Profiling the Post-match Recovery Response in Male Rugby: A Systematic Review

Abstract

To minimize underperformance, injury and illness, and to enhance readiness for training and matchplay, post-match responses are commonly monitored within professional rugby. As no clear consensus exists regarding the magnitude and duration of post-match recovery, this review summarized literature (17 studies yielded from literature searching/screening) reporting neuromuscular (countermovement jump; CMJ: peak power output; PP, flight-time; FT), biochemical (creatine kinase; CK), endocrine (cortisol; C, testosterone; T concentrations) and subjective (wellness questionnaire, muscle soreness) indices following rugby match-play. For neuromuscular responses (11 studies), reductions in PP <31.5% occurred <30 min post-match, returning to baseline within 48-72 h. Post-match reductions in FT of <4% recovered after 48 h. For biochemical and endocrine responses (14 studies), increases in CK, ranging from 120-451%, peaked between 12-24 h, returning to baseline within 72 h of match-play. Initial increases of <298% in C, and reductions in T concentrations (<44%), returned to pre-match values within 48-72 h. Mood disturbances (six studies) required 48-72 h to normalize after peak decrements of <65% at 24 h. This review highlights that 72 h were needed to restore perturbations in neuromuscular, biochemical and endocrine, and subjective/perceptual responses following competitive rugby match-play. Notably, only four studies reported responses in more ecologically valid scenarios (i.e., those in which regular training and recovery strategies were employed) whilst also reporting detailed match demands. A lack of research focusing on youth players was also evident, as only three studies profiled post-match responses in younger athletes. Deeper insight regarding post-match responses in ecologically valid scenarios is therefore required.

The field and resistance training loads of academy rugby league players during a pre-season: Comparisons across playing positions

“…Whereas in the current study the frequency and duration reported can be interpreted confidently, as the reports were precisely captured via microtechnology units. The lower training volume compared to those reported by McCormack et al [ 26 ] may not come as a surprise, as U19 players are employed as professional athletes, but are part-time, often training while studying or working [ 23 , 26 , 27 ]. Yet they are still expected to follow high frequency training programmes ensuring they are adequately prepared for senior professional rugby league [ 36 ].…”

“…As both excessive and insufficient training load may impede athletic development, understanding the specific training loads undertaken by academy rugby league players is important for the planning of future training to maximise athletic performance, injury prevention, playing progression, and general wellbeing [ 3 ]. Differences in training load, alongside differences in certain physical capabilities associated with specific playing positions and standards, may influence one’s understanding of appropriate training prescription [ 1 , 27 ]. No study has quantified an academy rugby league pre-season period, considering positional demands for both field- and resistance-based training loads.…”

Quantifying Fatigue in the Rugby Codes: The Interplay Between Collision Characteristics and Neuromuscular Performance, Biochemical Measures, and Self-Reported Assessments of Fatigue

“…Further, rugby sevens is more homogenous for positional groups, compared to the other rugby codes (Ross et al, 2015). Whilst previous work has summarised and examined the post-match fatigue and recovery across the rugby codes, this research did not explore the influence of collision characteristics on recovery measures (Aben et al, 2020). This omission is important, given the purported contribution of collisions to elevated psycho-physiological and biomechanical load outlined above.…”

“…However, in the context of exposure to an exercise bout (such as rugby match-play), and in the context of this review, fatigue can be considered the disruption of homoeostasis that negatively impacts the ability to produce and apply force (Vøllestad, 1997). Fatigue processes possess acute and chronic dimensions and are therefore time-dependent, although they typically recover toward baseline following the acute effects of match-play (Aben et al, 2020). Muscle damage as a result of match-related activities has the potential to exacerbate fatigue symptoms and delay recovery (Peake et al, 2016).…”

“…Given the response-type measures used to assess IIMD and EIMD at times overlap, there is potential to confound their effects on match-related fatigue (Naughton et al, 2018), and this needs be considered when reviewing the literature on collisions. Prior work which has summarised post-match fatigue and recovery from rugby more broadly has failed to examine the relative effects of collision characteristics on recovery metrics (Aben et al, 2020). Therefore, the aim of this review is to characterise the variables that have been utilised to quantify post-match fatigue and recovery, and to specifically review the time-course of fatigue in mens rugby post-match, and the associations between fatigue and rugby match-related collisions (i.e., tackles and ball carries) for the team and in positional groups of forwards and backs.…”