovery’ was the most reported reason (41.7%).\\n \\n \\n \\n During planned de-loading periods, both training volume and intensity are generally decreased by coaches compared to periods of normal training. The similarity of barriers to RT prescription during de-load periods suggests the experiences of coaches are not influenced by the phase. To address barriers experienced by some coaches, researchers should examine the use of alternative RT strategies for periods of planned de-loading to maintain training stimulus.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":92070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical exercise physiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical exercise physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.355\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在某些训练阶段,由于竞争的需要,运动员可能很难进行阻力训练(RT)。然而,目前尚不清楚力量与体能教练在计划减负期间如何规定阻力训练。因此,我们旨在调查教练在四个常见减负期(减量期、竞技赛季、锦标赛、旅行)的 RT 处方实践。 我们在全球范围内向教练员发放了一份匿名在线调查问卷,并对 204 名回复者(目前教练的运动员水平:世界级 68 人,精英/国际级 62 人,高度训练 64 人,训练有素 10 人)的数据进行了分析。教练只回答了他们报告遇到的去负荷期处方。如果有教练表示没有在特定的减重时间段开具 RT 处方,他们会提供有关阻碍开具 RT 处方的任何障碍的信息。 据报告,所有减负期的每周 RT 处方通常为1-2 次训练,30-60 分钟,1-3 组,1-6 次重复。大多数教练报告在所有时期都减少了运动量(减量期:89.1%;竞技赛季:70.4%;锦标赛:84.1%;旅行:74.6%),最常见的 RT 运动量减少率为 0-25%。大多数教练还在减量期(52.9%)、比赛期(54.8%)和旅行期(53.6%)降低了运动强度,其中 0-25% 的降幅最为常见。缺乏设备和设施 "和 "时间安排/时间 "是竞技赛季(100%为时间安排/时间)、锦标赛(55.6% 和 50.0%)和旅行(57.3% 和 60.0%)期间 RT 处方的常见障碍。在减量期间,"恢复 "是报告最多的原因(41.7%)。 与正常训练期间相比,在计划的减负期间,教练员通常会减少训练量和强度。在减负期,RT 处方的障碍相似,这表明教练员的经验不受阶段的影响。为了解决一些教练遇到的障碍,研究人员应研究在计划减负期使用其他 RT 策略来维持训练刺激。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
RESISTANCE TRAINING PRESCRIPTION FOR ATHLETES DURING PERIODS OF PLANNED DE-LOADING: A SURVEY OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES
Implementing resistance training (RT) for athletes may be difficult during some training-phases due to competing demands. However, it is currently unknown how strength and conditioning coaches prescribe RT during periods of planned de-loading. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the RT prescription practices of coaches during four common de-loading periods (taper, competitive season, tournament, travel). An anonymous online survey was shared globally to coaches, with data analysed from 204 responders (current level of athlete coached: world class n=68, elite/international n=62, highly-trained n=64, trained n=10). Coaches only provided answers about prescription for de-loading periods which they reported encountering. Where a coach indicated not prescribing RT for specific de-loading periods, they provided information on any barriers preventing RT prescription. Weekly RT prescription across all de-load periods was typically reported as: 1-2 sessions, 30-60 min, 1-3 sets, 1-6 repetitions. Most coaches reported decreasing volume during all periods (taper: 89.1%, competitive season: 70.4%, tournament: 84.1%, travel: 74.6%), with the most common reduction in RT volume reported as 0-25%. Most coaches also decreased intensity during a taper (52.9%), tournament (54.8%) and travel (53.6%), with a 0-25% reduction most common. ‘Lack of equipment and facilities’ and ‘scheduling/time’ were common barriers cited to RT prescription during the competitive season (100% for scheduling/time), tournament (55.6% and 50.0%), and travel (57.3% and 60.0%). During a taper, ‘recovery’ was the most reported reason (41.7%). During planned de-loading periods, both training volume and intensity are generally decreased by coaches compared to periods of normal training. The similarity of barriers to RT prescription during de-load periods suggests the experiences of coaches are not influenced by the phase. To address barriers experienced by some coaches, researchers should examine the use of alternative RT strategies for periods of planned de-loading to maintain training stimulus.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信