Key result
All measures of training load had trivial effects on weekly musculoskeletal screening scores when conducted 2 or 3 days post-training or post-match.
Why the study?
Does internal training load influence weekly musculoskeletal screening scores (sit and reach, dorsiflexion lunge, adductor squeeze) in elite Australian rules footballers?
Observational (n=44)
No
Does internal training load influence weekly musculoskeletal screening scores (sit and reach, dorsiflexion lunge, adductor squeeze) in elite Australian rules footballers?
Weekly musculoskeletal screening tests exhibit normal variability that must be accounted for, and they are not sensitive to internal training load when conducted 2-3 days post-training or post-match.
Screening scores show load-independent variability at 2-3 days post-training; leaves open optimal timing or sensitivity for load monitoring in footballers.
Aim: The sit and reach test (S&R), dorsiflexion lunge test (DLT), and adductor squeeze test (AST) are commonly used in weekly musculoskeletal screening for athlete monitoring and injury prevention purposes. The aim of this study was to determine the normal week to week variability of the test scores, individual differences in variability, and the effects of training load on the scores. Methods: Forty-four elite Australian rules footballers from one club completed the weekly screening tests on day two or three post-main training (pre-season) or post-match (in-season) over a 10 month season. Ratings of perceived exertion and session duration for all training sessions were used to derive various measures of training load via both simple summations and exponentially weighted moving averages. Data were analysed via linear and quadratic mixed modelling and interpreted using magnitude-based inference. Results: Substantial small to moderate variability was found for the tests at both season phases; for example over the in-season, the normal variability ±90% confidence limits were as follows: S&R ±1.01 cm, ±0.12; DLT ±0.48 cm, ±0.06; AST ±7.4%, ±0.6%. Small individual differences in variability existed for the S&R and AST(factor standard deviations between 1.31 and 1.66). All measures of training load had trivial effects on the screening scores. Conclusion: A change in a test score larger than the normal variability is required to be considered a true change. Athlete monitoring and flagging systems need to account for the individual differences in variability. The tests are not sensitive to internal training load when conducted two or three days post-training or post-match, and the scores should be interpreted cautiously when used as measures of recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Esmaeili et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Healthy athletes (injury prevention and monitoring) (n=44). Training load vs. Within-subject variations in training load was evaluated on Normal variability of weekly musculoskeletal screening scores and the effects of training load. All measures of training load had trivial effects on weekly musculoskeletal screening scores when conducted 2 or 3 days post-training or post-match.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: