Is an elevated submaximal heart rate associated with psychomotor slowness in young elite soccer players?

Recovery in elite youth basketball players: The responsiveness of the psychophysiological measurements and the role of testosterone concentration

This study investigated the recovery responses to the Total Quality Recovery (TQR), Well-Being questionnaire (WBQ), and Heart Rate (HR) responses to Submaximal Running Test (SRT), and the influence of salivary testosterone concentration (TEST) on these responses in 25 elite youth (U15) male basketball players. TQR, WBQ, and HR measurements were assessed after 48 hours of rest (T1), 24 hours after the 1st day of training (T2) and 24 hours after the 2nd day of training (T3). Salivary sampling was conducted at T1 and T3. A significant decrease was observed for TQR (F = 4.06; p = 0.01) and for WBQ (F = 5.37; p = 0.008) from T1 to T3. No difference among the three-time points was observed for HR and HR Recovery, and the TEST concentration did not influence the results. These results show that TQR and WBQ are sensitive to acute transient alterations in training loads (TL) and may be utilized to monitor recovery in elite youth basketball players. The HR related measurements presented limited responsiveness, and the TEST seems not to influence the recovery of these players who are competing at highest performance level.

Submaximal Fitness Test in Team Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Exercise Heart Rate Measurement Properties

BACKGROUND

Submaximal fitness tests (SMFT) are a pragmatic approach for evaluating athlete's physiological state, due to their time-efficient nature, low physiological burden and relative ease of administration in team sports settings. While a variety of outcome measures can be collected during SMFT, exercise heart rate (HRex) is the most popular. Understanding the measurement properties of HRex can support the interpretation of data and assist in decision making regarding athlete's current physiological state and training effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of our systematic review and meta-analysis were to: (1) establish meta-analytic estimates of SMFT HRex reliability and convergent validity and (2) examine the moderating influence of athlete and protocol characteristics on the magnitude of these measurement properties.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search with MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science databases for studies published up until January 2022 since records began. Studies were considered for inclusion when they  included team sports athletes and the reliability and/or convergent validity of SMFT HRex was investigated. Reliability statistics included the group mean difference (MD), typical error of measurement (TE) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) derived from test-retest(s) designs. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) describing the relationship between SMFT HRex and a criterion measure of endurance performance was used as the statistic for convergent validity. Qualitative assessment was conducted using risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomised studies. Mixed-effects, multilevel hierarchical models combined with robust variance estimate tests were performed to obtain pooled measurement property estimates, effect heterogeneity, and meta-regression of modifying effects.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 21 reliability (29 samples) and 20 convergent validity (29 samples) studies that met the inclusion criteria. Reliability meta-analysis indicated good absolute (MD = 0.5 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9] and TE = 1.6 [95% CI 1.4 to 1.9] % points), and high relative (ICC = 0.88 [95% CI 0.84 to 0.91]) reliability. Convergent validity meta-analysis indicated an inverse, large relationship (r = - 0.58 [95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.54]) between SMFT HRex and endurance tests performance. Meta-regression analyses suggested no meaningful influence of SMFT protocol or athlete characteristics on reliability or convergent validity estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Submaximal fitness test HRex is a reliable and valid proxy indicator of endurance performance in team sport athletes. Athlete and SMFT protocol characteristics do not appear to have a meaningful effect on these measurement properties. Practitioners may implement SMFT HRex for monitoring athlete's physiological state by using our applied implications to guide the interpretation of data in practice. Future research should examine the utility of SMFT HRex to track within-athlete changes in aerobic capacity, as well as any further possible effects of SMFT protocols design elements or HRex analytical methods on measurement properties. Registration Protocol registration can be found in Open Science Framework and available through https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9C2JV .

Submaximal Fitness Tests in Team Sports: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Physiological State

Team-sports staff often administer non-exhaustive exercise assessments with a view to evaluating physiological state, to inform decision making on athlete management (e.g., future training or recovery). Submaximal fitness tests have become prominent in team-sports settings for observing responses to a standardized physical stimulus, likely because of their time-efficient nature, relative ease of administration, and physiological rationale. It is evident, however, that many variations of submaximal fitness test characteristics, response measures, and monitoring purposes exist. The aim of this scoping review is to provide a theoretical framework of submaximal fitness tests and a detailed summary of their use as proxy indicators of training effects in team sports. Using a review of the literature stemming from a systematic search strategy, we identified five distinct submaximal fitness test protocols characterized in their combinations of exercise regimen (continuous or intermittent) and the progression of exercise intensity (fixed, incremental, or variable). Heart rate-derived indices were the most studied outcome measures in submaximal fitness tests and included exercise (exercise heart rate) and recovery (heart rate recovery and vagal-related heart rate variability) responses. Despite the disparity between studies, these measures appear more relevant to detect positive chronic endurance-oriented training effects, whereas their role in detecting negative transient effects associated with variations in autonomic nervous system function is not yet clear. Subjective outcome measures such as ratings of perceived exertion were less common in team sports, but their potential utility when collected alongside objective measures (e.g., exercise heart rate) has been advocated. Mechanical outcome measures either included global positioning system-derived locomotor outputs such as distance covered, primarily during standardized training drills (e.g., small-sided games) to monitor exercise performance, or responses derived from inertial measurement units to make inferences about lower limb neuromuscular function. Whilst there is an emerging interest regarding the utility of these mechanical measures, their measurement properties and underpinning mechanisms are yet to be fully established. Here, we provide a deeper synthesis of the available literature, culminating with evidence-based practical recommendations and directions for future research.

Heart Rate Monitoring in Team Sports-A Conceptual Framework for Contextualizing Heart Rate Measures for Training and Recovery Prescription

A comprehensive monitoring of fitness, fatigue, and performance is crucial for understanding an athlete's individual responses to training to optimize the scheduling of training and recovery strategies. Resting and exercise-related heart rate measures have received growing interest in recent decades and are considered potentially useful within multivariate response monitoring, as they provide non-invasive and time-efficient insights into the status of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and aerobic fitness. In team sports, the practical implementation of athlete monitoring systems poses a particular challenge due to the complex and multidimensional structure of game demands and player and team performance, as well as logistic reasons, such as the typically large number of players and busy training and competition schedules. In this regard, exercise-related heart rate measures are likely the most applicable markers, as they can be routinely assessed during warm-ups using short (3–5 min) submaximal exercise protocols for an entire squad with common chest strap-based team monitoring devices. However, a comprehensive and meaningful monitoring of the training process requires the accurate separation of various types of responses, such as strain, recovery, and adaptation, which may all affect heart rate measures. Therefore, additional information on the training context (such as the training phase, training load, and intensity distribution) combined with multivariate analysis, which includes markers of (perceived) wellness and fatigue, should be considered when interpreting changes in heart rate indices. The aim of this article is to outline current limitations of heart rate monitoring, discuss methodological considerations of univariate and multivariate approaches, illustrate the influence of different analytical concepts on assessing meaningful changes in heart rate responses, and provide case examples for contextualizing heart rate measures using simple heuristics. To overcome current knowledge deficits and methodological inconsistencies, future investigations should systematically evaluate the validity and usefulness of the various approaches available to guide and improve the implementation of decision-support systems in (team) sports practice.

Monitoring the athlete training response: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic review

Background

Monitoring athlete well-being is essential to guide training and to detect any progression towards negative health outcomes and associated poor performance. Objective (performance, physiological, biochemical) and subjective measures are all options for athlete monitoring.

Objective

We systematically reviewed objective and subjective measures of athlete well-being. Objective measures, including those taken at rest (eg, blood markers, heart rate) and during exercise (eg, oxygen consumption, heart rate response), were compared against subjective measures (eg, mood, perceived stress). All measures were also evaluated for their response to acute and chronic training load.

Methods

The databases Academic search complete, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and PubMed were searched in May 2014. Fifty-six original studies reported concurrent subjective and objective measures of athlete well-being. The quality and strength of findings of each study were evaluated to determine overall levels of evidence.

Results

Subjective and objective measures of athlete well-being generally did not correlate. Subjective measures reflected acute and chronic training loads with superior sensitivity and consistency than objective measures. Subjective well-being was typically impaired with an acute increase in training load, and also with chronic training, while an acute decrease in training load improved subjective well-being.

Summary

This review provides further support for practitioners to use subjective measures to monitor changes in athlete well-being in response to training. Subjective measures may stand alone, or be incorporated into a mixed methods approach to athlete monitoring, as is current practice in many sport settings.