Next Article in Journal
The Application of the Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education. Systematic Review of the Last Six Years
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Cyclist’s Drag on the Aero Position Using Numerical Simulations and Analytical Procedures: A Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of Literature on User Behavior in Video Game Live Streaming
Previous Article in Special Issue
Flexibility in Spanish Elite Inline Hockey Players: Profile, Sex, Tightness and Asymmetry
Article

Lacrosse Athletes Load and Recovery Monitoring: Comparison between Objective and Subjective Methods

1
Centre for Sport Science and University Sports, University of Vienna, 1150 Vienna, Austria
2
Movimento Umano e dello Sport, University of Rome “Foro Italico”, 00135 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(9), 3329; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17093329
Received: 17 April 2020 / Revised: 6 May 2020 / Accepted: 8 May 2020 / Published: 11 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports and Health)
Both objective (OM) and subjective (SM) methods are used in athletic studies, regardless of sport type, to identify and analyze load and recovery status of athletes. As little information exists about the comparison of these two methodologies, the aim of this study is to compare and contrast information that defines the relationship between both methods. Twelve international male lacrosse athletes participated in this study over the course of which participants heart-rate-variability and questionnaire-data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate changes over time and correlations between used methods. Comparison between baseline values and competition showed a reduction in root-mean-square of successive differences (RMSSD) (p < 0.01) and the proportion of beat-intervals (NN) that differ by more than 50 ms divided by total number of NNs (pNN50) (p < 0.01). Further, RMSSD values showed differences during competition with large effects (p = 0.02; η2 = 0.24). SM (p < 0.01) showed different progression during competition. Correlation was found for used SM and OM, when considered separately. No evidence for a reliable prediction of OM values using SM could be found. According to these findings, we recommend using a combination of SM and OM data to quantify the physiological stress of training and competition, respectively. View Full-Text
Keywords: heart rate variability; rate of perceived exertion; short recovery and stress scale for sports; total quality recovery; training load heart rate variability; rate of perceived exertion; short recovery and stress scale for sports; total quality recovery; training load
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Hauer, R.; Tessitore, A.; Knaus, R.; Tschan, H. Lacrosse Athletes Load and Recovery Monitoring: Comparison between Objective and Subjective Methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3329. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17093329

AMA Style

Hauer R, Tessitore A, Knaus R, Tschan H. Lacrosse Athletes Load and Recovery Monitoring: Comparison between Objective and Subjective Methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3329. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17093329

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hauer, Richard, Antonio Tessitore, Reinhard Knaus, and Harald Tschan. 2020. "Lacrosse Athletes Load and Recovery Monitoring: Comparison between Objective and Subjective Methods" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3329. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17093329

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop