首页> 外文期刊>Journal of strength and conditioning research >The convergent validity between two objective methods for quantifying training load in young taekwondo athletes.
【24h】

The convergent validity between two objective methods for quantifying training load in young taekwondo athletes.

机译:量化跆拳道年轻运动员训练负荷的两种客观方法之间的收敛效度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Various studies used objective heart rate (HR)-based methods to assess training load (TL). The common methods were Banister's Training Impulse (TRIMP; weights the duration using a weighting factor) and Edwards' TL (a summated HR zone score). Both the methods use the direct physiological measure of HR as a fundamental part of the calculation. To eliminate the redundancy of using various methods to quantify the same construct (i.e., TL), we have to verify if these methods are strongly convergent and are interchangeable. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the convergent validity between Banister's TRIMP and Edwards' TL used for the assessment of internal TL. The HRs were recorded and analyzed during 10 training weeks of the preseason period in 10 male Taekwondo (TKD) athletes. The TL was calculated using Banister's TRIMP and Edwards' TL. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the convergent validity between the 2 methods for assessing TL. Very large to nearly perfect relationships were found between individual Banister's TRIMP and Edwards' TL (r values from 0.80 to 0.99; p < 0.001). Pooled Banister's TRIMP and pooled Edwards' TL (pooled data n = 284) were nearly largely correlated (r = 0.89; p < 0.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.91). In conclusion, these findings suggest that these 2 objective methods, measuring a similar construct, are interchangeable.
机译:各种研究都使用基于客观心率(HR)的方法来评估训练负荷(TL)。常用的方法是Banister训练冲动(TRIMP;使用加权因子对持续时间进行加权)和Edwards TL(HR区总分)。两种方法都使用直接生理测量HR作为计算的基本部分。为了消除使用各种方法量化同一构建体(即TL)的冗余性,我们必须验证这些方法是否是强收敛的和可互换的。因此,本研究的目的是调查用于评估内部TL的Banister TRIMP和Edwards TL之间的收敛效度。在10名男性跆拳道(TKD)运动员的赛前10个训练周内记录并分析了HR。 TL是使用Banister的TRIMP和Edwards的TL计算的。使用皮尔逊积矩相关系数来评估两种评估TL的方法之间的收敛效度。在各个Banister的TRIMP和Edwards的TL之间发现了非常大的关系,甚至接近完美的关系(r值从0.80到0.99; p <0.001)。合并的Banister的TRIMP和合并的Edwards的TL(合并数据n = 284)几乎相关(r = 0.89; p <0.05; 95%置信区间:0.86-0.91)。总之,这些发现表明,这两种客观的方法(测量相似的结构)是可以互换的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号