No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study was to quantify movements of Super 12 rugby players in competition because information on elite rugby players' movements is unavailable. Players were categorized into forwards [front (n = 16) and back row (n = 15)] and backs [inside (n = 9) and outside backs (n = 7)] and their movements analysed by video-based time motion analysis. Movements were classified as rest (standing, walking and jogging) and work (striding, sprinting, static exertion, jumping, lifting or tackling). The total time, number and duration of individual activities were assessed, with differences between groups evaluated using independent sample t-tests (unequal variances), while differences between halves were assessed with paired sample t-tests. Forwards had 7:47 min:s (95% confidence limits: 6:39 to 8:55 min:s, P<0.01) more time in static exertion than backs, but backs spent 0:52 (0:34 to 1:09, P = 0.01) min:s more time sprinting than forwards, and had a 0.7 (0.3 to 1.2, P = 0.01) s longer duration of each sprint. Forwards spent 7:31 (5:55 to 9:08) min:s more time in work activities (P = 0.01) and had 2.1 (1.3 to 2.8) s longer work durations (P<0.01) than backs. The results indicate frequent short duration (<4 s) work efforts followed by moderate duration (<20 s) rest for forwards, and extended (>100 s) rest duration for backs. High-intensity efforts involved static exertion for forwards (mean +/- standard deviation frequency = 80 +/- 17) and sprinting for backs (27 +/- 9). In conclusion, after nearly a decade since becoming professional, elite rugby union is still characterized by highly intense, intermittent movement patterns and marked differences in the competition demands of forwards and backs.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine power performance in jump squats when using the complex and contrast training methods. Eleven (n = 11) women participated in a familiarization session and in three randomly ordered testing sessions. One session involved completing sets of power exercises (jump squats) before sets of half squats (traditional method). The second session involved sets of half squats before sets of jump squats (complex method). A third session involved the alternation of sets of half squats and jump squats (contrast method). No significant difference in jump squat performance between each of the training methods was found. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the first set of each session, with the complex method having a significantly lower peak power. Further, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in performance changes between the higher and lower strength groups, with the higher strength group having a greater improvement in performance using the contrast training method compared with the traditional method. It was concluded that contrast training is advantageous for increasing power output but only for athletes with relatively high strength levels.