Rugby league is a collision sport, where players are expected to be physically competent in a range of areas, including aerobic fitness, strength, speed and power. Several studies have attempted to characterise the physical demands of rugby league match-play, but these studies often have relatively small sample sizes based on one or two clubs, which makes generalisation of the findings difficult. Therefore, the aim of this review was to synthesise studies that investigated the physical demands of professional rugby league match-play. SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, MEDLINE (EBSCO) and Embase (EBSCO) databases were systematically searched from inception until October 2018. Articles were included if they (1) recruited professional rugby league athletes aged ≥ 18 years and (2) provided at least one match-play relevant variable (including playing time, total and relative distance, repeat high-intensity efforts (RHIE), efforts per RHIE, accelerations and decelerations, total and relative collisions). Meta-analyses were used to provide pooled estimates ± 95% confidence intervals. A total of 30 studies were included. Pooled estimates indicated that, compared to adjustables and backs, forwards have less playing time (− 17.2 ± 5.6 and − 25.6 ± 5.8 min, respectively), cover less ‘slow-speed’ (− 2230 ± 735 and − 1348 ± 655 m, respectively) and ‘high-speed’ distance (− 139 ± 108 and − 229 ± 101 m, respectively), but complete more relative RHIEs (+ 0.05 ± 0.05 and + 0.08 ± 0.04 per minute, respectively), and total (+ 12.0 ± 8.1 and + 12.8 ± 7.2 collisions, respectively) and relative collisions (+ 0.32 ± 0.22 and + 0.41 ± 0.22 collisions per minute, respectively). Notably, when the distance was expressed relative to playing time, forwards were not different from adjustables and backs in slow-speed (P ≥ 0.295) and high-speed (P ≥ 0.889) relative distance. The adjustables and backs subgroups were similar in most variables, except playing time (shorter for adjustables, − 8.5 ± 6.2 min), slow-speed distance (greater for adjustables, + 882 ± 763 m) and total relative distance (greater for adjustables, + 11.3 ± 5.2 m·min−1). There were no significant differences between positional groups for efforts per RHIE, accelerations and decelerations (P ≥ 0.745). These results indicate the unique physical demands of each playing position and should be considered by strength and conditioning and tactical coaches when planning for professional rugby league performance. https://osf.io/83tq2/

Glassbrook, DJ, Helms, ER, Brown, SR, and Storey, AG. A review of the biomechanical differences between the high-bar and low-bar back-squat. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2618–2634, 2017—The back-squat is a common exercise in strength and conditioning for a variety of sports. It is widely regarded as a fundamental movement to increase and measure lower-body and trunk function, as well as an effective injury rehabilitation exercise. There are typically 2 different bar positions used when performing the back-squat: the traditional “high-bar” back-squat (HBBS) and the “low-bar” back-squat (LBBS). Different movement strategies are used to ensure that the center of mass remains in the base of support for balance during the execution of these lifts. These movement strategies manifest as differences in (a) joint angles, (b) vertical ground reaction forces, and (c) the activity of key muscles. This review showed that the HBBS is characterized by greater knee flexion, lesser hip flexion, a more upright torso, and a deeper squat. The LBBS is characterized by greater hip flexion and, therefore, a greater forward lean. However, there are limited differences in vertical ground reaction forces between the HBBS and LBBS. The LBBS can also be characterized by a greater muscle activity of the erector spinae, adductors, and gluteal muscles, whereas the HBBS can be characterized by greater quadriceps muscle activity. Practitioners seeking to develop the posterior-chain hip musculature (i.e., gluteal, hamstring, and erector muscle groups) may seek to use the LBBS. In comparison, those seeking to replicate movements with a more upright torso and contribution from the quadriceps may rather seek to use the HBBS in training.

Glassbrook, DJ, Brown, SR, Helms, ER, Duncan, S, and Storey, AG. The high-bar and low-bar back-squats: a biomechanical analysis. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S1–S18, 2019—No previous study has compared the joint angle and ground reaction force (vertical force [Fv]) differences between the high-bar back-squat (HBBS) and low-bar back-squat (LBBS) above 90% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Six male powerlifters (POW) (height: 179.2 ± 7.8 cm; mass: 87.1 ± 8.0 kg; age: 21–33 years) of international level, 6 male Olympic weightlifters (OLY) (height: 176.7 ± 7.7 cm; mass: 83.1 ± 13 kg; age: 22–30 years) of national level, and 6 recreationally trained male athletes (height: 181.9 ± 8.7 cm; mass: 87.9 ± 15.3 kg; age: 23–33 years) performed the LBBS, HBBS, and both LBBS and HBBS (respectively) up to and including 100% 1RM. Small to moderate (d = 0.2–0.5) effect size differences were observed between the POW and OLY in joint angles and Fv, although none were statistically significant. However, significant joint angle results were observed between the experienced POW/OLY and the recreationally trained group. Our findings suggest that practitioners seeking to place emphasis on the stronger hip musculature should consider the LBBS. Also, when the goal is to lift the greatest load possible, the LBBS may be preferable. Conversely, the HBBS is more suited to replicate movements that exhibit a more upright torso position, such as the snatch and clean, or to place more emphasis on the associated musculature of the knee joint.

Accelerometers are often placed on the tibia to measure segmental accelerations, and external mechanical load during running. However, in applied sport settings it is sometimes preferable to place accelerometers on the dorsal foot to avoid tibial impact injuries. This study aimed to quantify the differences in accelerations measured at the dorsal foot compared with the distal tibia during running. Sixteen recreationally active participants performed a sprint protocol on a non-motorised treadmill. Accelerometers were positioned bilaterally on the medial tibia (TIB_Left and TIB_Right), and bilateral dorsal foot surfaces (DOR_Left and DOR_Right). Continuous acceleration signal waveform analysis was performed using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping (1DSPM). Resultant accelerations were greater for DOR_Left than TIB_Left for 60% of the gait cycle (p < 0.001) and greater for DOR_Right than TIB_Right for 50% of the gait cycle (p < 0.003). The larger accelerations at the dorsal foot than the tibia can be explained by movement at the ankle joint, and the placement location relative to the hip. The dorsal foot location can be used to effectively measure accelerations and external mechanical load when it is not feasible to place the accelerometer on the tibia, however results between the two locations should not be compared.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the behaviour of physiological load measures as well as ground reaction forces (GRF) and acceleration load during a prolonged running task that simulated the running demands of an intermittent team sport. Nineteen males completed a maximal aerobic fitness test and an extended running protocol across two sessions. Participants wore a portable metabolic system, and four inertial measurement units (IMU), one on each foot, the lower back and upper back. GRF were measured via an instrumented treadmill. Change in metabolic, IMU and GRF variables across five blocks during the running protocol were assessed using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. The running protocol elicited large increases in heart rate and oxygen consumption over time. No statistically significant changes in any peak impact accelerations were observed. Resultant acceleration area under the curve (AUC) increased at the lower and upper back locations but was unchanged at the foot. GRF active peak but not impact peak increased during the prolonged run. The results of this study indicate that the effect of an extended running task on IMU measures of external mechanical load is manifested in the upper body, and is effectively measured by AUC.

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used for the assessment of lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM) and bone mineral content (BMC). When observing standardised protocols, DXA has a high level of precision for the assessment of total body composition, including the head region. However, including the head region may have limited relevance in athletes and can be problematic when positioning taller athletes who exceed scan boundaries. This study investigated the precision of a new total-body-less-head (TBLH) DXA scan for three-compartment body composition measurement in athletes, with outcomes compared to the standard total-body DXA scan. Precision errors were calculated from two consecutive scans with re-positioning (Lunar iDXA, GE Healthcare, Madison, WI), in male and female athletes from a range of sports. TBLH precision was determined from repeat scans in 95 athletes (male n = 55; female n = 40; age: 26.0 ± 8.5 y; body mass: 81.2 ± 20.5 kg; stature: 1.77 ± 0.11 m), and standard total-body scan precision was derived from a sub-sample of 58 athletes (male n = 19; female n = 39; age: 27.6 ± 9.9 y; body mass: 69.6 ± 14.8 kg; stature: 1.72 ± 0.94 m). Data from the sub-sample were also used to compare precision error and 3-compartment body composition outcomes between the standard total-body scan and the TBLH scan. TBLH precision errors [root mean squared-standard deviation, RMS-SD (coefficient of variation, %CV)] were bone mineral content (BMC): 15.6 g (0.5%), lean mass (LM): 254.3 g (0.4%) and fat mass (FM): 199.4 g (1.3%). These outcomes compared favourably to the precision errors derived from the standard total-body scan [BMC: 12.4 g (0.4%), LM: 202.2 g (0.4%), and FM: 160.8 g (1.1%)]. The TBLH scan resulted in lower BMC (-19.5%), LM (-6.6%), and FM (-4.5%) compared to the total-body scan (BMC: 2,308 vs. 2,865 g; LM: 46,954 vs. 50,276 g; FM: 15,183 vs. 15,888 g, all p<0.005). ConclusionThe TBLH scan demonstrates high in-vivo precision comparable to that of the standard total-body scan in a heterogeneous cohort of athletes. Given the impact of head exclusion on total body composition outcomes, TBLH scans should not be used interchangeably with the standard total-body scan.