INTRODUCTION: Typical on-court drills aim at different training goals, since the protocol (e. g. number and duration of intervals) has an impact on physiological, physical and performance outcomes. However, due to a lack of evidence regarding individual loads, protocols are prescribed solely following experts` opinion. The aim of the present study was to clarify the impact of drill prescription on loads and technical skill performance in elite badminton. METHODS: On three experimental days thirteen German professional players (Ten male: 22.2 ± 3.3 years, 180 ± 6 cm, 72.2 ± 6.1 kg; Three female: 20.3 ± 2.5 years, 167 ± 5 cm, 57.7 ± 4.6 kg) completed three different sessions of the so-called "multifeeding drill" in a counterbalanced order (one coach feeds shuttlecocks in randomized direction to one player). The protocols varied in interval duration (10s, 30s and 50s) but were matched for the rally-to-rest-ratio (1:1) and playing time (30min). Cardiorespiratory responses (Portable Spirometry; cortex medical), energy metabolism (Blood Lactate, LA), player ´s kinematics (Local Positioning System; kinexon), and technical skill performance (Video Analysis) were measured. RESULTS: Mean and peak values of heart rate (averagely 160 ± 10 bpm and 179 ± 8 bpm), oxygen consumption (45.0 ± 8.0 ml/min·kg and 72.4 ± 10.6 ml/min·kg), respiratory exchange ratio (0.91 ± 0.04 and 1.15 ± 0.01) and total aerobic energy expenditure (917 ± 210 kcal) did not differ between the protocols. LA was significantly lower in the 10s (3.3 ± 0.9 mmol/l) and similar in the 30s and 50s protocols (5.5 ± 0.8 mmol/l and 6.0 ± 1.0 mmol/l). Striking frequencies (0.59 ± 0.06, 0.60 ± 0.04, 0.59 ± 0.06 shots per second), number of jumps (83 ± 44, 84 ± 36, 80 ± 45) and unforced hitting errors (13 ± 8 %, 17 ± 5 %, 16 ± 3%) did not differ. Overall larger distances were covered during 30min of the 10s protocol, compared to the 30s and the 50s protocol (1579 ± 582 m, 1329 ± 389 m, and 1106 ± 225 m). The average peak accelerations were comparable for the three protocols (3.5 ± 0.7 m/s^2, 3.3 ± 0.5 m/s^2, 3.4 ± 0.9 m/s^2). CONCLUSION: External loads and technical skill performance are largely similar despite a different interval length and higher anaerobic metabolic loads in the 30s and 50s protocol. Apparently, players can tolerate the higher interval duration to a large extent probably by implementing pacing strategies since the 50s did not lead to higher LA compared to the 30s protocol. As striking frequencies remained equal while players covered less distances in 50s, the coach might feed the shuttlecock easier to reach. From a metabolic point of view the 10s intervals preferably reflect the mean badminton match play requirements. Extending the intervals beyond 30s cannot be recommended for anaerobic training since the metabolic stimulus remains constant.
© Copyright 2022 27th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (ECSS), Sevilla, 30. Aug - 2. Sep 2022. Julkaistu Tekijä Faculty of Sport Science - Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Kaikki oikeudet pidätetään. / Kääntänyt https://www.DeepL.com/Translator