个人和团队运动教练在体能评估和监测方面的现行做法:在葡萄牙、西班牙和罗马尼亚进行的一项调查。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES Biology of Sport Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-25 DOI:10.5114/biolsport.2024.139074
XiaoYuan Wen, Rui Miguel Silva, Qi Xu, Francisco Tomás González-Fernández, Ana Filipa Silva, Georgian Badicu, Xiaodan Guo, Filipe Manuel Clemente
{"title":"个人和团队运动教练在体能评估和监测方面的现行做法:在葡萄牙、西班牙和罗马尼亚进行的一项调查。","authors":"XiaoYuan Wen, Rui Miguel Silva, Qi Xu, Francisco Tomás González-Fernández, Ana Filipa Silva, Georgian Badicu, Xiaodan Guo, Filipe Manuel Clemente","doi":"10.5114/biolsport.2024.139074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to characterize surveyed coaches and elucidate the practices of physical fitness assessment and monitoring for both male and female athletes across three countries. A total of 165 coaches participated by completing a comprehensive 32-question survey. Pre-season assessments are a priority for coaches, with a significant range from 60.5% to 87.7% in Romania, while Portuguese and Spanish coaches tend to prefer testing during the competition (26.3% and 16.9%, respectively). Portuguese and Spanish coaches predominantly favor aerobic tests (50% and 46.8% respectively), whereas Romanian coaches exhibit a preference for sprint (56.9%) and skill tests (52.3%). Notably, change of direction tests are less commonly employed, ranging from 10.5% to 21% across the countries. In terms of exercise intensity determination, Portuguese coaches predominantly employ maximal heart rate (31.6%), while Spanish coaches often rely on the 220-age formula or perceived exertion (27.4%). For strength assessment, Portuguese coaches lean towards direct (34.2%) or estimated (31.6%) maximal repetition methods. When it comes to maximal speed sprint, Portuguese and Romanian coaches show preference (50% and 43.1% respectively), while Spanish coaches exhibit a relative lack of emphasis on individualized speed measures (37.1%). Perceptual scales are the preferred method for recovery monitoring, with adoption rates of 57.9% in Portugal, 53.2% in Spain, and 44.6% in Romania. In summary, this study underscores the distinct assessment and monitoring practices employed by coaches in Portugal, Spain, and Romania. These findings are in alignment with established literature standards, highlighting the diversity of approaches used in different countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":55365,"journal":{"name":"Biology of Sport","volume":"41 4","pages":"219-230"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474987/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current practices in physical fitness assessment and monitoring among coaches of individual and team sports: a survey in Portugal, Spain, and Romania.\",\"authors\":\"XiaoYuan Wen, Rui Miguel Silva, Qi Xu, Francisco Tomás González-Fernández, Ana Filipa Silva, Georgian Badicu, Xiaodan Guo, Filipe Manuel Clemente\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/biolsport.2024.139074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this study was to characterize surveyed coaches and elucidate the practices of physical fitness assessment and monitoring for both male and female athletes across three countries. A total of 165 coaches participated by completing a comprehensive 32-question survey. Pre-season assessments are a priority for coaches, with a significant range from 60.5% to 87.7% in Romania, while Portuguese and Spanish coaches tend to prefer testing during the competition (26.3% and 16.9%, respectively). Portuguese and Spanish coaches predominantly favor aerobic tests (50% and 46.8% respectively), whereas Romanian coaches exhibit a preference for sprint (56.9%) and skill tests (52.3%). Notably, change of direction tests are less commonly employed, ranging from 10.5% to 21% across the countries. In terms of exercise intensity determination, Portuguese coaches predominantly employ maximal heart rate (31.6%), while Spanish coaches often rely on the 220-age formula or perceived exertion (27.4%). For strength assessment, Portuguese coaches lean towards direct (34.2%) or estimated (31.6%) maximal repetition methods. When it comes to maximal speed sprint, Portuguese and Romanian coaches show preference (50% and 43.1% respectively), while Spanish coaches exhibit a relative lack of emphasis on individualized speed measures (37.1%). Perceptual scales are the preferred method for recovery monitoring, with adoption rates of 57.9% in Portugal, 53.2% in Spain, and 44.6% in Romania. In summary, this study underscores the distinct assessment and monitoring practices employed by coaches in Portugal, Spain, and Romania. These findings are in alignment with established literature standards, highlighting the diversity of approaches used in different countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biology of Sport\",\"volume\":\"41 4\",\"pages\":\"219-230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474987/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biology of Sport\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2024.139074\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology of Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2024.139074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究的目的是了解接受调查的教练员的特点,并阐明三个国家的男女运动员在体能评估和监测方面的做法。共有 165 名教练参与了这项研究,并填写了一份包含 32 个问题的综合调查问卷。季前评估是教练员的首要任务,罗马尼亚的这一比例从 60.5% 到 87.7% 不等,而葡萄牙和西班牙的教练员则倾向于在比赛期间进行测试(分别为 26.3% 和 16.9%)。葡萄牙和西班牙教练主要偏爱有氧测试(分别为 50%和 46.8%),而罗马尼亚教练则偏爱短跑测试(56.9%)和技巧测试(52.3%)。值得注意的是,变向测试较少采用,各国的比例从 10.5% 到 21% 不等。在确定运动强度方面,葡萄牙教练主要采用最大心率(31.6%),而西班牙教练则通常依赖于 220 年龄公式或感知用力(27.4%)。在力量评估方面,葡萄牙教练倾向于直接(34.2%)或估计(31.6%)最大重复次数法。在最大速度冲刺方面,葡萄牙和罗马尼亚教练员表现出偏好(分别为 50%和 43.1%),而西班牙教练员则相对缺乏对个性化速度测量方法的重视(37.1%)。感知量表是监测恢复情况的首选方法,葡萄牙的采用率为 57.9%,西班牙为 53.2%,罗马尼亚为 44.6%。总之,本研究强调了葡萄牙、西班牙和罗马尼亚的教练所采用的不同评估和监测方法。这些发现与已有的文献标准一致,强调了不同国家所使用方法的多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Current practices in physical fitness assessment and monitoring among coaches of individual and team sports: a survey in Portugal, Spain, and Romania.

The objective of this study was to characterize surveyed coaches and elucidate the practices of physical fitness assessment and monitoring for both male and female athletes across three countries. A total of 165 coaches participated by completing a comprehensive 32-question survey. Pre-season assessments are a priority for coaches, with a significant range from 60.5% to 87.7% in Romania, while Portuguese and Spanish coaches tend to prefer testing during the competition (26.3% and 16.9%, respectively). Portuguese and Spanish coaches predominantly favor aerobic tests (50% and 46.8% respectively), whereas Romanian coaches exhibit a preference for sprint (56.9%) and skill tests (52.3%). Notably, change of direction tests are less commonly employed, ranging from 10.5% to 21% across the countries. In terms of exercise intensity determination, Portuguese coaches predominantly employ maximal heart rate (31.6%), while Spanish coaches often rely on the 220-age formula or perceived exertion (27.4%). For strength assessment, Portuguese coaches lean towards direct (34.2%) or estimated (31.6%) maximal repetition methods. When it comes to maximal speed sprint, Portuguese and Romanian coaches show preference (50% and 43.1% respectively), while Spanish coaches exhibit a relative lack of emphasis on individualized speed measures (37.1%). Perceptual scales are the preferred method for recovery monitoring, with adoption rates of 57.9% in Portugal, 53.2% in Spain, and 44.6% in Romania. In summary, this study underscores the distinct assessment and monitoring practices employed by coaches in Portugal, Spain, and Romania. These findings are in alignment with established literature standards, highlighting the diversity of approaches used in different countries.

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
Biology of Sport
Biology of Sport 生物-运动科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biology of Sport is the official journal of the Institute of Sport in Warsaw, Poland, published since 1984. Biology of Sport is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal, published quarterly in both paper and electronic format. The journal publishes articles concerning basic and applied sciences in sport: sports and exercise physiology, sports immunology and medicine, sports genetics, training and testing, pharmacology, as well as in other biological aspects related to sport. Priority is given to inter-disciplinary papers.
期刊最新文献
A new perspective on cardiovascular function and dysfunction during endurance exercise: identifying the primary cause of cardiovascular risk. Analysis and prediction of unforced errors in men's and women's professional padel. Balancing the load: A narrative review with methodological implications of compensatory training strategies for non-starting soccer players. Changes in muscle quality and biomarkers of neuromuscular junctions and muscle protein turnover following 12 weeks of resistance training in older men. Characterizing microcycles' workload when combining two days structure within single training sessions during congested fixtures in an elite male soccer team.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1