The relationship between training load, overtraining and sleep with injury in elite athletes
Poster Presentation
Paper ID : 1586-SSRC
Authors
1دکتری تخصصی آسیب شناسی ورزشی و حرکات اصلاحی ، دانشگاه تهران ، پردیس بین المللی کیش
2Member of Scientifi Committee
3Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
4Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Purpose: In recent years, the concept of training load has received more attention, and studies have emphasized the relationship between training load and the risk of injury and overtraining. The aim of this study was to study the relationship between the amount of training load ;overtraining and sleep with the incidence and severity of injuries in elite athletes.
Methods: The subjects in this study were 25 athletes who were continuously active in first or second level leagues and competitions approved by the relevant federation. Of these, 7 people were tennis players (22±3 years old), 8 football players (25±2 years old) and 10 basketball players (25±5 years old) all men. The athletes were observed during two months during the competition season (intermittently), then the rate and severity of injuries (injury form) was registered. Overtraining was recorded with the SFMS questionnaire and sleep quality was recorded with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and load was registered based on RPE (rating of perceived exertion).
Results: The results showed that the amount of acute: chronic workload(ACWR) has no significant relationship with the severity and the rate of injury of athletes (P<0.05). Also, there is a significant relationship between overtraining syndrome and sleep quality, so that with an increase of one unit in the overtraining syndrome score, with sleep status (another criterion variable) held constant, the probability of injury severity increases 2.003 times. In the same way, with an increase of one unit in the sleep score, with constant consideration of overtraining, the probability of increasing the severity of injury increases by 2.753 times. In addition, statistical analyzes showed that none of the variables of workload, signs of overtraining syndrome and sleep quality have a significant relationship in the incidence rate of the disease.
Conclusion: In general, it seems that despite the control of training load, it is possible that Most important advantage of load monitoring is the monitored the level of appropriate load to reduce non-functional overreaching and injury, although the ACWR alone to predict the risk of injury is not enough.
Methods: The subjects in this study were 25 athletes who were continuously active in first or second level leagues and competitions approved by the relevant federation. Of these, 7 people were tennis players (22±3 years old), 8 football players (25±2 years old) and 10 basketball players (25±5 years old) all men. The athletes were observed during two months during the competition season (intermittently), then the rate and severity of injuries (injury form) was registered. Overtraining was recorded with the SFMS questionnaire and sleep quality was recorded with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and load was registered based on RPE (rating of perceived exertion).
Results: The results showed that the amount of acute: chronic workload(ACWR) has no significant relationship with the severity and the rate of injury of athletes (P<0.05). Also, there is a significant relationship between overtraining syndrome and sleep quality, so that with an increase of one unit in the overtraining syndrome score, with sleep status (another criterion variable) held constant, the probability of injury severity increases 2.003 times. In the same way, with an increase of one unit in the sleep score, with constant consideration of overtraining, the probability of increasing the severity of injury increases by 2.753 times. In addition, statistical analyzes showed that none of the variables of workload, signs of overtraining syndrome and sleep quality have a significant relationship in the incidence rate of the disease.
Conclusion: In general, it seems that despite the control of training load, it is possible that Most important advantage of load monitoring is the monitored the level of appropriate load to reduce non-functional overreaching and injury, although the ACWR alone to predict the risk of injury is not enough.
Keywords