Effects of chronological age, relative age, and maturation status on accumulated training load and perceived exertion in young sub-elite football players

• Autor(a) principal: Teixeira, José Eduardo
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Alves, Ana Ruivo, Ferraz, Ricardo, Forte, Pedro, Leal, Miguel, Ribeiro, Joana, Silva, A.J., Barbosa, Tiago M., Monteiro, A.M.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10198/25473
• topic: GPS; Growth; Heart rate; RPE; Workload; Youth

The aims of this study were 1) to analyze the influence of chronological age, relative age, and biological maturation on accumulated training load and perceived exertion in young sub-elite football players and 2) to understand the interaction effects amongst age grouping,maturation status, and birth quartiles on accumulated training load and perceived exertion in this target population. A 6-week period (18 training sessions and 324 observation cases) concerning 60 young male sub-elite football players grouped into relative age (Q1 to Q4), age group (U15, U17, and U19), and maturation status (Pre-peak height velocity (PHV), Mid-PHV, and Post- PHV) was established. External training load data were collected using 18 Hz global positioning system technology (GPS), heart-rate measures by a 1 Hz short-range telemetry system, and perceived exertion with total quality recovery (TQR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). U17 players and U15 players were 2.35 (95% CI: 1.25–4.51) and 1.60 (95% CI: 0.19–4.33) times more likely to pertain to Q1 and Q3, respectively. A negative magnitude for odds ratio was found in all four quartile comparisons within maturation status (95% CI: 6.72–0.64), except for Mid-PHV on Q2 (95% CI: 0.19–4.33). Between- and within-subject analysis reported significant differences in all variables on age group comparison measures (F = 0.439 to 26.636, p = 0.000 to 0.019, η2 = 0.003–0.037), except for dynamic stress load (DSL). Between-subject analysis onmaturity status comparison demonstrated significant differences for all training load measures (F = 6.593 to 14.424, p = 0.000 to 0.037, η2 = 0.020–0.092). Interaction effects were found for age group xmaturity band x relative age (Λ Pillai’s = 0.391, Λ Wilk’s = 0.609, F = 11.385, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.391) and maturity band x relative age (Λ Pillai’s = 0.252, Λ Wilk’s = 0.769,F=0.955, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.112). Current research has confirmed the effects of chronological age, relative age, and biological maturation on accumulated training load. Perceived exertion does not seem to show any differences concerning age group or maturity status. Evidence should be helpful for professionals to optimize the training process and young football players’ performance.