Comparative analysis of Amputee Soccer players and coach perception of intensity training

We investigate if there are agreement and differences between the training intensity and load prescribed by the coach and those perceived by Amputee Soccer (AS) players. Eleven AS players and the team coach participated in the study. Before each session, we registered the coach Rating Perceived Exer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Simim, Mário Antônio de Moura, Medeiros, Alexandre Igor Araripe, Fonteles, André Igor, Oliveira, Saulo Fernandes Melo de, Sousa Junior, Edilson Moreira, Catunda, Felipe Nogueira, Silva, Bruno Victor Corrêa da, Mota, Gustavo Ribeiro da, Assumpção, Claudio de Oliveira
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:Brasil
Institución:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
Repositorio:Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte (Online)
Idioma:portugués
OAI Identifier:oai:revistas.usp.br:article/193026
Acceso en línea:https://www.revistas.usp.br/rbefe/article/view/193026
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Disabled persons
Para-Athletes
Physical effort
Adaptive sports
Pessoas com deficiência
Para-atletas
Esforço físico
Esporte adaptado
Descripción
Sumario:We investigate if there are agreement and differences between the training intensity and load prescribed by the coach and those perceived by Amputee Soccer (AS) players. Eleven AS players and the team coach participated in the study. Before each session, we registered the coach Rating Perceived Exertion (RPE) intended (not disclosed to the players). Immediately after the training session, the players responded to the same version of RPE individually. The load was quantified through the session-RPE (s-RPE) (RPE x minutes). In sessions 1 and 2, the coach overestimated the training RPE (p < 0.05; Effect size [ES] = 0.2 and 0.3), whereas in sessions 4 and 5 the values were underestimated (p < 0.05; ES = 0.3). In the case of s-RPE, the overestimation of RPE occurred in session 1 (p = 0.02; ES = 0.9), whereas in sessions 4 and 5 (p < 0.05; ES = 1.8 and 0.9) the coach underestimated the load values. We conclude that the training load planned by the coach is different and disagrees with the perception of the AS players in most of the training sessions.