Whichever monitoring method is applied, in a youth population it is important that the protocol can be individualised, is inexpensive and can be easily implemented and reported so that the monitoring is sustainable. It has been suggested that the combination of training load, recovery and wellbeing monitoring variables is the optimal way to monitor an athlete’s fatigue levels. The reporting of injuries and menstrual cycles is also crucial for providing completeness when monitoring an athlete. The most commonly used external monitoring methods are GPS tracking and TRIMP whereas common internal monitoring tools are questionnaires, perceived exertion rating and heart rate measures. However, the validity, reliability and practicality of these measures are often not fully understood in female youth populations. This narrative review highlights that multiple measures have been explored to monitor both internal and external load. Therefore, monitoring youth athlete load is an emerging area of research that may help limit non-functional overreaching, injury, or illness and assist with long-term athlete development. Young athletes may experience high training loads due to playing several sports, as well as participating in school physical education. Participation in youth sports is ever-increasing, along with training and competition demands placed upon youth athletes. We suggest an anti-inflammatory and immunological matrix approach to optimize training load quantification in elite athletes. Pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β ( p = 0.002), TNF-α ( p < 0.001), and the chemokine IL-8 ( p = 0.001) were elevated during COMP, while anti-inflammatory Il-10 was lower ( p = 0.002).Ĭonclusion: COMP resulted in an increase in biomarkers reflecting tissue damage, with plausible evidence of immune cell activation that appeared to be compensated by anti-inflammatory mechanisms, such as T reg -cell proliferation. HMGB1 and cfDNA increased in most athletes during COMP ( p = 0.001 and 0.048), while CK, UA, and KYN remained unaltered ( p = 0.053, 0.304, and 0.211). During COMP, DC/macrophage/monocyte and T-regulatory cells (T reg -cell) increased ( p = 0.001 and 0.010). Results: Rowers experienced more general stress and less recovery during COMP, but sports-related stress and recovery did not differ from PREP. Cytokines, High-Mobility Group Protein B1 (HMGB1), cell-free DNA (cfDNA), creatine kinase (CK), uric acid (UA), and kynurenine (KYN) were measured in venous blood. Immune cell activation (dendritic cell (DC)/macrophage/monocytes/T-cells) was evaluated via fluorescent activated cell sorting. Perceived stress and recovery were assessed by a Recovery Stress Questionnaire for Athletes ( RESTQ-76 Sport ). preparation phase (PREP), representing high vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |