Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (3)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Sports (3) (remove)
Institute
- Sportwissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (1)
A large body of evidence suggests that the 11+ warm-up programme is effective in preventing football-related musculoskeletal injuries. However, despite considerable efforts to promote and disseminate the programme, it is unclear as to whether team head coaches are familiar with the 11+ and how they rate its feasibility. The present study aimed to gather information on awareness and usage among German amateur level football coaches. A questionnaire was administered to 7893 individuals who were in charge of youth and adult non-professional teams. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the obtained data. A total of 1223 coaches (16%) returned the questionnaire. There was no risk of a non-response bias (p>.05). At the time of the survey, nearly half of the participants (42.6%) knew the 11+. Among the coaches who were familiar with the programme, three of four reported applying it regularly (at least once per week). Holding a license (φ = .28, p < .0001), high competitive level (Cramer-V = .13, p = .007), and coaching a youth team (φ = .1, p = .001) were associated with usage of 11+. Feasibility and suitability of the 11+ were rated similarly by aware and unaware coaches. Although a substantial share of German amateur level coaches is familiar with the 11+, more than half of the surveyed participants did not know the programme. As the non-usage does not appear to stem from a lack of rated feasibility and suitability, existing communication strategies might need to be revised.
Introduction: To date, several meta-analyses clearly demonstrated that resistance and plyometric training are effective to improve physical fitness in children and adolescents. However, a methodological limitation of meta-analyses is that they synthesize results from different studies and hence ignore important differences across studies (i.e., mixing apples and oranges). Therefore, we aimed at examining comparative intervention studies that assessed the effects of age, sex, maturation, and resistance or plyometric training descriptors (e.g., training intensity, volume etc.) on measures of physical fitness while holding other variables constant.
Methods: To identify relevant studies, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases (e.g., PubMed) from inception to March 2018. We included resistance and plyometric training studies in healthy young athletes and non-athletes aged 6 to 18 years that investigated the effects of moderator variables (e.g., age, maturity, sex, etc.) on components of physical fitness (i.e., muscle strength and power).
Results: Our systematic literature search revealed a total of 75 eligible resistance and plyometric training studies, including 5,138 participants. Mean duration of resistance and plyometric training programs amounted to 8.9 ± 3.6 weeks and 7.1±1.4 weeks, respectively. Our findings showed that maturation affects plyometric and resistance training outcomes differently, with the former eliciting greater adaptations pre-peak height velocity (PHV) and the latter around- and post-PHV. Sex has no major impact on resistance training related outcomes (e.g., maximal strength, 10 repetition maximum). In terms of plyometric training, around-PHV boys appear to respond with larger performance improvements (e.g., jump height, jump distance) compared with girls. Different types of resistance training (e.g., body weight, free weights) are effective in improving measures of muscle strength (e.g., maximum voluntary contraction) in untrained children and adolescents. Effects of plyometric training in untrained youth primarily follow the principle of training specificity. Despite the fact that only 6 out of 75 comparative studies investigated resistance or plyometric training in trained individuals, positive effects were reported in all 6 studies (e.g., maximum strength and vertical jump height, respectively).
Conclusions: The present review article identified research gaps (e.g., training descriptors, modern alternative training modalities) that should be addressed in future comparative studies.
Despite being an essential consideration when deciding rule changes, injury prevention strategies, and athlete development models, there is little epidemiological data of U18 field hockey player injuries–something explicitly referred to in the 2015 International Olympic Committee’s Consensus Statement on Youth Athlete Development. The aim of this study was to quantify incidence and characteristics of injuries in elite youth field hockey players during a major international tournament. Standardized reporting forms detailing time, location on pitch, mechanism and anatomical location of injury were completed for new musculoskeletal conditions resulting in a time stoppage by the umpire and where a player was noticeably affected by an injury for up to 20 s regardless of time stoppage. Injury incidence was 1.35 and 2.20 injuries/match or 53 and 86 injuries per 1000 player match hours for boys (B) and girls (G) respectively; girls were over three times more likely to have a minor injury. Most injuries were contusions due to being hit by the ball or stick (B: 12, G: 27), with high numbers of injuries to the torso (B: 8) and head/face (G: 7). Injuries during the penalty corner (B: 3, G: 4) were to the lower limb and hand, and boys were less likely to wear facial protection (B: 65.9%, G: 86.4%). Results form an essential initial dataset of injuries in U18 field hockey players. Current reporting protocols under-report injuries and must be addressed by the international governing body. The high number of head/face injuries, particularly in females, requires further investigation.