‘Making the Most’ of Your Fitness Testing: Research Overview & Practical Applications in Youth RL

1. ‘Making the Most’ of Your Fitness Testing: Research Overview & Practical Applications in Youth RL part of the Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure.

2. Fitness Testing

12. The Challenge ‘Effectively use fitness testing data to inform the prescription of training and inform players and coaches of their needs’ Pyne et al., (2013)

13. ‘Effectively use fitness testing data to inform the prescription of training and inform players and coaches of their needs’

14. ‘Effectively use fitness testing data to inform the prescription of training and inform players and coaches of their needs’

15. Establishing Norms (Till et al., 2013) • 257 player assessments over 6 year period • Under 16s to 20s Players – Backs and Forwards • Anthropometry - Height, Body Mass, Sum of 4 Skinfolds • Physical – 10m & 20m sprint, Vertical Jump, Yo-Yo Level 1, 1-RM / Relative Squat, Bench Press & Prone Row

18. Key Findings • Comparative data for UK academy RL players between 16 and 20 years by backs and forwards • Height, Body Mass, Vertical Jump and Strength improve with Chronological Age • Sum of four skinfolds, Speed and Estimated VO2max do not appear to change across age categories • Forwards – Taller and Heavier with greater 1-RMs • Backs – Leaner, Quicker, more Powerful with Greater Relative Strength

19. Implications • Consider combinations of anthropometric and fitness characteristics (e.g., momentum)

20. Implications • Consider combinations of anthropometric and fitness characteristics (e.g., momentum)

21. Implications • Consider combinations of anthropometric and fitness characteristics (e.g., momentum)

22. Implications • Consider combinations of anthropometric and fitness characteristics (e.g., momentum)

23. Implications • Consider combinations of anthropometric and fitness characteristics (e.g., momentum) • Relative strength increased with age • First study to present pulling strength characteristics – Limited understanding • Greater pushing to pulling ratio - 104.1 ± 14.4% (under 16s) and 116.6 ± 10.6% (under 19s). Suggested <100% so programmes should focus on pulling strength.

24. Practical Implications ‘It is recommended that such data should be used by strength and conditioning coaches and player development staff for player identification, assessing individual player’s strengths and weaknesses, and monitoring player development.’ (Till et al., 2013) 2 Questions

25. 1. Do coaches use research findings? (or their own data sets)

26. 2. How do coaches use their fitness testing data?

27. JSCR (2013)

28. Player 1 – Q4, Late Maturer, Outside-Back Player 2 – Q2, AvgMaturer, Hooker Player 3 – Q1, Early Maturer, Prop Under 13s Till et al., (2013)

29. Player 1 – Q4, Late Maturer, Outside Back Player 2 – Q2, AvgMaturer, Hooker Player 3 – Q1, Early Maturer, Prop Under 13s Under 14s Till et al., (2013)

30. Player 1 – Q4, Late Maturer, Outside Back Player 2 – Q2, AvgMaturer, Hooker 30m = -0.56s 30m = -0.39s Player 3 – Q1, Early Maturer, Prop 30m = -0.01s Under 13s Under 14s Under 15s Till et al., (2013)

31. Descriptors

32. Player Reporting

33. Scoring System • Aim - Develop a club wide scoring system of physical development • Simplify feedback to players and coaches • Take into account overall physical development • Monitor progressions with age • Using standards (1-5) calculate an average score for Speed, Strength, Power, Agility, Aerobic / Anaerobic Capacity • Multiply by LEAN body mass

34. ‘Bull Rating’ Power = 3.6 Strength = 3.2 Speed = 3.9 Agility = 3.0 Aerobic Capacity = 2.4 Total = 3.22 Lean Mass = 65.5kg Bull Rating = 211

35. Scoring System

36. Monitoring Progress?? • Although we can compare data with established norms – This is mostly cross sectional • What are the expected improvements following a… • Programme • Long term • Establish longitudinal (and change) data

37. Seasonal Improvements (Till et al., in review) Table 1. Pre to Post Season changes in anthropometric and physical characteristics

38. Key Findings • Comparative data for % change in performance from pre to post Season • Younger players (U14s and 16s) experienced greater seasonal improvements in body mass and vertical jump performance • Older players (U18s and 20s) demonstrated greater seasonal improvements in speed and estimated VO2max. • All players significantly reduced sum of 4 skinfolds across a season • Under 18s also demonstrated greater improvements in strength than Under 20s players.

39. Implications • Large individual variation = Individual Monitoring • Absolute changes in speed and aerobic performance may not occur so coaches – monitor momentum, etc. • Findings suggest 3 pre-season and 2 in season strength sessions a week elicit strength gains in academy aged rugby league players – is this optimum? • The relationships between seasonal changes in characteristics demonstrated that prone row strength was significantly correlated to all variables, excluding sum of skinfolds.

40. Future Directions • Greater understanding of the expected changes of short and long term programmes – Longitudinal Monitoring • Fitness Testing vs Daily Monitoring? • Compare players fitness testing scores with well being measures

41. How can you ‘Make the Most’ of Your Fitness Testing? Thank You!! Email: K.Till@leedsmet.ac.uk Kevin@KTConditioning.co.uk Tel: 07411 227745 part of the Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure.