| Title |
Profile of 1-month training load in male and female football and futsal players
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2327-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Filipe Manuel Clemente, Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to analyse the variance of training load between male and female football and futsal players. The statistical analysis tested the variance between gender and type of sport during training sessions. Fifty-nine male and female amateur football and futsal amateur players were monitored during 48 training sessions. The heart rate (HR) responses and the percentage of time spent in zones of intensity were analysed during training sessions. Differences were found in football between the gender and the dependent variables of %HRmax (p value = 0.001; η (2) = 0.042; minimum effect), %time in Z2 (p value = 0.001; η (2) = 0.054; minimum effect), %time in Z4 (p value = 0.001; η (2) = 0.031; minimum effect) and %time in Z5 (p value = 0.001; η (2) = 0.053; minimum effect). The analysis in male players revealed differences between football and futsal in %HRmax (p value = 0.001; η (2) = 0.172; minimum effect). Similar results were found in female category (p value = 0.001; η (2) = 0.040; minimum effect). In this study it was possible to verify that female players spent more time in high intensity zones and that futsal training sessions are more intense than football sessions. Based on such results, coaches and fitness trainers may identify the physiological characteristics of training load imposed to different sports and genders and optimize the training plan for specific categories. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 44% |
| China | 1 | 11% |
| Finland | 1 | 11% |
| Portugal | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 32 | 23% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 70 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 41 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,069,566
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#247
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,445
of 333,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#26
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 333,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.