↓ Skip to main content

The effect of physical contact on changes in fatigue markers following rugby union field‐based training

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Sport Science, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 X users

Readers on

mendeley
159 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.
Title
The effect of physical contact on changes in fatigue markers following rugby union field‐based training
Published in
European Journal of Sport Science, February 2017
DOI 10.1080/17461391.2017.1287960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory Roe, Joshua Darrall‐Jones, Kevin Till, Padraic Phibbs, Dale Read, Jonathon Weakley, Andrew Rock, Ben Jones

Abstract

Repeated physical contact in rugby union is thought to contribute to post-match fatigue; however, no evidence exists on the effect of contact activity during field-based training on fatigue responses. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of contact during training on fatigue markers in rugby union players. Twenty academy rugby union players participated in the cross-over study. The magnitude of change in upper- and lower-body neuromuscular function (NMF), whole blood creatine kinase concentration [CK] and perception of well-being was assessed pre-training (baseline), immediately and 24 h post-training following contact and non-contact, field-based training. Training load was measured using mean heart rate, session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and microtechnology (Catapult Optimeye S5). The inclusion of contact during field-based training almost certainly increased mean heart rate (9.7; ±3.9%) and sRPE (42; ±29.2%) and resulted in likely and very likely greater decreases in upper-body NMF (-7.3; ±4.7% versus 2.7; ±5.9%) and perception of well-being (-8.0; ±4.8% versus  -3.4; ±2.2%) 24 h post-training, respectively, and almost certainly greater elevations in [CK] (88.2; ±40.7% versus 3.7; ±8%). The exclusion of contact from field-based training almost certainly increased running intensity (19.8; ±5%) and distance (27.5; ±5.3%), resulting in possibly greater decreases in lower-body NMF (-5.6; ±5.2% versus 2.3; ±2.4%). Practitioners should be aware of the different demands and fatigue responses of contact and non-contact, field-based training and can use this information to appropriately schedule such training in the weekly microcycle.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 18%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 7 4%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 44 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 69 43%
Unspecified 7 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 50 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 17 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,225,965
of 24,578,676 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Sport Science
#260
of 1,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,986
of 317,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Sport Science
#9
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,578,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 317,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.