Sensibilidade de testes motores e escala de recuperação total para identificação de variações da carga de treinamento em praticantes de CrossFit®

• Ano de defesa: 2022
• Autor(a) principal: Silva, Manoella Regina De Souza
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso; Brasil; Faculdade de Educação Física (FEF); UFMT CUC - Cuiabá; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Física
• Palavras-chave em Português: Salto com contramovimento; Tapping test; Qualidade total de recuperação; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::EDUCACAO FISICA; Countermovement jump; Total quality of recovery
• Link de acesso: http://ri.ufmt.br/handle/1/6155

CrossFit® is a training program, which involves often high-intensity exercise. Identifying practical variables that are associated with the training load performed in CrossFit® can help in training planning strategies. Thus, the objective of the present study was to verify if tests that assess motor function and perception of recovery are related to the training load in CrossFit® practitioners. Eleven male CrossFit® practitioners with a mean age of 27.73 ± 5.92 years and practice time of 3.27 ± 1.42 years participated in the research. The volunteers performed eight training microcycles with a record of the daily training load, quantified through the Subjective Perceived Effort (RPE) multiplied by the duration of the session. On the first microcycle training day of each of the eight microcycles, practitioners performed three operational measurements: countermovement jump (CMJ), Tapping Test (TT) and assessment of perception of recovery (TQR). Data analysis consisted of repeated measures ANOVA and Spearman correlation analysis. The significance level adopted was p<0.05. The ANOVA data show that, in general, there was a lower training load in the first four microcycles compared to the last four. Despite this, the standard deviation was only higher in the last microcycle, compared to the others. The TT did not vary over time, while the CMJ was lower after the first two microcycles, and the TQR was lower after the third and fifth microcycles. There was a significant correlation between training load and standard deviation of training load (r=0.25; p=0.02), standard deviation of training load and performance variation in TT (r=0.30; p<0 .01) and between performance variation in CMJ and TT (r=0.38; p<0.01). TQR was not correlated with any measure. From the results, it is concluded that of the tested tools, the TT was the only variable sensitive to the variation of the training load in CrossFit® practitioners, and positive performance variations are expected after microcycles with higher standard deviation of the training load. Although variations in the CMJ are expected when there is also a variation in TT performance, the CMJ, as well as the TQR, were not sensitive to variations in the training load.