A influência de diferentes métodos para determinar a FCmax sobre a carga de treinamento em jogadores de futebol jovens
Data
2022-06-24
Autores
Penafiel, Matheus Luiz
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
RESUMO O impulso de treinamento (TRIMP) é utilizado para quantificar a carga de treinamento através de diferentes abordagens, dentre as quais aquela proposta por Edwards (E-TRIMP) utiliza a relação linear entre tempo de exercício em 5 zonas de intensidade (50 a 100% da frequência cardíaca máxima [%FCmax]) com peso de 1-5. Considerando que a quantificação da CT toma como base a FCmax, determinar a FCmax é primordial para o cálculo do E- TRIMP. Os objetivos deste estudo foram: i) comparar a FCmax do teste de Yoyo nível 1 (YYIR1 - YY-FCmax) e da jogo oficial de futebol (JO-FCmax), e comparar a maior FCmax (Maior-FCmax), considerando a FCmax mais alta dentre a YY-FCmax e a JO-FCmax com três equações preditivas pela idade (Fox, Tanaka e Nikolaidis); ii) verificar a influência de diferentes maneiras de determinação da FCmax sobre o cálculo do E-TRIMP de em jogadores de futebol Sub-17, durante quatro semanas de treinamento (n = 14). A FC foi monitorada durante quatro semanas de treinamento e dois jogos. Análise estatística compreendeu teste-t e ANOVA para medidas repetidas, correlação de Pearson, tamanho de efeito (ES) e Análise de Bland Altman, considerando p < 0,05. YY-FCmax e JO-FCmax não diferiram (p = 0,288, porém ES = 0,53 e 9/14 jogadores apresentaram FCmax maior no JO-FCmax. E-TRIMP calculado com a OM-FCmax e a YY-FCmax diferiram significantemente (188,9 ± 36,3 vs 224,3 ± 36,3 UA, respectivamente). Tanaka-FCmax e Nikolaidis-FCmax subestimaram a Maior-FCmax (p < 0,001, ES: grande, ƞ2 = 0,654), enquanto a Fox-FCmax foi semelhante à Maior-FCmax. As três equações previstas para a idade superestimaram a carga de treinamento (p < 0,001, ES: grande, ƞ2 entre 0,550-0,660). O E-TRIMP de todas as sessões de treino analisadas individualmente de cada jogador (intra-sujetios) apresentaram correlações muito fortes independentemente da forma como a FCmax foi determinada (r = 0,98 – 1,00, p < 0,0001). Apesar das correlações muito forte dentre o E-TRIMP calculado pelas diferentes abordagens para determinação da FCmax, a diferença ente E-TRIMP calculado com a FCmax proveniente das equações preditivas pela idade sugere que as equações não são válidas para determinação do E-TRIMP. Em adição, a determinação da FCmax objetiva deve levar em consideração o resultado de diferentes abordagens, tal como no presente estudo, YY-FCmax assim como a JO-FCmax para melhor acurácia do resultado da FCmax.
ABSTRACT The training impulse (TRIMP) is used to quantify the training load through different approaches, among which the one proposed by Edwards (E-TRIMP) uses the linear relationship between exercise time in 5 intensity zones (50 to 100% maximum heart rate [%HRmax]) with a weight of 1-5. Considering that the quantification of TC is based on HRmax, determining HRmax is essential for calculating the E-TRIMP. The objectives of this study were: i) to compare the HRmax of the Yoyo test level 1 (YYIR1 - YY-HRmax) and of the official soccer game (OM-HRmax), and to compare the bigger HRmax (Main-HRmax), considering the HRmax highest among YY-HRmax and OM-HRmax with three age-predictive equations (Fox, Tanaka and Nikolaidis); ii) to verify the influence of different ways of determining HRmax on the E-TRIMP calculation in U-17 soccer players, during four weeks of training (n = 14). HR was monitored during four weeks of training and two games. Statistical analysis comprised t-test and ANOVA for repeated measures, Pearson correlation, effect size (ES) and Bland Altman analysis, considering p < 0.05. YY-HRmax and OM-HRmax did not differ (p = 0.288, however ES = 0.53 and 9/14 players had higher HRmax in OM-HRmax. E-TRIMP calculated with OM-HRmax and YY-HRmax differed significantly (188.9 ± 36.3 vs 224.3 ± 36.3 AU, respectively). Tanaka-HRmax and Nikolaidis-HRmax underestimated Higher-HRmax (p < 0.001, ES: large, ƞ2 = 0.654), while Fox- HRmax was similar to Higher-HRmax. The three equations predicted for age overestimated the training load (p < 0.001, ES: large, ƞ2 between 0.550-0.660). The E-TRIMP of all training sessions analyzed individually for each player (intra-subjects) showed very strong correlations regardless of the way HRmax was determined (r = 0.98 – 1.00, p < 0.0001). Despite the very strong correlations between the E-TRIMP calculated by the different approaches to determine the HRmax, the difference between the E-TRIMP calculated with the HRmax from the age-predictive equations suggests that the equations are not valid to determine the HRmax. inaction of the E-TRIMP. In addition, the objective HRmax determination must consider the result of different approaches, as in the present study, YY-HRmax as well as OM-HRmax for better accuracy of the HRmax result.
ABSTRACT The training impulse (TRIMP) is used to quantify the training load through different approaches, among which the one proposed by Edwards (E-TRIMP) uses the linear relationship between exercise time in 5 intensity zones (50 to 100% maximum heart rate [%HRmax]) with a weight of 1-5. Considering that the quantification of TC is based on HRmax, determining HRmax is essential for calculating the E-TRIMP. The objectives of this study were: i) to compare the HRmax of the Yoyo test level 1 (YYIR1 - YY-HRmax) and of the official soccer game (OM-HRmax), and to compare the bigger HRmax (Main-HRmax), considering the HRmax highest among YY-HRmax and OM-HRmax with three age-predictive equations (Fox, Tanaka and Nikolaidis); ii) to verify the influence of different ways of determining HRmax on the E-TRIMP calculation in U-17 soccer players, during four weeks of training (n = 14). HR was monitored during four weeks of training and two games. Statistical analysis comprised t-test and ANOVA for repeated measures, Pearson correlation, effect size (ES) and Bland Altman analysis, considering p < 0.05. YY-HRmax and OM-HRmax did not differ (p = 0.288, however ES = 0.53 and 9/14 players had higher HRmax in OM-HRmax. E-TRIMP calculated with OM-HRmax and YY-HRmax differed significantly (188.9 ± 36.3 vs 224.3 ± 36.3 AU, respectively). Tanaka-HRmax and Nikolaidis-HRmax underestimated Higher-HRmax (p < 0.001, ES: large, ƞ2 = 0.654), while Fox- HRmax was similar to Higher-HRmax. The three equations predicted for age overestimated the training load (p < 0.001, ES: large, ƞ2 between 0.550-0.660). The E-TRIMP of all training sessions analyzed individually for each player (intra-subjects) showed very strong correlations regardless of the way HRmax was determined (r = 0.98 – 1.00, p < 0.0001). Despite the very strong correlations between the E-TRIMP calculated by the different approaches to determine the HRmax, the difference between the E-TRIMP calculated with the HRmax from the age-predictive equations suggests that the equations are not valid to determine the HRmax. inaction of the E-TRIMP. In addition, the objective HRmax determination must consider the result of different approaches, as in the present study, YY-HRmax as well as OM-HRmax for better accuracy of the HRmax result.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Frequência cardíaca, Treinamento de intensidade, Futebol, Controle de treinamento, Jovens, Heart rate, Intensity training, Soccer, Training control, Young