↓ Skip to main content

Positional Differences in Running and Nonrunning Activities During Elite American Football Training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Positional Differences in Running and Nonrunning Activities During Elite American Football Training
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002294
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to describe differences in training loads between position groups within professional American football. Integrated micro technology data was collected on 63 NFL football players during an American football training camp. Five key metrics (total distance, high speed distance, Player Load, Player Load per Minute, and Total Inertial Movement Analysis (IMA)) served to quantify both running and non-running activities. Players were classified into position groups (DB, DL, LB, OL, QB, RB, TE, and WR). Training sessions were identified by their relationship to the upcoming match (e.g., -4, -3, -2). Running and non-running activities varied between position groups relative to the training day. Differences in total distance were between DB and WR were observed to be unclear between the three training days (Game Day (GD) -4: 74 ± 392 m; GD -3: -122 ± 348; GD - 2: -222 ± 371 m). However, moderate to large differences were observed between these two positions and the other positional groups. A similar relationship was observed in Player Load and Player Load per Minute, with the DB and WR groups performing greater amounts of load compared to other positional groups. Differences in High Speed Distance varied across positional groups, indicating different outputs based on ergonomic demands. The OL and DL groups ran less but engaged in a higher amount of non-running activities (Total IMA) with differences ranging from moderate to large across the three training days. Total IMA differences between offensive and defensive linemen were unclear on GD -4 (-4 ± 9) and GD -2 (-2 ± 8) and likely moderate on GD -3 (-9 ± 9). Positional differences with regard to running and non-running activities highlight the existence of position specific training within a training micro-cycle. Additionally, Total IMA provides a useful metric for quantifying sport specific movements within the game of American football.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 54 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 43 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 58 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2019.
All research outputs
#9,257,369
of 34,546,575 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#3,689
of 7,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,629
of 373,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#45
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,546,575 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.