4.4 Article

LONGITUDINAL FOLLOW-UP OF BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS OF FATIGUE THROUGHOUT A SPORTING SEASON IN YOUNG ELITE RUGBY PLAYERS

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 3376-3384

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182474687

Keywords

prevention; fitness; training

Categories

Funding

  1. Sports Ministry of France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alaphilippe, A, Mandigout, S, Ratel, S, Bonis, J, Courteix, D and Duclos, M. Longitudinal follow-up of biochemical markers of fatigue throughout a sporting season in young elite rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 26(12): 3376-3384, 2012-The aims of this study were to evaluate links between biochemical markers and competition and training conditions, overtraining questionnaire scores, and anthropometric characteristics of young elite rugby players and to identify evolving profiles of fatigue during the sports season. Twelve elite rugby players were included in the study. The tests were carried out every 15 days over the course of one sporting season from July until March, including the interseason. Changes in body composition parameters, blood biochemistry, and scores on various questionnaires were examined. The majority of the biochemical parameters and subjective variables showed significant variations over time. There were significant positive correlations between overtraining scores and alanine amino transferase (ALAT; r = 0.24, p < 0.05) and creatine phosphokinase (CK; r = 0.3, p < 0.01) levels. In addition, game time was significantly correlated with changes in CK (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), whereas difficult training sessions were significantly correlated with changes in both CK (r = 0.27, p < 0.05) and ALAT (r = 0.33, p < 0.01). We suggest that regular monitoring of these biochemical parameters may provide important information for the coach on the fatigue of rugby players and their perceived difficulty of training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available