Global practitioner assessment and management of mental fatigue and mental recovery in high-performance sport: A need for evidence-based best-practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Mental fatigue and mental recovery have gained scientific attention in relation to sporting performance, yet best practice assessment and management methods are lacking. A greater understanding of current knowledge and practices in high-performance sport are necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the contemporary knowledge, beliefs, monitoring processes, management strategies, perceived responsibility, sources of evidence, and challenges, when assessing the mental fatigue and mental recovery of athletes in high-performance sport.

METHODS

A mixed-methods survey approach obtained information from 156 multi-disciplinary high-performance sport practitioners. Descriptive outputs were reported and potential differences between key concepts were detected using Wilcoxon-signed rank analysis. Thematic analysis interpreted open-text responses.

RESULTS

Only 11.5% and 5.1% of respondents indicated they were "very" knowledgeable about mental fatigue and mental recovery, respectively. Knowledge (p < 0.001) and confidence in application (p = 0.001) were significantly greater for mental fatigue than mental recovery. Nearly all respondents perceived mental fatigue and mental recovery impacted training and competition performance, with a greater negative impact during competition (p < 0.001). A limited number of respondents reported deliberate assessment (31.1%) or management (51.2%) of mental fatigue and mental recovery. A combination of sources of evidence were used to inform practice, with common challenges to implementation including staff knowledge, athlete-buy in, time-availability, and a lack of evidence. Practitioners reported that assessing and managing mental fatigue and mental recovery was multi-disciplinary in nature.

CONCLUSION

Practitioners reported that mental fatigue and mental recovery did impact performance, yet this was not reflected in the implementation of evidence-based assessment and management practices in high-performance sport.

Training and match load in professional rugby union: Do contextual factors influence the training week?

Background

Rugby union demands a multifaceted approach to training, given the multiple physical and technical attributes required to play the sport.

Objectives

The aim of this study is to describe the distribution of training throughout the week and investigate how this may be influenced by match-related factors.

Methods

Training load data (session Rating of Perceived Exertion [sRPE], total distance and high-speed running [HSR]) were collected from six professional English rugby teams during the 2017/18 season. Five contextual factors were also recorded including: standard of opposition, competition type, result of previous fixture, surface type, and match venue.

Results

The day prior to matches demonstrated the lowest training load (101 AU (95% CIs: 0-216 AU), 1 047 m (95% CIs:1 128-1 686 m) and 59 m (95% CIs: 0-343 m), respectively), while four days prior to the match demonstrated the highest training load (464 AU (95% CIs: 350-578), 2 983 m (95% CIs: 2 704-3 262m) and 234m (95% CIs: 0-477m), respectively). Of the five contextual factors, competition type was the only variable that demonstrated greater than trivial findings, with training before European fixtures the lowest stimulus across the four different competition types. Standard of opposition, previous result, surface type and venue had only trivial effects on training load (effect sizes = -0.13 to 0.15).

Conclusion

Future studies should outline the distribution of other training metrics, including contact and collision training. This study provides a multi-club evaluation that demonstrates the variety of loading strategies prior to competitive match play and highlights competition type as the most influential contextual factor impacting the average training load.

The Training-Performance Puzzle: How Can the Past Inform Future Training Directions?

Over the past 20 years, research on the training-load-injury relationship has grown exponentially. With the benefit of more data, our understanding of the training-performance puzzle has improved. What were we thinking 20 years ago, and how has our thinking changed over time? Although early investigators attributed overuse injuries to excessive training loads, it has become clear that rapid spikes in training load, above what an athlete is accustomed, explain (at least in part) a large proportion of injuries. In this respect, it appears that overuse injuries may arise from athletes being underprepared for the load they are about to perform. However, a question of interest to both athletic trainers (ATs) and researchers is why some athletes sustain injury at low training loads, while others can tolerate much greater training loads? A higher chronic training load and well-developed aerobic fitness and lower body strength appear to moderate the training-injury relationship and provide a protective effect against spikes in load. The training-performance puzzle is complex and dynamic-at any given time, multiple inputs to injury and performance exist. The challenge facing researchers is obtaining large enough longitudinal data sets to capture the time-varying nature of physiological and musculoskeletal capacities and training-load data to adequately inform injury-prevention efforts. The training-performance puzzle can be solved, but it will take collaboration between researchers and clinicians as well as an understanding that efficacy (ie, how training load affects performance and injury in an idealized or controlled setting) does not equate to effectiveness (ie, how training load affects performance and injury in the real-world setting, where many variables cannot be controlled).