Noncontact Injury Distribution and Relationship With Preseason Training Load and Nonmodifiable Risk Factors in Rugby Union Players Across Multiple Seasons.

ABSTRACT: Evans, SL, Whittaker, G, Elphinstone Davis, E, Jones, ES, Hardy, J, and Owen, JA. Noncontact injury distribution and relationship with preseason training load and non-modifiable risk factors in Rugby Union players across multiple seasons. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1456-1462, 2023-This study examined the distribution of noncontact injury during phases of the competitive season and the association between preseason training load (TL) and nonmodifiable risk factors on injury risk during these phases. Injury data were recorded from 1 senior academy team over 3 seasons (2017-2020) and analyzed across early-season, midseason, and late-season phases. A generalized estimating equation was used to model risk factors with noncontact injury for selected phases. The highest noncontact injury incidence occurred in the late-season phase (22.2 per 1,000 hours) compared with early (13.7 per 1,000 hours, p < 0.001) and midseason phases (15.5 per 1,000 hours, p = 0.001). Low preseason TL (8,949-12,589 arbitrary units; odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7, 1.0-21.6; p = 0.04) and low preseason TL combined with high early-season TL and injury in the early-season phase (OR, 95% CI = 6.5, 1.1-35.5; p = 0.03) were associated with greater midseason noncontact injury risk. In addition, low preseason TL combined with previous injury was associated with increased risk of noncontact injury risk in the late season (OR, 95% CI = 12.2, 0.9-15.6, p = 0.05). Our results suggest players are at a greater injury risk during the late-season phase, with low preseason cumulative loads combined with a history of previous injury associated with increased in-season injury risk. Strength and conditioning coaches should therefore monitor cumulative preseason TL alongside screening for previous injury history to identify athletes at greater risk of noncontact injury risk during the competitive season.

Match and training injury risk in semi-professional rugby union: A four-year study.

OBJECTIVES: Describe medical-attention and time-loss injuries during matches and training in a Welsh Premiership Rugby Union team. DESIGN: Prospective cohort observational study. METHODS: Injury incidence, severity, burden, location, type, and cause were determined in sixty-nine players from one semi-professional Rugby Union team. RESULTS: Medical-attention and time-loss injury incidence was greater for matches (incidence, 95% confidence interval = 122.8, 108.9-138.4 and 99.8, 87.3-114.0) than training (incidence, 95% confidence interval = 2.2, 1.8-2.6 and 1.7, 1.4-2.1) per 1000 player-hours. Injury severity was similar for matches (time-loss ± standard deviation = 24.9 ± 30.8 days) and training (time-loss ± SD = 22.4 ± 29.1 days), with injury burden greater for matches (burden, 95% confidence interval = 3148.8, 3019.8-6479.2) than training (burden, 95% confidence interval = 49.7, 36.7-129.6). Lower-limb time-loss injuries were most common during matches (incidence, 95% confidence interval = 46.0, 37.9-55.9) and training (incidence, 95% confidence interval = 1.3, 1.0-1.7) per 1000 player-hours, whilst upper-limb injuries were most severe in matches (time-loss, 95% confidence interval = 38.8, 28.3-44.4 days) and training (time-loss, 95% confidence interval = 45.9, 17.5-52.7 days). The prevalent cause of contact-injury was tackling (31%) with running (11%) the common cause of non-contact injury. CONCLUSIONS: Time-loss match-injury incidence, severity, and burden were similar to data reported in the professional tier, with similar patterns of injuries for location, type, and inciting event. These figures are greater than previously reported for semi-professional Rugby Union, warranting further investigation at this level of play.

Attentional focus and performance anxiety: effects on simulated race-driving performance and heart rate variability.

Previous studies have demonstrated that an external focus can enhance motor learning compared to an internal focus. The benefits of adopting an external focus are attributed to the use of less effortful automatic control processes, while an internal focus relies upon more effort-intensive consciously controlled processes. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a distal external focus with an internal focus in the acquisition of a simulated driving task and subsequent performance in a competitive condition designed to increase state anxiety. To provide further evidence for the automatic nature of externally controlled movements, the study included heart rate variability (HRV) as an index of mental effort. Sixteen participants completed eight blocks of four laps in either a distal external or internal focus condition, followed by two blocks of four laps in the competitive condition. During acquisition, the performance of both groups improved; however, the distal external focus group outperformed the internal focus group. The poorer performance of the internal focus group was accompanied by a larger reduction in HRV, indicating a greater investment of mental effort. In the competition condition, state anxiety increased, and for both groups, performance improved as a function of the increased anxiety. Increased heart rate and self-reported mental effort accompanied the performance improvement. The distal external focus group also outperformed the internal focus group across both neutral and competitive conditions and this more effective performance was again associated with lower levels of HRV. Overall, the results offer support for the suggestion that an external focus promotes a more automatic mode of functioning. In the competitive condition, both foci enhanced performance and while the improved performance may have been achieved at the expense of greater compensatory mental effort, this was not reflected in HRV scores.