Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/62008
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Witalo K-
dc.contributor.authorJesus, Karla de-
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Ana Denise de Souza-
dc.contributor.authorNakamura, Fábio Y-
dc.contributor.authorAssumpção, Cláudio O-
dc.contributor.authorMedeiros, Alexandre I-
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-12T13:29:49Z-
dc.date.available2021-11-12T13:29:49Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationOLIVEIRA, Witalo K. et al. Monitoring training load in beach volleyball players: a case study with an Olympic team. Motriz Revista de educação física, Rio Claro, v. 24, n. 1, p.1, 2018.pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/62008-
dc.description.abstractAim: Describe and compare training load dynamics of two Olympic beach volleyball players. Methods: Two Olympic beach volleyball players participated in this study (specialist defender and blocker: both aged 34 years, holding 14 years of competitive experience, height: 1.74 m and 1.81 m, weight: 69 kg and 65 kg, respectively). Internal training load (ITL), total weekly training load (TWTL), monotony and strain were obtained through the session rating of perceived exertion (session-RPE) for three training mesocycles (10 weeks). Lower limb explosive power was assessed through the counter movement jump (CMJ). Results: Mean ITL, TWTL, monotony and strain during the 10-week period were: 370 ± 156; 1997 ± 838; 2.7 ± 1.3; 5621 ± 1802 arbitrary units (AU) (Defender) and 414 ± 153; 2392 ± 892; 2.7 ± 1.1; 6894 ± 3747 (AU) (Blocker). Mean of CMJ height was 47.0 ± 1.3 and 40.3 ± 1.6 cm, for the defender and blocker, respectively. The defender player presented higher ITL in the second (effect size (ES) = 0.90; 92/5/3, likely) and in the third (ES = 0.91; 94/4/2, likely) mesocycles when compared to the first. Monotony raised from the first to the third mesocycle (ES = 2.91; 98/1/1, very likely). Blocker’s ITL was higher in the third mesocycle than the first (ES = 1.42. 98/1/1, very likely) and in the second (ES = 1.49; 98/1/1, likely). Conclusion: ITL magnitude increased from the first to the third mesocycle, in both players.pt_BR
dc.language.isopt_BRpt_BR
dc.publisherMotriz: Revista de educação físicapt_BR
dc.subjectWorkloadpt_BR
dc.subjectRecoverypt_BR
dc.subjectPerformancept_BR
dc.titleMonitoring training load in beach volleyball players: a case study with an Olympic teampt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:IEFES - Artigos publicados em revistas científicas

Arquivos associados a este item:
Arquivo Descrição TamanhoFormato 
2018_art_wkoliveira.pdf464,9 kBAdobe PDFVisualizar/Abrir


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.