2023
DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1197766
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring load, wellness, and psychological variables in female and male youth national team football players during international and domestic playing periods

Thomas Rostgaard Andersen,
Bennet Kästner,
Mathias Arvig
et al.

Abstract: AimTo study differences in total load exposure, wellness, and psychological variables in youth female (N = 19) and male (N = 20) national team football players during domestic and international playing periods, respectively.ProceduresThe players filled out questionnaires on well-being, stress, and resilience before and after both playing periods lasting 8 days each. The Hooper index was used to monitor daily wellness levels during both playing periods. The number of training sessions and matches were recorded,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 50 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the current investigation was conducted across several clubs, each applying a unique approach to player development ( 25 ). In addition, the average weekly football exposure in the present study was comparable to that recently demonstrated in under-19 international level players ( 26 ). Lastly, the players weekly conducted several hours of non-coach lead practice ( Table 2 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Furthermore, the current investigation was conducted across several clubs, each applying a unique approach to player development ( 25 ). In addition, the average weekly football exposure in the present study was comparable to that recently demonstrated in under-19 international level players ( 26 ). Lastly, the players weekly conducted several hours of non-coach lead practice ( Table 2 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%