Skip to main content
2024 NSCA National Conference Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Back
Rate ePoster

Endurance Training/Cardiorespiratory

(30) RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMMON DISTANCE AND SPEED METRICS WITH SINGLE-POINT 2D AND 3D LOAD STATISTICS IN DIVISION II WOMEN’S LACROSSE

Thursday, July 11, 2024
12:00 PM – 1:30 PM East Coast USA Time
Location: Exhibit Hall
Abstract Details:



  1. Background: External Load monitoring is important in sport science for training and safety purposes. Often, companies create proprietary load algorithms to summary inputs and provide the end user with a single summary number intended to help simplify the analysis. However, because the weight given to each on-field performance metric that contributes to the overall cumulative score is often unknown, coaches may be left with some uncertainty as to which training variables should be manipulated most to elicit the desired change in their system’s cumulative load summary statistic.

    Purpose: The purpose of this research project was to investigate the relationships between the GPS system’s 2D and 3D summary load metric and other on-field metrics related to speed and distance during NCAA Division II women's lacrosse practice and games.

    Methods: A total of 10 practices and five games were used in this sample. For all games and practices, 15 athletes were provided GPS trackers (10Hz GPS with accelerometer). All relevant speed and distance variables were correlated with 2D load and 3D load via Pearson's correlations to quantify the relationships between variables.

    Results: 2D load (104 ± 114 au) and 3D load (104 ± 114 au) presented he following correlations with Top Speed (2D r = 0.57 & 3D r = 0.57), Work Rate (r = 0.13 & r = 0.12), Hard Running Distance (r = 0.58 & r = 0.59), Sprint Distance (r = 0.23 & r = 0.24), Run Distance (r = 0.81 & r = 0.82), Jog Distance (r = 0.97 & r = 0.97), Walk Distance (r = 0.91 & r = 0.91), Total Distance (r = 0.98 & r = 0.98), and Practice Duration (r = 0.91 & r = 0.91).

    Conclusion: Total distance and slower speed running, and Practice Duration were highly correlated with the single-point 2D and 3D load metrics. This relationship was stronger than the relationships with other high-end running speed or distance metrics. This may be – in part – due to the lower volumes in high-end running metrics. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Athlete load monitoring is a multifaceted process. Strength and conditioning and coaching staffs at small schools or working with teams with limited budgets may want to consider cheaper alternatives to measure total distance and practice time for player monitoring, due to the strong correlations between these values and the proprietary 2D and 3D load metrics from GPS and accelerometry systems. This is not to diminish or dismiss the importance of GPS monitoring for other values, such as sprint speed, total impacts, etc.; however, it appears with the current sample, that a cheaper/simpler device to measure how much distance a player covers in training may represent an accurate way to track changes in player load – even if quantifying the load is less sophisticated. This may make player monitoring more viable for teams with limited financial resources.



Acknowledgements: None