See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350518043

Fitness Determinants of Repeated High-Intensity Effort Ability in Elite Rugby

Union Players

Article  in  International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · March 2021

DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0525

CITATIONS READS

0 225

5 authors, including:

Adrien Vachon Nicolas Berryman

Université de Poitiers Université du Québec à Montréal
4 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   735 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laurent Bosquet
Université de Poitiers
148 PUBLICATIONS   4,379 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Critical Power Concept (cycle ergometry) View project

Cooling/Recovery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrien Vachon on 02 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Title page
2 Fitness determinants of Repeated High Intensity Effort ability in elite rugby union players
3
4 Submission type
5 Original Investigation
6
7 Authors
8 Adrien Vachon 1,2, Nicolas Berryman 1, 3, 4, 5, Iñigo Mujika 6, 7, Jean-Baptiste Paquet 2, Laurent
9 Bosquet 1, 8
10
11 Institutional affiliations
12 1. Lab MOVE (EA6314), Faculty of sport sciences, University of Poitiers, 8 allée Jean
13 Monnet (bât C6), TSA 31113, 86073 Poitiers cedex 9, France
14 2. Stade Rochelais Rugby, 27 Avenue du Maréchal Juin, 17000 La Rochelle, France
15 3. Département des Sciences de l’activité physique, 141 Avenue du President Kennedy,
16 Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal (Qc), Canada H2X 1Y4
17 4. Institut national du sport du Québec, 4141 Pierre de Coubertin, Montréal (Qc), Canada
18 H1V 3N7
19 5. Department of Sports Studies, Bishop’s University, 2600 College, Sherbrooke (Qc),
20 Canada J1M 1Z7
21 6. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of the Basque
22 Country, Leioa, Basque Country
23 7. Exercise Science Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad
24 Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile
25 8. Department of kinesiology, University of Montreal, CP6128 succ. centre ville. Montreal
26 (Qc), Canada H3C 3J7

27
28 Contact details for the corresponding author
29 Adrien Vachon. Lab MOVE, Faculty of sport sciences, University of Poitiers, 8 allée Jean
30 Monnet (bât C6), TSA 31113, 86073 Poitiers cedex 9 (France). Phone: +33 (0) 549 454 115;
31 email: adrien.vachon@univ-poitiers.fr
32
33
34 Preferred running head : Fitness and RHIE in rugby union
35 Abstract word count : 247
36 Text-only word count : 3498
37 Number of figures : 2
38 Number of tables : 4
39
40
41 ORCID of Nicolas BERRYMAN: 0000-0002-4868-7986
42 ORCID of Inigo MUJIKA: 0000-0002-8143-9132
43 ORCID of Laurent BOSQUET: 0000-0002-2530-2676
44 ORCID of Adrien VACHON: 0000-0002-8635-3151
45 Abstract
46
47 Purpose: To investigate the relationship between physical fitness and repeated high intensity
48 effort (RHIE) ability in elite rugby union players, depending on playing position. Method:
49 Thirty-nine players underwent a fitness testing battery composed of a body composition
50 assessment, upper-body strength (1 repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press, 1RM bench row),
51 lower body strength (6RM back-squat) and power (countermovement jump [CMJ], CMJ with
52 arms [CMJ.A], 20m sprint) as well as aerobic fitness (Bronco test) and RHIE tests over a 1-
53 week period. Pearson linear correlations were used to quantify relationships between fitness
54 tests and the RHIE performance outcomes (total sprint time [TST] and percentage decrement
55 [%D]). Thereafter, a stepwise multiple regression model was used to verify the influence of
56 physical fitness measures on RHIE ability. Results: TST was strongly to very strongly
57 associated to body fat (BF, r=0.82, p<0.01), 20m sprint (r=0.86, p<0.01), CMJ (r=-0.72,
58 p<0.01) and Bronco test (r=0.90, p<0.01). These fitness outcomes were related to %D with
59 moderate to strong associations (0.82 >r>0.54, p<0.01). By playing position, similar
60 associations were observed in Forwards, but RHIE ability was only related to 20m sprint in
61 Backs (r=0.53, p<0.05). The RHIE performance model equations were 𝑇𝑆𝑇 = 13.69 + 0.01 ∗
62 𝐵𝐹 + 0.08 ∗ 𝐵𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑜 + 10.20 ∗ 20𝑚 and %𝐷 = −14.34 + 0.11 ∗ 𝐵𝐹 + 0.18 ∗ 𝐵𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑜 −
63 9.92 ∗ 20𝑚. These models are explaining 88.8% and 68.2% of the variance, respectively.
64 Conclusion: Body composition, lower body power and aerobic fitness were highly related with
65 RHIE ability. However, Backs expressed a different profile than Forwards suggesting that
66 further research with larger sample sizes is needed to better understand the fitness determinants
67 of Backs’ RHIE ability.
68
69 Keywords: body composition, power, speed, sprint, aerobic fitness
70
71 Running head : Fitness and RHIE in rugby union
72
73
74 Introduction

75 Rugby union players often alternate between bouts of high intensity efforts and moderate to
76 low intensity recovery periods1. The ability to repeat high intensity efforts with short recovery
77 time (i.e. repeated sprint ability, RSA) is considered as a major determinant of performance1.
78 However, rugby union is also characterized by repeated high intensity contacts, which have a
79 negative impact on a player’s movement ability, and produce higher levels of fatigue compared
80 to non-contact efforts. The ability to repeat high intensity efforts, including movement and
81 contact has thus been considered a more sport specific performance determinant in rugby
82 players than RSA2. Repeated high intensity efforts (RHIE) was defined as 3 or more intense
83 accelerations, sprints, or contact efforts (i.e. tackle, ruck) with less than 21s of recovery between
84 efforts3,4. Austin et al.3 highlighted the importance of RHIE bouts by assessing their occurrence
85 and composition during a Super 14 season. The study revealed that players averaged 11-16
86 RHIE per match, with one RHIE bout every 6-10 min. Generally, the number of RHIE bouts
87 per match ranged from 2 to 21, lasting on average 28-52s. Furthermore, RHIE had a direct
88 impact on the outcome of the match. Indeed, Austin et al.5 reported that in rugby league, 70%
89 of RHIE bouts occurred within 5 minutes of tries being scored, and long periods of repeated
90 efforts with short recovery occurred when players were either closely attacking the opposition’s
91 try line or defending their own try line6.

92 To assess the rugby union players’ RHIE ability, a recent test assessing both sprint and tackle
93 indices reliability in a sample of rugby union players, has been proposed 7. While using tackle
94 indices still represent some limits, authors reported strong to very strong reliability with
95 different repeated efforts test indices. Understand which physical qualities determine the RHIE
96 ability will allow us to provide important information regarding strength and conditioning
97 strategies. Strong relationships exist between RSA indices (i.e. total work and fatigue index)
98 and both short time sprints8 and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test, level 2 (YYIRT2)9,
99 suggesting that RSA performance relies on an interaction between anaerobic and aerobic
100 performance. However, such results need to be confirmed for RHIE performance. One study
101 assessed the relationship between 20m sprint and YYIRT2 test and RHIE performance in rugby
102 union players, reporting no significant associations 10. However, a moderate correlation (i.e.
103 0.63<r<0.69) between changes in 20m sprint time and changes in total sprint time performance
104 over a 10-week period was found. More recently, Gabbett et al.11 confirmed this result with
105 rugby league players and concluded that players with faster initial speed had a better average
106 sprint time and percentage decrement over the RHIE test.

107 The general aim of this study was to further explore the relationships between various physical
108 determinants of performance and the RHIE ability. A second objective was to verify if these
109 relationships would differ based on playing position (Backs vs. Forwards) in elite rugby union
110 players.

111 Method

112 Participants
113 Thirty-nine elite rugby union players (i.e. n=20 and 19 for Forwards and Backs, respectively)
114 from the same Top 14 professional club participated in this study (age 19.80.8 years; height
115 183.86.6 cm; body mass 93.013.0 kg). Participants were members of the U21 team, playing
116 at the top national level, but regularly joining the professional team. All players received a clear
117 explanation of the study, risks and benefits of participation. Written consent was obtained from
118 the players before participation in the study.

119

120 Experimental design

121 Players underwent 5 test sessions over 1 week at the end of the competitive season. The fitness
122 testing battery included the RHIE test, 20m sprint (i.e. Monday morning), countermovement
123 jumps with and without arms, 6RM squat (i.e. Tuesday afternoon) 1 repetition maximum (RM)
124 bench press (i.e. Wednesday morning) and bench row (i.e. Thursday morning) and the Bronco
125 test (i.e. Friday morning).
126

127 Exercise testing

128 Body composition
129 Body fat (BF) was estimated through the measurement of 4 skinfolds (biceps, triceps,
130 subscapular and supra-iliac), which were made by the same experimenter for all participants to
131 avoid inter-rater variability. Sum of 4 skinfolds was used to computerized BF as follows (Eq.
132 1)12:
133 𝐵𝐹 = ((27.775 ∗ log(𝑆𝑢𝑚 4 𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠)) − 27.203)/100 Eq.1
134
135 Repeated high intensity efforts (RHIE) test

136 After a standardized dynamic warm-up, the participants performed the RHIE test, consisting of
137 12 repetitions of a 20-m sprint immediately followed by a tackle. A 30-m active recovery was
138 given between repetitions, each sprint starting every 30 seconds (Figure 1). The tackle involved
139 accelerating forward 2 m and then hitting a tackle bag (Rhino tackle bag senior, 13 kg; 75cm
140 (h) × 45cm (d); Rhino Global Limited, UK). Acceleration (g-force) was measured using a three-
141 axis accelerometer (MTw Awinda, Xsens Technologies, Netherland) and analyzed using a
142 customized MatLab program (Matlab R2018b, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA).7 Total sprint
143 time (TST) was considered the final test result and percentage decrement (%D) an indication
144 of an athlete’s ability to delay fatigue. A reliability study reported that the test was considered
145 valid and the results were analyzed if the coefficient of variation (CV) of an athlete’s tackle
146 performance was less than 45.9% and 34.2% for total g-force and average g-force,
147 respectively.7

148
149 **Figure 1 around here**
150
151 20m sprint
152 All players were familiar with the 20m sprint test. Time for each 20m straight-line sprint was
153 measured using photocells (Witty Wireless Training Timer, Microgate Corporation, Italy)
154 placed 1.0m above the ground. Each sprint was initiated from a two-point split stance, 0.3m
155 behind the photocell gate, which started a digital timer. When players crossed the second set of
156 photocell gates, placed at a distance of 20m from the start, sprint time was recorded.
157
158 Countermovement Jump
159 The countermovement jump (CMJ) was performed using a commercially available system
160 (Optojump, Microgate Corporation, Italy). All jumps were initiated from a stationary standing
161 position, followed by a 90 knee flexion and the jump phase. Players were asked to either keep
162 their hands on their waist during the entire CMJ or to use their arms for impulse and balance
163 (CMJ.A). Each player performed three maximal CMJ and CMJ.A interspersed by 1 min of rest
164 and the average height of 3 jumps was retained.13
165
166
167 Back squat
168 Lower body maximal strength was assessed with the 6RM Back Squat. The back squat depth
169 was visually assessed by the same researcher for all 6RM load attempts, with the athletes
170 required to descend to a depth at which the femur was approximately parallel to the floor 14.
171
172 Bench press and Bench row
173 Upper-Body muscle strength was assessed with the 1RM bench press (1 RM BP) and 1RM
174 bench row (1 RM BR). For 1RM BP, the repetition started with the arms fully extended. Then
175 participants lowered the bar onto the chest, without any bounce, before fully extending their
176 arms again. Feet were required to stay in contact with the ground and buttocks in contact with
177 the bench. For 1RM BR, the repetition started with the arms fully extended, chin in contact with
178 the bench and feet on the ground. Then, participants elevated the bar onto the bench, without
179 losing any point of contact.
180
181 The players were familiar with all movements, as they were included in their regular
182 strengthening program, so no familiarization session was required.
183 After an individual warm-up and a progressive increase in barbell load, a successful attempt
184 led to a 2.5kg increase for the following trial, after 5-min passive recovery. This procedure
185 applied to determination of both 1RM and 6RM.
186
187 Bronco test
188 This test consists of a total of 1200m running shuttle test and is widely used in rugby union
189 testing batteries. Athletes were asked to run from the 0 to the 20m line and back to 0m; then
190 run to 40m and back to 0m; then run to the 60m line and back to the 0m line. Cones were placed
191 to clearly identify 0, 20m, 40m and 60m lines. The execution of the 20m-40m-60m shuttle is
192 considered one repetition. Athletes therefore had to complete five consecutive repetitions as
193 fast as possible. A handheld chronometer was used by a trained experimenter to record Bronco
194 test finish times.
195
196 **Table 1 around here**
197
198 Statistical analysis
199 Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of means and standard deviations.
200 Data normality was evaluated by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Playing positions were compared using
201 independent t-test. The magnitude of the difference was assessed by Cohens’ d (d), which was
202 considered small (0.20 < |d| < 0.49), moderate (0.50 < |d|< 0.79), or large (|d| > 0.80).15
203 Pearson linear correlation was used to determine the relationships between fitness tests and
204 RHIE test variables (TST and %D). The strength of a relation between two variables was
205 interpreted with the Munro scale.16 A systematic relation was considered “good” with 0.69 |r|
206 0.50, “strong” with 0.89 |r| 0.70 or “very strong” with |r| 0.90.
207 A stepwise multiple regression model was used to verify the influence of the physical
208 determinants on TST and %D (as dependent variables). A forward strategy was used including
209 a maximum of 3 variables because of the sample size. Body fat was included in a first block as
210 an independent variable. Then, a second block including independent variables identified in the
211 correlation analysis was added. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was used to determine
212 when a predictor is too highly correlated with one or more of the other predictors. Only
213 variables that had a VIF<5 were included in the model.
214 We applied standard statistical procedures to ensure that all assumptions (analysis of normality
215 (Shapiro-Wilk, W); independence of errors (Durbin-Watson, DW); homoscedasticity
216 (correlation coefficient between predicted values and the absolute standardized residuals); and
217 assessment of outliers (Distance cook)) supporting a sound regression analysis were verified.
218 The statistical power (1 – ) was retrospectively analyzed17 using program G*Power 318.
219 Significance level was set at p<0.05 for all analyses. Statistical tests were conducted with the
220 IBM SPSS statistics software, version 20.

221 **Table 2 around here**

222 Results

223 Physical characteristics and RHIE performance outcomes of the participants are shown in Table
224 1. Forwards were taller and heavier than Backs (p<0.05; 0.78<d<2.56) but also had a higher
225 percentage of body fat (p<0.05; d=2.20).
226 Forwards were stronger (d=1.03 and 1.14, p<0.05, for 6 RM BS and 1 RM BR, respectively),
227 but Backs had better CMJ height (p<0.05; 1.16<d<2.0), upper body strength per kg of body
228 mass (p<0.05; 1.18<d<1.35) and aerobic fitness (p<0.05; d=1.70). Backs also had better RHIE
229 ability (p<0.05; 0.94<d<1.77). All players met the validation criterion of tackle indices.
230 Relationships between sport-specific physical fitness and the RHIE test variables are
231 summarized in Table 2. Total and average sprint time were strongly to very strongly associated
232 with players’ body composition, lower body power and aerobic fitness. Percentage decrement
233 was also moderately to strongly related to players body composition, lower body power and
234 aerobic fitness.
235 When expressed by playing position, similar associations were observed in Forwards. However,
236 Backs’ performance in the RHIE test was only related to sprint time, with fastest players
237 experiencing the best TST and %D.
238
239 A summary of regression models is presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Concerning TST the
240 analysis of bias ensured the model validity (W, p=0.99; DW=1.8; no outliers). The statistical
241 power was very high (1-=1.00) so the probability of a type II error was null. The final model
242 explained 88.8% of the variance with BF, Bronco and 20m as independent variables. The
243 inclusion of Bronco and 20m in model 1 explained an additional 16.4% and 6.8%, respectively,
244 and elicited the final equation (R2=0.89; SEE=1.14%):
245 𝑇𝑆𝑇 = −13.69 + 0.01 ∗ 𝐵𝐹 + 0.08 ∗ 𝐵𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑜 + 10.20 ∗ 20𝑚 Eq.2
246 For %D, the analysis of bias ensured the model validity (W, p=0.97; DW=2.1; no outliers) The
247 statistical power was very high (1-=1.00) so the probability of a type II error was null. The
248 final model explained 68.2% of the variance with BF, Bronco and 20m as independent
249 variables. The inclusion of Bronco and 20m in model 1 explained an additional 27.3% and
250 3.6%, respectively, and elicited the final equation (R2=0.68; SEE=2.57%):
251 𝑃𝐷 = −14.34 + 0.11 ∗ 𝐵𝐹 + 0.18 ∗ 𝐵𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑜 − 9.92 ∗ 20𝑚 Eq.3
252
253 **Table 3 around here**
254 **Table 4 around here**
255
256 Discussion
257
258 The aim of this study was to assess potential associations between elite rugby union players’
259 fitness parameters and their ability to repeat high intensity efforts. The main results were: 1) a
260 strong to very strong (0.72<|r|<0.90) relationship between body composition and physical
261 fitness parameters with RHIE ability; 2) BF, 20m sprint and aerobic fitness all explained a
262 significant portion of the RHIE variance. However, while this model seems highly suitable for
263 Forwards, it also appears that Backs demonstrate a different profile and that fitness
264 determinants associated to RHIE performance might differ for this specific position.
265
266 Physical fitness profile
267
268 Players’ physical fitness profile (Table 1) were consistent with previous studies on various
269 rugby union professional players, in terms of body composition19,20, lower body strength and
270 power21 as well as aerobic fitness.22 However, body mass and 1 RM BP seemed lower than
271 values commonly reported for high level players23. Although they are elite players, participants
272 included in this study were young (i.e. 19.80.8 years) and still undergoing physical
273 development. Indeed, according to Durguerian et al.24, players in our study were considered in
274 the last stage (i.e. chronological age between 18 and 21 years) of the classical strength and
275 power development framework of the young rugby union athlete, leading to the professional
276 player standards.
277
278 Determinants of the RHIE ability
279
280 This study provides information about how physical qualities could be related to the players’
281 RHIE ability. To our knowledge, only one study previously investigated the relationship
282 between physical qualities and RHIE ability in rugby union players, and no relationships
283 between 20m sprint and YYIRT2 with RHIE performance were reported.10 In our study, both
284 TST and %D were strongly to very strongly related to players’ lower body power performance
285 (0.46<|r|<0.86), aerobic fitness (r=0.90 and 0.82, respectively) and body composition (r=0.82
286 and 0.63, respectively). Total sprint time showed stronger relationships with CMJ height and
287 20m sprint compared to %D, which emphasized the importance of maximal power for rugby
288 performance. With rugby union players, Austin et al. 10 reported moderate associations between
289 changes in RHIE TST and 20m sprint over a 10-week period. These results indicate that
290 quickest players over 20m are also those who perform best in multiple sprints10. Gabbett et al.11
291 assessed the association between selected physical qualities and RHIE ability in a test
292 addressing rugby league demands and authors observed a strong association (r=0.75) between
293 acceleration qualities and average speed.
294 The Bronco test, used to assess aerobic fitness in our study, also correlated very strongly with
295 the RHIE TST. Austin et al.10 reported a moderate but non-significant association between
296 RHIE TST and YYIRT2 test. These authors used two different tests for Forwards and Backs in
297 a heterogeneous population, which could explain the difference with the present results.
298 Body composition parameters such as body mass and BF were also strongly correlated with
299 RHIE performance, confirming that heavier players with a high BF struggled to repeat high
300 intensity efforts over time. Higham et al.8 also reported a moderate association between sum of
301 7 skinfolds and RSA TST in international rugby Sevens. Concerning physical determinants of
302 %D, similar associations to those highlighted for TST were observed. Bronco performance and
303 %D were strongly correlated, whereas body composition and lower body power showed weaker
304 correlations (Table 2). These results tend to confirm previous observations indicating that %D
305 is mainly explained by aerobic fitness, as it informs about a player’s ability to delay fatigue and
306 recover during the active recovery phases of the test.25
307
308 **Figure 2a-f around here**
309
310 It appears that the observations made considering the group as a whole also apply to Forwards
311 alone. To our knowledge, no study has previously investigated the association between RHIE
312 and physical determinants of rugby union by playing position. The results reported here are in
313 line with expectations, given that in Forwards, aerobic fitness and the ability to produce lower
314 body explosive efforts are critical to RHIE performance, whereas a poor body composition
315 limits the player movement ability.26
316 For Backs, RHIE ability seems to be the product of a more complex interaction between
317 multiple physical determinants leading to different player profiles (Figures 2a-2f), each of them
318 able to succeed in the RHIE performance. It could also be speculated that the 12 tackles
319 performed during the RHIE test are more detrimental to Backs players since their RHIE bouts
320 are composed of a higher proportion of sprint3 and they are generally involved in a smaller
321 number of collisions during the game, compared to Forwards.27
322 Nevertheless, the present results confirmed the association between Backs’ sprint speed and
323 TST, indicating that these players need to produce high initial velocity to succeed in the
324 repetition of efforts. Furthermore, the negative relationship between 20m sprint time and %D
325 confirms the influence of the 1st sprint on the fatigue index of a repeated efforts test.28 Indeed,
326 fastest players on the initial sprint will have a higher anaerobic contribution, leading to greater
327 changes in muscle metabolites a larger performance decrement29.
328 The differences between Forwards and Backs could also be observed in terms of performance
329 on the RHIE test (Table 1). The most athletic players (i.e. Backs) showed better performance
330 in TST, due not only to their fastest sprint time performance, but also to a better ability to resist
331 fatigue. These results reinforced the RHIE test validity previously established by the
332 associations with physical determinants.
333
334 Regression
335
336 This study also aimed to assess the implication of previously observed physical determinants
337 in RHIE ability. Based on association previously reported (Table 2) and to ensure a final model
338 of performance composed of morphological and physical components, BF was included in the
339 first step of our regression analyses. As excepted, BF (i.e. Model 1) allowed us to explain a
340 large part of the variance in TST (66.5%) and %D (39.8%). As can be seen in Figure 2c and 2f,
341 BF highlight the playing position, which confirmed that Backs performed better in RHIE.
342 Within playing position, lower BF was associated with better RHIE performance.
343 The inclusion of Bronco (i.e. Model 2) explained an additional 16.4% and 27.3% of the variance
344 for TST and %D, respectively. A higher part of the variance explained with %D confirmed the
345 importance of aerobic fitness in this index. In the final model, inclusion of 20m sprint allowed
346 to explain an added 6.8% and 3.6% of the variance in TST and %D, respectively. Furthermore,
347 the coefficient of -9.920 reported in the final %D model (Eq.3) for the 20m variable also
348 indicates that, once morphological and aerobic components are considered, fastest players over
349 20m displayed higher %D. Together these observations confirm the influence of the initial
350 velocity on the repeated effort test fatigue index28 and support the higher importance of
351 maximal velocity in TST. Players need to be fast to perform well in repeated sprints 10 which
352 seems to be more valuable to Backs since their RHIE bouts during the game are composed by
353 more than 45% of sprints3, and 20m sprint is the only variable associated with the RHIE
354 performance (r=0.53).
355 It can be speculated that the unexplained variance could be related to psychological factors30
356 and that further studies should assess psychological determinants as independent variable, to
357 create a complete psychophysiological performance model.
358 Together, these results confirmed the differences between TST and %D indices and the validity
359 of this RHIE test for rugby union players. Nevertheless, limitations to this work should be
360 acknowledged. First, the choice was made to get a final model of performance composed of
361 morphological and physical components. To do so, inclusion of BF was constrained, leading to
362 non-significant p-value in both TST (p=0.93) and %D (p=0.51) final model. However, both
363 final models were validated and explained a large part of the variances. Secondly, models were
364 established based on associations found for the entire sample. However, non-equivalent
365 associations were observed between Backs and Forwards (Table 2), due to major differences
366 between playing positions. A linear regression analysis by group was not possible in this study
367 due to the small sample size, but it could be speculated that different models would be observed.
368 Further studies should investigate the implication of different determinants on RHIE ability
369 depending on playing position.
370
371 Practical applications
372
373 This study provides information about the physical fitness variables that are related to the RHIE
374 ability, and their implication in RHIE performance in elite rugby union players. The present
375 results should guide coaches to prepare strength and conditioning programs for players. When
376 targeting the RHIE ability, coaches should focus on player’s body composition, maximal
377 sprinting speed, lower body power and aerobic fitness. With the aim to develop multiple efforts
378 ability, coaches should focus on improving players’ body fat and speed, concomitant with their
379 aerobic capacity. Depending on the playing position, the differences reported suggests that
380 while maintaining aerobic/anaerobic fitness, collisions are more detrimental to Backs who need
381 to be prepare to repeat kind of efforts.
382
383 Conclusion
384
385 This study is the first to provide information about morphological and physical determinants
386 associated with RHIE ability and assess their implication in RHIE performance in elite rugby
387 union players. Strong to very strong relationships (0.72<|r|<0.90) were found between body
388 composition and physical fitness parameters with RHIE ability. A large proportion of the RHIE
389 ability variance can be explained by BF, 20m sprint and Bronco test performance.
390
391
392 References
393
394 1. Duthie G, Pyne D, Hooper S. Applied Physiology and Game Analysis of Rugby Union:
395 Sports Med. 2003;33(13):973-991. doi:10.2165/00007256-200333130-00003
396 2. Johnston RD, Gabbett TJ. Repeated-Sprint and Effort Ability in Rugby League Players:
397 J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(10):2789-2795. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31820f5023
398 3. Austin D, Gabbett T, Jenkins D. Repeated high-intensity exercise in professional rugby
399 union. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(10):1105-1112. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.582508
400 4. Black GM, Gabbett TJ. Repeated High-Intensity-Effort Activity in Elite and Semielite
401 Rugby League Match Play. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(6):711-717.
402 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0081
403 5. Austin DJ, Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DJ. Repeated High-Intensity Exercise in a Professional
404 Rugby League: J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(7):1898-1904.
405 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e83a5b
406 6. King T, Jenkins D, Gabbett T. A time–motion analysis of professional rugby league
407 match-play. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(3):213-219. doi:10.1080/02640410802538168
408 7. Vachon A, Berryman N, Mujika I, Paquet J-B, Monnet T, Bosquet L. Reliability of a
409 Repeated High-Intensity Effort Test for Elite Rugby Union Players. Sports. 2020;8:72.
410 doi:10.3390/sports8050072
411 8. Higham DG, Pyne DB, Anson JM, Eddy A. Physiological, Anthropometric, and
412 Performance Characteristics of Rugby Sevens Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
413 2013;8(1):19-27. doi:10.1123/ijspp.8.1.19
414 9. Gibson N, Currie J, Johnston R, Hill J. Relationship between measures of aerobic
415 fitness, speed and repeated sprint ability in full and part time youth soccer players. J
416 Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2013;53(1):9-16.
417 10. Austin DJ, Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DG. Reliability and Sensitivity of a Repeated High-
418 Intensity Exercise Performance Test for Rugby League and Rugby Union: J Strength
419 Cond Res. 2013;27(4):1128-1135. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825fe941
420 11. Gabbett TJ, Wheeler AJ. Predictors of Repeated High-Intensity-Effort Ability in Rugby
421 League Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(6):718-724.
422 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0127
423 12. Durnin JVGA, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its
424 estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from
425 16 to 72 Years. Br J Nutr. 1974;32(01):77-97. doi:10.1079/BJN19740060
426 13. Claudino JG, Cronin J, Mezêncio B, et al. The countermovement jump to monitor
427 neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(4):397-402.
428 doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.011
429 14. Urquhart BG, Moir GL, Graham SM, Connaboy C. Reliability of 1RM Split-Squat
430 Performance and the Efficacy of Assessing Both Bilateral Squat and Split-Squat 1RM
431 in a Single Session for Non–Resistance-Trained Recreationally Active Men: J Strength
432 Cond Res. 2015;29(7):1991-1998. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000824
433 15. Cohen J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.;
434 1988.
435 16. Munro B. Statisitcal Methods for Health Care Research. Vol 1. Lippincott
436 Williams&Wiklins.; 2005.
437 17. Fernández-López JR, Cámara J, Maldonado S, Rosique-Gracia J. The effect of
438 morphological and functional variables on ranking position of professional junior
439 Basque surfers. Eur J Sport Sci. 2013;13(5):461-467.
440 doi:10.1080/17461391.2012.749948
441 18. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power
442 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods.
443 2009;41(4):1149-1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
444 19. Argus CK, Gill ND, Keogh JW, Hopkins WG, Beaven CM. Changes in Strength, Power,
445 and Steroid Hormones During a Professional Rugby Union Competition: J Strength
446 Cond Res. 2009;23(5):1583-1592. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a392d9
447 20. Lombard WP, Durandt JJ, Masimla H, Green M, Lambert MI. Changes in Body Size
448 and Physical Characteristics of South African Under-20 Rugby Union Players Over a
449 13-Year Period: J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(4):980-988.
450 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000724
451 21. Crewther BT, Lowe T, Weatherby RP, Gill N, Keogh J. Neuromuscular Performance of
452 Elite Rugby Union Players and Relationships With Salivary Hormones: J Strength Cond
453 Res. 2009;23(7):2046-2053. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b73c19
454 22. Miles C, Mayo B, Beaven CM, et al. Resistance training in the heat improves strength
455 in professional rugby athletes. Sci Med Footb. 2019;3(3):198-204.
456 doi:10.1080/24733938.2019.1566764
457 23. Appleby B, Newton RU, Cormie P. Changes in Strength over a 2-Year Period in
458 Professional Rugby Union Players: J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(9):2538-2546.
459 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8b86
460 24. Durguerian A, Piscione J, Mathieu B, Lacome M. Integrating Strength and Power
461 Development in the Long-Term Athletic Development of Young Rugby Union Players:
462 Methodological and Practical Applications. Strength Cond J. 2019;41(4):18-33.
463 doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000452
464 25. Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A, Bishop D. Repeated-Sprint Ability – Part I: Factors
465 Contributing to Fatigue. Sports Med. 2011;41(8):673-694. doi:10.2165/11590550-
466 000000000-00000
467 26. Duthie GM. A Framework for the Physical Development of Elite Rugby Union Players.
468 Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(1):2-13. doi:10.1123/ijspp.1.1.2
469 27. Suárez-Arrones LJ, Portillo LJ, González-Ravé JM, Muñoz VE, Sanchez F. Match
470 running performance in Spanish elite male rugby union using global positioning system.
471 Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2012;20(2):77-83. doi:10.3233/IES-2012-0444
472 28. Mendez-Villanueva A, Hamer P, Bishop D. Fatigue in repeated-sprint exercise is related
473 to muscle power factors and reduced neuromuscular activity. Eur J Appl Physiol.
474 2008;103(4):411-419. doi:10.1007/s00421-008-0723-9
475 29. Gaitanos GC, Williams C, Boobis LH, Brooks S. Human muscle metabolism during
476 intermittent maximal exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75(2):712-719.
477 doi:10.1152/jappl.1993.75.2.712
478 30. Raglin JS. Psychological Factors in Sport Performance: The Mental Health Model
479 Revisited. Sports Med. 2001;31(12):875-890. doi:10.2165/00007256-200131120-
480 00004
481
482
483 Figure and Table caption
484
485 Table 1. Physical fitness parameters of the participants. BM = Body mass; BF = Body fat; 6
486 RM BS = 6 Repetition max back squat; CMJ = Countermovement jump; CMJ.A =
487 Countermovement jump with arms; 1 RM BP = 1 Repetition max bench press; 1 RM BR = 1
488 Repetition max bench row; TST = Total sprint time; AST = Average sprint time; %D =
489 Percentage decrement; a different from Forwards with p<0.05
490
491
492 Table 2. Association between RHIE metrics and physical determinants in rugby union
493 performance. BM = Body mass; BF = Body fat; 6 RM BS = 6 Repetition max back squat; CMJ
494 = Countermovement jump; CMJ.A = Countermovement jump with arms; 1 RM BP = 1
495 Repetition max bench press; 1 RM BR = 1 Repetition max bench row; TST = Total sprint time;
496 AST = Average sprint time; %D = Percentage decrement; a significant with p < 0.05; b
497 significant with p < 0.01
498
499 Table 3. Results of the linear regression analysis for TST. SEE : Standard error of estimation;
500 TST = Total sprint time; %D = Percentage decrement; BF = Body fat
501
502 Table 4. Results of the linear regression analysis for PD. SEE : Standard error of estimation;
503 TST = Total sprint time; %D = Percentage decrement; BF = Body fat
504
505 Figure 1. Schematic representation of the RHIE test.
506
507 Figure 2a-f. Illustration of association between TST and Bronco (a), TST and 20m sprint (b),
508 TST and BF (c), %D and Bronco (d), %D and 20m sprint (e), %D and BF (f). TST = Total
509 sprint time; %D = Percentage decrement; BF = Body fat.
510
511
512
513
514
Table 1.

Overall Forwards Backs

Body composition
Height (cm) 182.47.0 184.97.8 179.75.2a
BM (kg) 93.514.7 104.810.3 81.77.4a
BF (%) 15.35.0 18.84.2 11.52.0a
Lower body strength and power
6 RM BS (kg) 149.927.5 162.326.9 136.822.1a
6 RM BS (kg) 1.610.25 1.550.20 1.680.27
per kg of BM
CMJ (cm) 40.36.2 36.85.7 43.94.4a
CMJ.A (cm) 46.07.4 42.47.1 49.95.7a
20 m (s) 3.110.15 3.210.14 3.010.06a
Upper body strength
1 RM BP (kg) 110.316.5 115.017.2 105.314.4
1 RM BP (kg) 1.190.17 1.100.17 1.290.10a
per kg of BM
1 RM BR (kg) 106.913.0 113.311.4 100.311.4a
1 RM BR (kg) 1.160.14 1.090.14 1.230.09a
per kg of BM
Aerobic fitness
Bronco (s) 303.924.8 319.625.1 287.48.5a
RHIE ability
TST (s) 42.03.4 44.13.6 39.91.2a
AST (s) 3.50.3 3.70.3 3.30.1a
%D (%) 9.74.6 11.65.4 7.72.2a
Table 2.

Body composition Lower body strength and power Upper body strength Aerobic
fitness
BM BF 6 RM BS CMJ CMJ.A 20 m 1 RM BP 1 RM BR Bronco
(kg) (%) (kg) (cm) (cm) (s) (kg) (kg) (s)
Overall
TST (s) 0.74b 0.82b 0.40a -0.72b -0.68b 0.86b 0.27 0.36a 0.90b
AST (s) 0.74b 0.82b 0.40a -0.72b -0.68b 0.86b 0.27 0.36a 0.90b
%D (%) 0.55b 0.63b 0.22 -0.54b -0.52b 0.46b 0.32a 0.27 0.82b
Forwards
TST (s) 0.69b 0.78b 0.29 -0.67b -0.67b 0.80b 0.23 0.11 0.91b
AST (s) 0.69b 0.78b 0.29 -0.68b -0.67b 0.80b 0.22 0.11 0.91b
%D (%) 0.45a 0.63b 0.08 -0.44 -0.42 0.39 0.28 0.13 0.89b
Backs
TST (s) -0.10 -0.01 -0.31 -0.24 -0.14 0.53a -0.26 -0.07 0.00
AST (s) -0.10 -0.01 -0.31 -0.24 -0.14 0.53a -0.26 -0.07 0.00
%D (%) 0.13 -0.14 -0.13 -0.28 -0.30 -0.52a 0.08 -0.07 0.01
Table 3.

Model Independent Coefficients Standardized Coefficient R2 value  R2 Model SEE

variables (b) Coefficients Significance Adjusted R2
(Beta) (p value) value
1 Constant 33.46 <0.01 0.67 0.67 0.66 2.00
BF 0.56 0.81 <0.01
2 Constant 10.84 0.01 0.83 0.16 0.82 1.45
BF 0.19 0.08 0.02
Bronco 0.09 0.02 < 0.01
3 Constant -13.69 0.03 0.90 0.07 0.89 1.14
BF 0.01 0.01 0.93
Bronco 0.08 0.57 <0.01
20 m 10.20 0.44 <0.01

Table 4.

Model Independent Coefficients Standardized Coefficient R2 value  R2 Model SEE

variables (b) Coefficients Significance Adjusted R2
(Beta) (p value) value
1 Constant 0.89 0.64 0.40 0.40 0.38 3.58
BF 0.58 0.63 <0.01
2 Constant -38.19 <0.01 0.67 0.27 0.65 2.68
BF -0.07 -0.07 0.66
Bronco 0.16 0.88 < 0.01
3 Constant -14.34 0.29 0.70 0.04 0.68 2.57
BF 0.11 0.12 0.51
Bronco 0.18 0.95 <0.01
20 m -9.92 -0.32 0.05
Figure 1.

Active rest

Sprint Tackle

0m 20 m 30 m 32 m

Start/Finish
 Figure 2.

a 55 d 30
53
Roverall = 0.90; p < 0.01
Roverall = 0.82; p < 0.01
Rforwards = 0.91; p < 0.01 25
51 Rforwards = 0.89; p < 0.01
Rbacks = 0.00; NS
49 Rbacks = 0.01; NS
20
47

%D (%)
TST (s)

45 15
43
10
41
39 Forwards Forwards
5
37 Backs Backs

35
0 0
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Bronco (s) Bronco (s)

b 55 Roverall = 0.86; p < 0.01

e 30 Roverall = 0.46; p < 0.01
53 Rforwards = 0.39; NS
Rforwards = 0.80; p < 0.01 25 Rbacks = -0.52; p < 0.05
51 Rbacks = 0.53; p < 0.05
49
20
47
%D (%)
TST (s)

45 15
43
10
41
39 Forwards Forwards
5
37 Backs Backs

35
0 0
2,70 2,80 2,90 3,00 3,10 3,20 3,30 3,40 3,50 3,60 3,70 2,70 2,80 2,90 3,00 3,10 3,20 3,30 3,40 3,50 3,60 3,70
20 m sprint (s) 20 m sprint (s)

c 55 f 30
53 Roverall = 0.82; p < 0.01 Roverall = 0.63; p < 0.01
51 Rforwards = 0.78; p < 0.01 25 Rforwards = 0.63; p < 0.01
Rbacks = -0.01; NS Rbacks = -0.14; NS
49
20
47
%D (%)
TST (s)

45 15
43
10
41
39 Forwards Forwards
5
37 Backs Backs

35
0 0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
BF (%) BF (%)

View publication stats