Monitoring Athlete Load:

Data Collection Methods

and Practical
Recommendations
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3IOi9dz/r5OE/KArBV6vCohzPAHYhnT1U1JYsrxHCW4annpYMBkQViA== on 04/18/2019

Chris Wing, MSc

South Fremantle F.C. Perth, Western Australia

ABSTRACT within sports performance. Through athlete in response to the external

accurately monitoring load, athlete training load (8,35). This internal load
COLLECTING DATA ABOUT ATH-
performance can be optimized, is commonly measured in a subjective
LETE LOAD ENABLES SUPPORT
whereas also reducing the risk of injury way through self-reporting, but can also
STAFF TO MAKE APPROPRIATE
and excessive levels of fatigue (24,30). include measures surrounding heart rate
CHANGES TO AN ATHLETE OR Athlete load is any physiological work data, biochemical analysis (such as crea-
TEAM’S TRAINING DOSE. performed by an athlete during both tine kinase) and salivary analysis (con-
THROUGH THIS CAREFUL MANIP- competition and training, and the sub- centrations of testosterone and cortisol)
ULATION, ATHLETE INJURY AND sequent impact/stress of this load on (7,57). It may be valuable to use a com-
ILLNESS OCCURRENCE CAN BE the athlete (35,57). This load includes bination of load-monitoring tools, for
REDUCED. FURTHERMORE, ATH- both the various movement demands example, one external and one internal
LETES CAN BE SAFELY RETURNED of competition and match play, the full measure of load (34,35,71). This enables
TO PLAY AFTER INJURY. THERE range of training interventions per- the measurement of both the dose and
ARE SEVERAL DATA COLLECTION formed by the athlete, and their asso- the athlete’s response to the dose (34,35).
METHODS AVAILABLE WHICH ciated effect on athlete fatigue and Considering the physiological makeup of
INCLUDE: RATING OF PERCEIVED mood status (35,57). Athlete load is each athlete is often different, and there-
EXERTION, GLOBAL POSITIONING better understood through subdividing fore prescribing one exercise or drill may
SYSTEMS, WELLNESS QUESTION- load into 2 groups—internal and exter- elicit a different internal response on an
NAIRES, AND HEART RATE MEAS- nal (35). External load is simply the athlete-to-athlete basis, even though the
URES. WHICH ONES TO ADOPT amount of “work” completed by an external load would remain the same
AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT THEM athlete during any phase of training (10,30,35).
WITHIN PRACTICE CAN DEPEND and competition (69). This load is often
Collecting data surrounding athlete
ON SEVERAL FACTORS. ULTI- multifaceted and may include work load is essential to aid the sport sci-
MATELY, THE WAY IN WHICH THE completed on the field/court, during ence and medical team to develop
resistance training programs, while sound injury prevention and perfor-
DATA ARE USED TO INFORM
performing therapeutic/recovery ses- mance plans. There are several data
PRACTICE IS THE KEY TO EFFEC-
sions, during competitive matches, collection methods available, ranging
TIVE LOAD MANAGEMENT.
and for the nonelite athlete during their from simple session rating of per-
working day (30,37). For example; dur- ceived exertion (sRPE), wellness
ing a typical training week, a cricket
INTRODUCTION
fast bowler may be subjected to run-
easuring and monitoring ath- KEY WORDS:

M lete load has become an

increasingly important topic
Address correspondence to Chris Wing,
ning, bowling, throwing, resistance
training, plyometric, and therapeutic
loads (37). Internal training load can
be seen as the physiological or psycho-
global positioning systems; illness; injury;
overtraining; session rating of
perceived exertion; training impulse; train-
ing load
[email protected]. logical stress experienced by the

26 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018 Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 questionnaires, global positioning sys- DATA COLLECTION METHODS However, Scott et al. (59) report poor
tems (GPS), and heart rate–based In order for a strength and conditioning levels of reliability for sRPE when study-
training impulse (TRIMP), to more (S&C) coach to implement a load man- ing short intermittent running bouts,
complex methods such as biochemical agement strategy, they must first adopt with weaker relationships between
and salivary analysis (7,57). These data a data collection method that is most sRPE and high-intensity activities also
sets are subsequently used to adapt and suitable for the athletic population they being previously reported by Paulson
shape future training plans. This is are working with. Four of the most com- et al. (54). With this evidence in mind,
highly important to the welfare of the monly used methods are outlined in the the sRPE method may be a better tool
athlete because subjecting them to following section: sRPE, GPS, TRIMP, for recording overall session load as
inappropriately increased loads can lead and wellness questionnaires. opposed to changes in short bouts of
to a decrease in performance (24) and high-intensity exercise (59).
also increase the risk of injury (30,33)
and illness (70). If an excessive training SESSION RATING OF PERCEIVED
RATING OF PERCEIVED EXERTION EXERTION METHODS FOR
load continues across an extended
One of the most commonly used tools RESISTANCE AND PLYOMETRIC
period, it may subject the athlete to
to measure athlete exertion, and ulti- EXERCISE
overtraining syndrome (22). However,
mately load, is through the sRPE Gym-based training is arguably the eas-
heightened levels of fitness, built
method devised by Foster (27). This in- iest variable for the S&C coach to man-
through appropriate training loads, can
volves athletes self-rating their physical age due to fewer outside influences and
increase the robustness of athletes and
exertion using a modified Borg scale by the ability to periodize training variables
enable them to benefit from the pro-
answering the question “How was your with more accuracy. It has been sug-
tective element of training
session today?” (65). Typically, a 10- gested that resistance training load can
(9,30,38,45,46). Therefore, greatly
point scale is used, with the closer the be monitored through the following
reducing athlete load should also be met
score to 10 the harder the session (6). It equation: training load 5 (weight lifted
with caution because this may lead to
has been suggested that for consistency 3 repetitions) 3 sets and summed for all
reduced levels of fitness and result in
of data collection, sRPE should be re- exercises within the session (25). Simi-
inadequately prepared athletes for both
corded 30 minutes after exercise to larly, ground/foot contacts can be re-
competition and training (20,30). This
allow for the athlete to reflect on the corded for all plyometric sessions.
has led to recent theories suggesting that
session as a whole (27,65). A period of Despite the value within these methods,
increased injury risk may occur at both
education and learning may also be ben- they are stand-alone data sets which
ends of the spectrum, during times when
eficial to improving the accuracy of re- cannot then be added to measurements
athlete load is both inappropriately low
sponses (27). The sRPE score can then of conditioning/technical training to
or high (30). Ascertaining athlete train-
be multiplied by the session time to pro- provide an overall load for a training
ing zones (i.e., an upper and lower
duce a training load score, measured in day (65). It also does not account for
range), and ensuring that the athlete
arbitrary units (AU) (27). For example, training variability, as 4 repetitions using
does not alternate too quickly between
an athlete rating the session 7/10 after 20 kg would be recorded the same as 1
both ends of this spectrum appears to be
exercising for 65 minutes would have repetition at 80 kg. Furthermore, it can-
the most beneficial method of loading
a training load of 455 AU. not distinguish between intensity for
(5,30,32,38). This zone may change
The validity and reliability of the sRPE plyometric variations. For example; sin-
during different phases of the macro-
method has been extensively researched gle leg and/or faster movements are
cycle depending on the training focus.
(28,36,39,51,54,58,59,62). The sRPE more intense than double leg and/or
The data collected can also be used to slower movements (67). This is not
method seems to be valid as athletes
aid with team selection, program highlighted within the counting con-
reported a higher sRPE when exercising
design, return from injury, and facili- tacts method, despite the likelihood that
at a higher percentage of V̇ O2max (62).
tate communication with both athletes Similarly, sRPE was significantly higher differing amounts of load and fatigue will
and the wider coaching team (35). during competitive matches than train- be created. An example of this method
Which data measurement tool to use ing sessions (51). Furthermore, this can be seen in Table 1.
can often be decided by affordability method has been shown to correlate In more recent times, the sRPE method,
but is also influenced by reliability, with several heart rate–based TRIMP as previously described, has been shown
reproducibility, ease of use, and the da- methods (39,58,59) for both steady-state to be effective for monitoring gym-
ta’s ability to inform practice. This arti- and intermittent-type exercise (28). Data based training. McGuigan et al. (48)
cle explores the literature surrounding from GPS devices, including total dis- report that sRPE is significantly higher
4 common data collection methods tance and high-speed running (58,59), after performing high-intensity versus
and provides recommendations for as well as heart rate and various V̇ O2 low-intensity resistance exercise. This
how these may be used within a prac- measures (36) have also been shown is supported in further studies which
tical setting. to correlate with the sRPE method. state that the closer an athlete is working

27
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Monitoring Athlete Load

Table 1
Table depicting an example of total lifting volume (left) and ground contact (right) methods of monitoring

Exercise Weight lifted Sets Repetitions TL Exercise Sets Repetitions Contacts

(kg)

Back squat 110 3 5 1,650, 3 3 (5 3 110) Box Jump 3 5 15 (3 3 5)

Clean from 70 3 3 630, 3 3 (3 3 70) Drop Jump 5 3 15 (5 3 3)
hang
Push press 60 3 5 900, 3 3 (5 3 60) Lateral Hurdle 5 3 15 (5 3 3)
Jump
RDL 70 3 5 1,050, 3 3 (5 3 70) Single-leg hop 5 3 30 (5 3 3 each leg)
Total session load 4,230 Session total contacts 75
kg 5 kilograms; RDL 5 Romanian deadlift; TL 5 total load.

to their 1 repetition maximum, the high- variable, with shorter distances showing motion while receiving treatment),
er their sRPE, despite fewer repetitions less accuracy. Castelleno et al. (12) also time spent on the interchange bench,
being performed (19,62). The evidence found that accuracy improved with and the changing of the shirt in which
is suggestive that sRPE can be accu- increased distance, with SEM scores the GPS is housed during training or
rately used within gym-based sessions being halved at 30 m when compared match play.
and is also reported to be reliable, with with 15 m. It also seems that sampling As previously stated, GPS units pro-
intraclass correlation coefficients being frequencies/rates (the speed at which vide coaches with several data metrics
reported at 0.95 (48). Once the sRPE data are gathered) are a contributing which can include: total distance, max-
for gym-based training has been col- factor to the accuracy of GPS devices imum velocity, distance in various
lected, it can be added to “field-based” (40,68). It has been reported that both speed zones (e.g., walking, jogging,
training to provide an overall training reliability and validity can be enhanced high-speed running, and sprinting) as
load score for the day (65). For example: through using increased sampling rates well as accelerations and decelerations
Gym-based training load 360 AU (RPE (40,68). The research states that both (17). Although total distance is one
8, 45 minutes), field-based training load validity and reliability increase when method of describing the total load
570 AU (RPE 6, 95 minutes). Total daily sampling at 5 Hz in comparison with or volume performed by an athlete, it
training load 5 930 AU. 1 Hz (40), and further increases when is sometimes better viewed relative to
sampling at 10 Hz (68). playing or training time (2,17) This can
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS Despite these limitations, GPS devices give a better indication of an athlete’s
GPS has enabled S&C coaches and are common practice and are still the intensity, and is often reported in me-
sport scientists to gather highly valuable best available method for recording ters per minute (m$min21) (2,17). For
and reliable data concerning external data of this kind. Although in some example, 2 athletes train for 20 and
athlete load across a range of metrics. cases it may not be time-efficient, 45 minutes, respectively, and both per-
Despite their common use within elite where possible the S&C coach can form 2,500 m total distance. However,
sporting environments, there is still con- improve the accuracy of the collected one will record a work rate of
flicting evidence surrounding their accu- data by removing artifacts from the 125 m$min21 and the other 55.55
racy. Coutts and Duffield (16) describe data source preanalysis. This can be m$min21, indicating that the first ath-
how they may be accurate when assess- achieved through identifying periods lete has worked at a substantially high-
ing total distance (Coefficient of varia- of motion that are not in keeping with er intensity than the other. The total
tion: 3.6–7.1%) and peak speed the athlete or the session performed (e. distance may also be expressed across
(Coefficient of variation: 2.3–5.8%) but g., a tracing spike indicating a running different speed zones, as identified pre-
reported poor levels of accuracy when speed of 50 km/h), and subsequently viously, of which the speed boundaries
assessing high-speed and very marking this outside the data to often vary in their definition between
high-speed running. This is somewhat include within the final analysis. These sports (17). The total accelerations and
reflected by Petersen et al. (55) who artifacts may be present within the data decelerations may also be
studied different GPS brands and found for several reasons and include: failure recorded, which provides information
standard errors of measurement (SEM) to stop the device on completion of pertaining to the amount of
to be between 3 and 24%, depending on training, athlete leaving the field high-intensity actions performed by an
the manufacturer and the measurement for treatment (including measuring athlete (17). It has been proposed that

28 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 2 (42). For example; a standard match
Example of Edwards TRIMP method of load calculation may require an athlete to perform at
an average intensity of 110 m$min21.
Heart rate zones Coefficient Time in zone Zone total However, during the match, the athlete
(% of maximum (multiplier) (min) (coefficient 3 time in may be required to perform periods of
heart rate) zone) exercise at an intensity of 150 m$min21.
50–60% 1 5 5 To best prepare an athlete for this, the
S&C coach should ensure that some
60–70% 2 7 14
drills within weekly training sessions
70–80% 3 23 69 are performed at, or above, an intensity
of 150 m$min21 (42). Exposing the ath-
80–90% 4 18 72
lete to this level of intensity will not
90–100% 5 7 35 only prepare the athlete for perfor-
mance, but also act as an injury-
Session load 195
prevention measure (20,46). The data
TRIMP 5 training impulse. that are collected from these drills dur-
ing training sessions may also be calcu-
lated over time to provide drill
averages, which can ultimately be used
accelerations and decelerations can con- athletes within their particular sport
to inform training plans and aid with
tribute significantly to player load in (2,17). The data can then be used to accurate athlete load monitoring (42).
intermittent-type sports, such as soccer, devise training drills that best mimic An example of this is depicted within
and therefore their value within the demands of match play, or specific the “Practical management of the A:C
athlete monitoring seems to be periods within it (42). This enables ratio” section of this article.
gaining increased importance (18). S&C coaches to ensure that their ath-
The metrics gathered through GPS letes are exposed to relevant intensities HEART RATE (TRIMPS)
data can enable the S&C coach to and movement patterns that may be Monitoring training load using heart
assess the movement demands of required of them during competition rate is often implemented through

Table 3
An example of how the athlete ceiling and floor may be calculated for a semi-professional AFL player, during the in-
season phase, using 3 different methods
Variable GPS Internal load TRIMP (Edwards)
(sRPE 3 session time)

Competition demands TD: 12.5 6 1.5 k 970 6 160 AU 330.5 6 130 AU

(per game)
HSR 2.3 6 0.8 k
Training (per wk) TD: 10 6 2 k 655 6 25 AU 284.5 6 35 AU
HSR 1.5 6 0.3 k
Training ceiling TD: 12 k, HSR: 1.8 k 680 AU 319.5 AU
Training floor TD: 8 k, HSR 1.2 k 630 AU 249.5 AU
Total load—ceiling TD: 26 k (12.5 + 1.5 + 10 + 2) 1810 AU (970 + 160 + 655 + 25) 780 AU (330.5 + 130 + 284.5 + 35)
(weekly)
HSR 4.9 k (2.3 + 0.8 + 1.5 + 0.3)
Total load—floor TD: 19 k (12.5–1.5 + 10–2) 1,440 AU (970–160 + 655–25) 450 AU (330.5–130 + 284.5–35)
(weekly)
HSR 2.7 k (2.3–0.8 + 1.5–0.3)
AFL 5 Australian Football League; AU 5 arbitrary units; GPS 5 global positioning system; HSR 5 high-speed running; k 5 kilometers; sRPE 5
session rating of perceived exertion; TD 5 total distance; TRIMP 5 training impulse.

29
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Monitoring Athlete Load

Table 4
An example of how to calculate the A:C ratio for a cricket bowler using various metrics using the methods outlined by
Gabbett et al. (32)
Week Total running distance (m) sRPE 3 session time Balls bowled

Current training week: 4 Data measurement

1 20,000 1,235 48
2 24,000 1,335 60
3 23,750 1,425 65
4 25,230 1,445 72
Chronic load (average of weeks 1–4) 23,245 1,360 61.25
Acute load (week 4) 25,230 1,445 72
A:C ratio (acute/chronic load) 1.09 1.06 1.18
sRPE 5 session rating of perceived exertion.

the use of a training TRIMP. Bannister cannot be accounted for with the linear fractional rise in heart rate during a stan-
(4) first developed the use of the scaling provided within the Edwards’ dardized treadmill test protocol (47).
TRIMP method through the following TRIMP method (47,61). This allows the weighting factor to
equation: Lucia’s TRIMP (43) is similar to Ed- exponentially increase as exercise inten-
wards’ TRIMP in providing training sity, and ultimately heart rate response,
t 3 mean DHR 3 y rises (47). Thus, this method allows for
zones with a fixed multiplier for total
Where t 5 duration (minutes), DHR 5 time spent in each. This method has 3 the individualization to each athlete’s
HRexercise 2 HRrest/HRmax 2 zones, based on ventilatory thresholds physiological makeup, as well as giving
HRrest (fractional elevation in HR), y ascertained from laboratory testing greater significance to shorter bouts of
5 weighting factor (to represent (43). These are described below: high-intensity exercise (47). The TRIM-
changes in exercise intensity). (where Zone 1: Below the ventilatory thresh- Pi (also referred to as the iTRIMP)
HR 5 heart rate) old (Multiplier: 1) method has been reported to be accu-
Because of the use of average heart Zone 2: Between the ventilatory rate when monitoring fitness and perfor-
rates, Bannister’s TRIMP may not be threshold and the respiratory compen- mance in distance runners (47) and team
truly reflective of the work performed sation point (Multiplier: 2) sports such as hurling (44). However,
during intermittent sports (soccer, Zone 3: Above the respiratory com- this method may be difficult to imple-
rugby, etc.) where fluctuations in heart pensation point (Multiplier: 3) ment due to the blood lactate concen-
rate are present (61). However, it may Despite these zones being ascertained tration testing methods being expensive,
be more useful during long, steady- by an athlete’s physiology, the boundary time-consuming, and often lacking in
state exercise (such as a cycle road lines are seen to be too broad, allowing availability.
race) (53). Edwards further developed for differing exercise intensities to be Although there are obvious limitations
the TRIMP method, which attempted classified within the same zone (13). to the TRIMP methods, research sup-
to address this issue through the use of Manzi et al. (47) describe the further ports their use within athletic settings.
5 predefined training zones (see development of heart rate measures During wheelchair rugby performance,
Table 2) (23). The time spent in each through an individualized TRIMP Banister’s, Edwards’, and Lucia’s
of these zones is multiplied by the cor- (TRIMP¡), which classified the TRIMP TRIMPs all showed similarly strong lev-
responding coefficient and summed for based on each individual’s heart rate- els of correlation with total distance as
total training load (23). Despite these blood lactate concentration profile. This well as time and distance of low-, mod-
zones giving rise to higher heart rates is achieved through individualizing the erate-, and very high-speed zones and
equaling higher workload, they are still weighting factor (y), previously used by the number of high-speed actions, mea-
arbitrary and may not be truly reflec- Bannister (4), based on an individual’s sured using radio-frequency tracking
tive of the work performed by the ath- exponential rise in blood lactate concen- systems (54). Furthermore, Bannister
lete (47,61). This is because blood tration (47). This weighting factor is as- and Edwards TRIMPs have been re-
lactate concentrations are said to rise certained through plotting the rise in ported to show a positive relationship
exponentially with heart rate, which blood lactate concentration against the to total distance within soccer players

30 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure 1. Example global positioning system readouts showing how each drill can be individually labeled. Each color box
represents a different drill or exercise. The readouts from this can be seen in Table 5.

(58). The TRIMP method is also said to time burden for both the athletes to an improvement in these levels of 17–
be sensitive when measuring fluctua- complete and for the S&C coach to 26% 3 days post-match due to a reduc-
tions in exercise intensity and total dis- input and interpret the data (56). This tion in training load (64). This evidence
tance, and therefore allowing for may be best achieved through limiting supports the use of the questionnaire as
changes in athlete load to be compared responses to a number format, which a tool for monitoring changes within
over a given time frame (54,58). These has been reported as a preferred athlete load on both a mesocycle and
articles suggest that the TRIMP method method among athletes (56). There microcycle level.
is an acceptable approach to athlete load are several standardized questionnaires
monitoring. Furthermore, this method that currently exist, with both the Pro- METHODS OF DATA USE
may also be a valuable tool with sports file of Mood State (POMS) (49) and MONOTONY AND STRAIN
where locomotion cannot be measured the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Measurements of training monotony
using GPS (i.e., boxing, mixed martial Athletes (RESTQ-Sports) (41) being and training strain can be derived from
arts (MMA)) to provide an alternative frequently used within athletic settings the training load data. Training monot-
method of recording athlete load. (57). ony can be calculated by taking the
The usefulness of questionnaires as average load across a 7-day training
a monitoring tool has been widely re- week (including any days off ) and
WELLNESS QUESTIONNAIRES
ported (7,11,24,57,64). In fact, authors dividing it by its SD (27,28). Training
Internal athlete load may be moni- have previously stated that wellness monotony provides an indicator of
tored through the use of a self- questionnaires are a more valid training variability, with a score closer
reported wellness questionnaire, where approach to athlete monitoring than to one showing higher levels of vari-
athletes score their perceived level of more complex objective measures, ability (65). The importance of training
wellbeing across several parameters including those derived from heart rate variability is to ensure that training
(57). These may include: sleep (dura- measures, blood markers, and meas- does not become stagnant and that
tion and quality), feelings of fatigue, urements made during exercise perfor- variety is included within the program,
muscle soreness, energy levels, and mance (57,64). Previous research both in terms of mode and intensity
amount of psychological stress (57). supports this, with questionnaires (65). This can be achieved by alternat-
These scores are often added together being reported to be sensitive to ing between “light” and “heavy” train-
to give a total wellness score for the changes in training load, with ing days, which in turn will afford the
athlete (57). a decrease in wellness scores correlat- athlete time to recover, and therefore
There must be careful consideration ing with increases in training load reduce the likelihood of overtraining
when designing wellness question- (7,11,24). Similarly, during a period of (27,65). The training monotony may
naires, with several factors affecting tapering, where training load is then be multiplied by the total training
their success (56). Most notably, ques- reduced, an improvement in wellness load for the week to produce the train-
tions should be designed in a manner scores could be seen (7). Furthermore, ing strain, a reflection of the overall
which enables them to be relevant to Thorpe et al. (64) found a 35–40% stress of training (24). Measurements
the athlete and their sport, while also reduction in self-reported levels of of training strain have been shown to
being specific enough to allow for a full sleep, fatigue, and muscle soreness be sensitive to changes in training load
understanding across an entire squad within elite-level soccer players pre- (24) and predictive of athlete illness
(56). The design must also limit the versus post-match. They also reported (27,63). However, caution must be

31
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Monitoring Athlete Load

Table 5 fitness and robustness (14). A practical

GPS readouts (from Figure 1) showing how each drill can be individually example of how to devise these ceilings
labeled, providing a range of metrics and floors for a semi-professional Aus-
tralian Football League (AFL) athlete
Drill Min Distance (m) HSR Dis/M (m) Max km/h is outlined in Table 3.
Warm-up 7.65 692 67 90.5 20.8
THE ACUTE: CHRONIC RATIO
Switching play 7.81 826 309 105.7 25.6
The acute: chronic (A:C) ratio enables
8v6 attacking overload 11.4 1,285 134 112.7 25.3 the S&C coach to measure athlete pre-
SSG—end zone target 22.33 1,555 295 69.6 22 paredness, while also being used as
a tool to appropriately calculate in-
SSG—4 goal game 13.13 1,206 223 91.9 26.4 creases or decreases in athlete loading
Conditioning—MAS runs 8.38 1,314 1,089 156.9 25.6 (30,32). The acute workload is typically
defined as the total work performed
Session total 70.7 6,878 2,117 104.55 24.28 across a training week, measured using
Dis/M 5 distance per minute; GPS 5 global positioning system; HSR 5 high-speed running; any single data point (i.e., total dis-
m 5 meters; MAS 5 maximum aerobic speed; Max km/h 5 maximum kilometers per hour; SSG tance, high-speed running, cricket balls
5 small-sided game. bowled, baseballs pitched, sRPE,
TRIMP, etc.) (30,32). The acute load
is therefore a representation of fatigue
(30,32). The chronic workload is typi-
used when using training strain as ensures that a minimum level of train- cally represented by the rolling 4-week
a method to report the stress of train- ing is afforded, allowing the athlete to average of acute workload, and is
ing. If a measure of training monotony maintain or improve levels of perfor- therefore a measurement of fitness
is recorded as “0,” then training strain mance (depending on the phase of (30,32). The A:C ratio is then calcu-
will also be “0” due to the nature of the training), as well as maintaining ade- lated by dividing the acute workload
equation. This, therefore, would not be quate levels of tissue conditioning by the chronic workload (30,32).
reflective of the overall stress of required to prevent injury (14,20,30). Therefore, an athlete who has com-
training. The ceiling ensures that the athletes pleted half the workload in the current
do not perform a load that they have week, compared with the previous 4,
DEVISING CEILINGS AND FLOORS not been prepared for, as well as a load would display a ratio of 0.5, and an
When planning training sessions, an which may cause undue fatigue (e.g., athlete completing twice the workload
optimal level of training load with in-season), which may lead to both would display a ratio of 2.0 (5). An
appropriate ceilings and floors should a detriment in performance and an example of how this can be calculated
first be ascertained (10,14,30). The increase in injury risk (14,24,30). Ath- is provided in Table 4.
optimal load is dependent on several lete age and training history should
factors, most notably the demands of also be taken into consideration. It This has led to the identification of
the specific sport and the current time has been reported that younger players a “sweet spot” in the training load ratio
within the macrocycle (14). When take longer to reach higher chronic of 0.8–1.3, with a ratio of .1.5 indicat-
considering the sport’s demands, it training loads (26), with the possibility ing a significant spike in training load
may be prudent to ascertain the aver- that older athletes may be subjected to (5,30). Through prescribing load
age and worst case (maximum possible degeneration of muscular tissue and within these working ranges (0.8–1.3),
load) scenarios in terms of workload therefore have a reduced ability to tol- and thus avoiding training spikes, S&C
performed during competition erate load (15). Turner et al. (65) also coaches can ensure that their athletes
(14,30). These demands may include recommend modifying athlete ceilings receive a sufficient training stimulus to
a range of metrics depending on the through identifying correlations promote adaptation and readiness,
sport and include: possible number of between individual training load and without being subjected to inappropri-
games/weeks of competition, running injury/illness. For example, if an athlete ately increased or decreased loads (30).
distances and intensities, and balls has a history of becoming injured when However, Buchheit (10) describes how
bowled/pitched (14). Training session training at loads above 800 AU (using there are some issues to consider when
load must then adequately prepare the the sRPE method), then it would seem practically applying the A:C ratio. He
athlete for these demands, through to be a good practice to establish an states that due to the vast amount of
providing appropriate volume and athlete ceiling just below this level (65). data points collected regarding athlete
intensities, as well as sufficient time It is important to remember that these load, contradictions in data may occur;
for the practice of technical and tactical ceilings may be raised over time as the for example, an optimal total distance
skills (14,20,30). The training floor athletes increase their levels of both ratio may reside at the same time as

32 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 6
An example of an athlete dashboard that may be used to help practically manage the A:C ratio.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W

1 Current Previous weeks’ load Equation Loads that equate to Total distance across 7-d current wk Acute load A:C Remaining load
wk: 4 (chronic load) columns A:C ratio (acute load) ratio that equates to A:C ratio

2 Athlete Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 0.8 1.3 1.5 0.8 1.3 1.5 Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat Sun Actual Load 0.8 1.3 1.5
(Week 4)

3 A 20,500 21,689 23,587 0.8 1.3 1.5 16,444 31,669 39,465 7,500 3,200 8,423 7,832 2,300 0 29,255 1.23 212811 2,415 10,211
4 B 18,968 19,632 19,987 0.8 1.3 1.5 14,646 28,208 35,152 6,897 2,587 5,412 5,489 1900 0 22,285 1.10 27,638 5,923 12,867
5 C 21,366 22,987 22,156 0.8 1.3 1.5 16,627 32,022 39,905 4,897 1,587 6,879 5,236 1857 0 20,456 0.94 23,829 11,567 19,449
6 D 24,871 25,102 25,983 0.8 1.3 1.5 18,989 36,571 45,573 4,210 1875 0 4,971 1874 0 12,930 0.58 6,059 23,641 32,644
7 E 20,187 20,657 20,904 0.8 1.3 1.5 15,437 29,730 37,048 5,963 2,478 6,897 5,632 2,250 0 23,220 1.09 27,783 6,511 13,828
8 F 23,021 23,987 24,089 0.8 1.3 1.5 17,774 34,231 42,658 4,897 2,100 7,895 6,213 2,178 0 23,283 0.98 25,508 10,949 19,375
9 G Insert load from #1 #2 #3 0 0 0 Insert daily values for the current wk as 5 sum #4 5 I9–S9 5 J9– 5 K9–
previous 3 wk they are recorded (L9: S9 S9
R9)
Equations #1: 5 {I9/(AVERAGE[C9: E9, I9])}
and
notes
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

#2: 5 {J9/(AVERAGE[C9: E9, J9])}

#3: 5 {K9/(AVERAGE[C9: E9, K9])}
The 3 formulas above must be entered into their relevant cell within the dashboard and then the Solver function within Microsoft Excel (50) can be used
to solve the equation and ultimately provide a figure for load that equates to a given A:C ratio (73). In this example, to calculate the load required for
a ratio of 0.8, for athlete G, within Solver, the “objective cell” should be set to F9, the “value of” to 0.8 and the “variable cell” to I9. This will display the
required load within cell I9.
#4: 5 {S9/(AVERAGE[C9: E9, S9])}
*Row 9 included to display calculations required to successfully use the dashboard.
Columns S–W automatically update when load is entered in columns L–R to give acute load, A:C ratio, and remaining load for wk 4.
This example uses total distance as a measurement of load, measured in meters. The dashboard has been expanded in this example to provide the reader with the information and
calculations required to use this method within their practice. Columns C–K are used for calculation purposes and may be “hidden” once all calculations are performed at the beginning of
a training week. Columns S–W are “live” and automatically update on a daily basis once the load for a given training session has been inserted (columns L–R). In this example, to remain within
the “sweet spot,” athlete A must be restricted to 2,415 m, whereas athlete D must perform a minimum of 6,059 m during Saturday’s session (as depicted by cells V3 and U6, respectively). N.B.
in this example Sunday is a scheduled day off, and so “0” has already been assigned within the load.
33

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Monitoring Athlete Load

Table 7 Weaving (73), to ensure that the correct

Hypothetical session plan for a group session, using historical data for load dose is received each week.
The dashboard demonstrates a typical
Drill—(team plan) Mins Dist (m) HSR
training week and the corresponding
Warm-up 7.5 692 67 total distance for each day. The dash-
board updates automatically when
Diamond passing drill 8 589 51
load is entered at the end of each train-
Spreading play 20 1854 178 ing session. The dashboard not only
SSG—8v8 (2 in) regain possession 22 1,555 295 provides a “live” A:C ratio for the week,
but also calculates the remaining load
Match simulation 30 2,865 423 that would represent an A:C ratio of
Session total 87.5 7,555 1,014 0.8, 1.3, and 1.5, respectively (columns
U–W). Therefore, this dashboard pro-
Dist (m) 5 distance in meters; HSR 5 high-speed running; mins 5 minutes; SSG 5 small- vides S&C coaches with a practical
sided game.
tool which can be used to ensure that
athletes remain within the “sweet
spot,” as described by Gabbett (30). It
a high ratio for high-speed running (Figure 1 and Table 5). The data can
(10). Also, as previously described, must be noted that Table 6 represents
then be used to devise drill averages
due to the multifaceted demands total distance only; however, this pro-
over extended periods for both the
placed on an athlete, it is not always cess may be used for any variable that is
team and individuals (10,42). Through deemed important to each particular
possible to take one overall score for sharing these data with the technical
athlete load, again leading to the pos- sport. Implementing the A:C ratio be-
coaches, each session can be planned comes more complex during periods of
sibility of several A:C ratio calculations
through selecting drills that allow for heavy competition, for example, where
(10). Therefore, it may be prudent for
the S&C coach to only make A:C ratio the desired acute training load and there may be 2 matches per week. This
calculations on the data that are most therefore ensuring that no spikes are in itself could contribute to a sudden
relevant to their particular sport. present (42). spike in acute load and would require
Although planning the dose is beneficial, careful load management (60).
PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT OF THE and certainly recommended, due to The A:C ratio also seems to be par-
A:C RATIO (AN EXAMPLE USING
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS) a multitude of external factors, planned ticularly attractive with return-to-
To help effectively manage the A:C dose does not always equate to actual play athletes, aiding to ensure that
ratio using GPS, the data must first dose. Therefore, Table 6 illustrates how the athlete is best prepared for return
be accurately labeled, individualizing a simple dashboard can be created, using to full training within a progressive
each training drill within GPS readouts a method outlined by Williams and fashion (5). This is described by
Blanch and Gabbett (5), who provide
guidelines concerning the A:C ratio
Table 8 regarding injury risk when returning
Hypothetical modified session plan for a return-to-play athlete, using to play. For example, they state that
historical data for load an athlete achieving 100% of acute
workload but only 30% of chronic
Drill (return-to-play athlete) Mins Dist (m) HSR
workload is at a 61.4% risk of re-
Warm-up 7.5 692 67 injury (5). This again highlights the
importance of moderate increases in
Diamond passing drill 8 589 51
athlete loading. Through the use of
Spreading play 20 1854 178 drill averages, as described previ-
SSG—8v8 (2 in) regain possession 22 1,555 295
ously, greater accuracy of planning
for the return-to-play athlete can be
Conditioning drill 6.5 960 275 afforded. This may include a combi-
Session total 64 5,650 866 nation of modified sessions and indi-
vidual training (See Tables 7 and 8 for
Session aims: Distance 5,500–6,000 m, high-speed running 800–900 m, match simulation has an example).
been changed to a conditioning drill to achieve this.
For this return-to-play athlete, total
Dist (m) 5 distance in meters; HSR 5 high-speed running; mins 5 minutes; SSG 5 small- distance target for the session is
sided game.
5,500–6,000 m with high-speed

34 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure 2. Hypothetical external versus internal training load. Highlighting errors in load and how external load may be adjusted in
response to internal load. A:C 5 acute: chronic; AU 5 arbitrary units; M 5 meters; sRPE 5 session rating of perceived
exertion.

running between 800 and 900 m. As Therefore, during times of mesocycle (66). Also, the training cycle of the ath-
highlighted in the group session total change, it is still important to maintain lete must be considered. For example,
(Table 7), these athletes would have an appropriate A:C ratio to avoid during a pre-season period or training
received an inappropriate training load increasing the risk of injury (5,30). camp, where the aim is to increase fit-
had they been allowed to return to full ness, it is highly likely that athletes will
training. Using the longitudinal data report a high internal training load.
COMBINING MEASURING TOOLS
collected, the athlete’s session can be However, the aim of this phase of train-
premodified, allowing them to com- Oftentimes, 2 methods (one internal ing is to build levels of fitness, which
plete part of team training with the and one external) of data collection cannot be achieved without creating
inclusion of a supplementary condi- are used (34,35,57,71). This allows the a level of athlete stress (66). Therefore,
tioning drill to ensure that they still S&C coach to measure a dose- reducing training load during this
receive an adequate training stimulus. response relationship (8). If an athlete phase would be seen to be counterpro-
This may be further monitored/modi- consistently reports lower than normal ductive (66).
fied during training with the aid of internal load to a given external stim-
live GPS. ulus, then an increase in fitness and
tolerance may be indicated (8,34). IMPORTANCE OF APPROPRIATE
Therefore, increasing athlete loading, LOAD MANAGEMENT
MACROCYCLE VARIATIONS alongside an increase in the training Accurate load management enables
The athlete training load can show ceiling, may be required in order for players to be physically prepared for
vast levels of variation across a macro- the athlete to receive a training stimu- the demands of training and competi-
cycle, as they move through different lus (14,34). See Figure 2 for an example tion (30,45,46), as well as reducing the
phases of training. This variation may of this. Conversely, the opposite may occurrence of both injury and illness
include periods such as pre-season, take effect, where higher internal loads (30,33,70). Early theories on training
active recovery, functional overreach- than normal may be reported to a con- load attempted to establish a linear
ing, tapering, and competition. sistent external stimulus. This may relationship between high training
Although the load during these times indicate athlete fatigue and subse- loads and the occurrence of injury
is likely to be markedly different (e.g., quently require a reduction in training and illness (3,27,29,31,33,63,70). In fact,
functional overreaching versus active load to allow the athlete to recover Gabbett (29) explains that reducing
recovery), it is still important to move (8,34). However, caution must be used training load within rugby league play-
through these phases in a gradual when making changes to athlete load- ers showed a significant reduction in
manner (5,30,32,38). These gradual ing in this manner. The S&C coach injuries. However, a loading strategy
changes in training load include both should ensure that any changes to centered around reducing athlete load-
progressively loading the athlete and internal load remain consistent over ing and intensity is likely to produce
also gradually reducing the load during time before a change (increase or underprepared athletes, who are not
periods of recovery or restoration (60). decrease) in external load is initiated physically capable of meeting the

35
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Monitoring Athlete Load

Table 9
Strengths and weakness of the 4 collection methods

Method Strengths Weaknesses

sRPE Affordable Relies on self-reporting
Easy to administer Harder to use when preplanning sessions compared with
GPS
Ease of use in nonelite sport
Research shows to be accurate
Reports on what the athlete actually felt/
experienced
GPS Most accurate calculator of motion available Questions over accuracy of high-speed running measures
Allows for several metrics to be collected Expensive
Acute: Chronic ratio is an attractive method Time-consuming to interpret
Closer monitoring of return-to-play athletes Open to operator inaccuracies
May not be useful when measuring load from certain
sports (i.e., MMA) or actions such as collisions
TRIMP Able to monitor load in a wider variety of sports Queries over the validity and accuracy of some TRIMP
versus GPS (i.e., nonrunning based) methods
Several methods to suit available budget Some methods require laboratory testing
Able to monitor physiological response when Time-consuming to calculate
distance is preset (i.e., time trials)
Wellness Affordable Relies on self-reporting
Questionnaires
Easy to administer Can become repetitive
Sensitive to changes in load Requires athlete buy-in
Can be adapted to gather a variety of information Cannot directly prescribe load
Can measure “outside” stresses
GPS 5 global positioning system; sRPE 5 session rating of perceived exertion; TRIMP 5 training impulse.

demands of competition (20). Not only training and higher chronic training rates due to the deconditioning of tis-
are they likely to underperform, but loads benefit from a protective effect sue (20). This was highlighted within
their lack of exposure to training may of training. Another study involving a case study, which reported that ath-
decrease the levels of robustness elite-level soccer players demonstrated lete injury occurred more frequently
required to remain uninjured through- that those with superior aerobic capac- during the periods of the lowest train-
out the competitive season (20,30,38). ity were at a reduced risk of injury and ing load during a 365-day period (20).
were able to better tolerate increases in
More recently, it has been stated that Gabbett et al. (32) describes how high
training load (45). These heightened
exposure to appropriately planned training loads alone are not the issue,
levels of fitness can only be developed
chronic load actually aids to protect through increased exposure to training how you get there is. This has seen
against increases in acute load (i.e., chronic load) (30,32,66). The ben- current theories shift attention away
(7,32,37,38) and provides athletes with efits of exposing athletes to intense from the total training load and toward
a protective effect of training against training are further supported by Drew spikes in training load (1,30,32,38).
injury (37,38,45,46). This is supported and Purdam (20). They explain how This has been highlighted within an
by Malone et al. (46) who reported that significantly reducing athlete load can elite rugby league population, where
athletes exposed to maximal velocity lead to a subsequent increase in injury an A:C ratio $2.11 was reported to

36 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 lead to a 16.7% risk of injury in that injury and illness (30,33,70). This has 3. Bacon CS and Mauger AR. Prediction of
training week and an 11.8% in the fol- been highlighted by Gabbett’s paradox overuse injuries in professional u-18-u-21
footballers using metrics of training
lowing week (38). Furthermore, (30), which describes a “sweet spot” for
distance and intensity. J Strength Cond
a 28.6% increase in injury risk could training load, which is both beneficial Res 31: 3067–3076, 2017.
be seen with those displaying a high to performance and injury prevention.
4. Banister EW. Modelling elite athletic
chronic workload alongside a ratio There are several data collection meth-
performance. In: Physiological Testing of
$1.54 (38). Other sports have reported ods that can be used, each with their Elite Athletes. MacDougall JD, Wenger HA,
similar findings, with cricket reporting own strengths and weaknesses (these and Green HJ, eds. Champaign, IL: Human
spikes in acute workload (37) and AFL are highlighted within Table 9). Kinetics, 1991.
reporting a high A:C ratio (52) to show Ultimately, the collection method used 5. Blanch P and Gabbett TJ. Has the athlete
a relationship to the likelihood of is often determined by availability and trained enough to return to play safely? The
injury. Further research within Austra- affordability. With this in mind, the acute: Chronic workload ratio permits
lian rules football also supports the sRPE and wellness questionnaire
clinicians to quantify a players risk of
notion that injury does not have a linear subsequent injury. Br J Sports Med 50:
methods afford an inexpensive and 471–475, 2016.
relationship to load and that sudden accurate method of measuring athlete
increases (spikes) in workload are more 6. Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator
load (57). This is an important consid- of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med 2:
significant (21). Here, the authors state eration for nonelite athletes and teams, 92–98, 1970.
that the total volume of high-speed as it provides an opportunity to mon-
running performed in a season did 7. Bouaziz T, Makni E, Passelergue P, Tabka
itor load without the need for expen- Z, Lac G, Moalla W, Chamari K, and Elloumi
not correlate with the incidence of sive devices and software. Whichever M. Multifactorial monitoring of training load
hamstring injury, whereas spikes in approach is taken, data should only be in elite rugby sevens players: Cortisol/
high-speed running volume did (21). collected if they will be used to inform cortisone ratio as a valid tool of training and
The authors suggest that a reduction training decisions and improve both load monitoring. Biol Sport 33: 231–239,
in high-speed running every 4 weeks athlete welfare and performance (72). 2016.
may prove beneficial to reducing injury The data collected must also be viewed 8. Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A,
rates (21). within the context of the current phase Gastin P, Kellmann M, Varley MC, Gabbett
TJ, Coutts AJ, Burgess DJ, Gregson W, and
It is important that an athlete is phys- of training, and to the individual need
Cable NT. Monitoring athlete training loads;
ically prepared for the demands of and physiology of the athlete. consensus statement. Int J Sports Physiol
training and sport through exposure Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: Perform 12(Suppl 2): 161–170, 2017.
to training loads, which both increase The author reports no conflicts of interest 9. Bowen L, Gross AS, Gimpel M, and Li FX.
performance and reduce injury (20,30). and no source of funding. Accumulated workloads and the acute:
This may be best achieved through Chronic workload ratio relate to injury risk in
moderate workloads, with an approxi- elite youth football players. Br J Sports Med
mately moderate increase in load, 51: 452–459, 2017.
which allows players to benefit from 10. Buchheit M. Applying the acute: Chronic
Chris Wing is an
a protective element of training workload ratio in elite football: Worth the
accredited
(30,45). The International Olympic effort? Br J Sports Med 51: 1325–1327,
strength and 2017.
Committee consensus statement sup-
conditioning
ports this ideology, and recommends 11. Buchheit M, Racinais S, Bilsborough JC,
coach currently Bourdon PC, Voss SC, Hocking J, Cordy J,
that gradual increases in load should
working within Mendez-Villanueva A, and Coutts AJ.
be applied to best avoid training spikes
state level sport in Monitoring fitness, fatigue and running
and their associated risk of injury (60).
Perth, Western performance during pre-season training
This should be achieved through fol- camp in elite football players. J Sci Med
Australia.
lowing correct loading patterns, indi- Sport 16: 550–555, 2013.
vidualization, and sound periodization 12. Castellano J, Casamichana D, Calleja-
principles (30,60). Gonzalez J, Roman JS, and Ostojic SM.
Reliability and accuracy of 10Hz GPS
REFERENCES
devices for short-distance exercise.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 1. Anderson L, Triplett-McBride T, Foster C,
J Sports Sci Med 10: 233–234, 2011.
Doberstein S, and Brice G. Impact of
Monitoring athlete load is an essential
training patterns on incidence of illness and 13. Cejuela-Anta R and Esteve-Lanao J.
part of successful programming and injury during a women’s collegiate Training load quantification in triathlon.
periodization. Ensuring that the ath- basketball season. J Strength Cond Res J Hum Sport Exerc 6: i–XV, 2011.
lete receives an appropriate training 17: 734–738, 2003. 14. Charlton P and Drew MK. Can We Think
dose, at the correct time, is essential 2. Aughey RJ. Applications of GPS About Training Loads Differently?
to build fitness and robustness (45,46) technologies to field sports. Int J Sports Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of
as well as reducing the incidence of Physiol Perform 6: 295–310, 2011. Sport, 2015.

37
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Monitoring Athlete Load

15. Clarke A and Schwab L. Practical 28. Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, sport specific running patterns. Int J Sports
considerations in the management of older Gottschall L, Hrovatin LA, Parker S, Physiol Perform 5: 328–341, 2010.
Australian rules football players. J Aust Doleshal P, and Dodge C. A new approach 41. Kellmann M and Kallus K. Recovery-Stress
Strength Cond 25: 20–23, 2017. to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Questionnaire for Athletes: User Manual.
16. Coutts AJ and Duffield R. Validity and Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2001.
reliability of GPS devices for measuring 29. Gabbett TJ. Reductions in pre-season 42. Loader J, Montgomery PG, Williams MD,
movement demands of team sports. J Sci training loads reduce training injury rates in Lorenzen C, and Kemp JG. Classifying
Med Sport 13: 133–135, 2010. rugby league players. Br J Sports Med 38: training drills based on movement
17. Cummins C, Orr R, O’Connor H, and West 743–749, 2004. demands in Australian football. Int J Sports
C. Global positioning systems (GPS) and 30. Gabbett TJ. The training injury prevention Sci Coach 7: 57–67, 2012.
microtechnology sensors in team sports: A paradox: Should athletes be training 43. Lucia A, Hoyos J, Santalla A, Earnest C,
systematic review. Sports Med 43: 1025– smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med 50: and Chicharro JL. Tour de France versus
1042, 2013. 273–280, 2016. Vuelta a Espana: Which is harder? Med
18. Dalen T, Ingebrigtsen J, Ettema G, Hjelde 31. Gabbett TJ and Domrow N. Relationships Sci Sports Exerc 35: 872–878, 2003.
GH, and Wisloff U. Player load, between training load, injury, and fitness in 44. Malone S and Collins K. Relationship
acceleration, and deceleration during forty- sub-elite collision sport athletes. J Sports between individualized training impulse
five competitive matches of elite soccer. Sci 25: 1507–1519, 2007. and aerobic fitness measures in hurling
J Strength Cond Res 30: 351–359, 2016. 32. Gabbett TJ, Hulin BT, Blanch P, and players across a training period. J Strength
19. Day ML, McGuigan MR, Brice G, and Whiteley R. High training workloads alone Cond Res 30: 3140–3145, 2016.
Foster C. Monitoring exercise intensity do not cause sports injuries: How you get 45. Malone S, Owen A, Newton M, Mendes B,
during resistance training using the session there is the real issue. Br J Sports Med 50: Collins KD, and Gabbett TJ. The acute:
RPE scale. J Strength Cond Res 18: 353– 444–445, 2016. chronic workload ratio in relation to injury
358, 2004. 33. Gabbett TJ and Jenkins DG. Relationship risk in professional soccer. J Sci Med Sport
20. Drew MK and Purdam C. Time to bin the between training load and injury in 20: 561–565, 2016.
term “overuse” injury: Is “training load professional rugby league players. J Sci 46. Malone S, Roe M, Doran DA, Gabbett TJ,
error” a more accurate term? Br J Sports Med Sport 14: 204–209, 2011. and Collins K. High chronic training loads
Med 50: 1423–1424, 2016. 34. Gabbett TJ, Nassis GP, Oetter E, Pretorius and exposure to bouts of maximal velocity
21. Duhig S, Shield AJ, Opar D, Gabbett TJ, J, Johnston N, Medina D, Rodas G, running reduce injury risk in elite Gaelic
Ferguson C, and Williams M. Effect of high Myslinski T, Howells D, Beard A, and Ryan Football. J Sci Med Sport 20: 250–254,
speed running on hamstring strain injury A. The athlete monitoring cycle: A practical 2017.
risk. Br J Sports Med 50: 1536–1540, guide to interpreting and applying training 47. Manzi V, Iellamo F, Impellizzeri F, D’Ottavio
2016. monitoring data. Br J Sports Med 51: S, and Castagna C. Relation between
22. Edmonds RC, Sinclair WH, and Leicht AS. 1451–1452, 2017. individualized training impulses and
Effect of a training week on heart rate 35. Halson SL. Monitoring training load to performance in distance runners. Med Sci
variability in elite youth rugby league understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med Sports Exerc 41: 2090–2096, 2009.
players. Int J Sports Med 34: 1087–1092, 44(Suppl 2): s139–s147, 2014. 48. McGuigan MR, Egan AD, and Foster C.
2013. 36. Herman L, Foster C, Maher MA, Mikat RP, Salivary cortisol responses and perceived
23. Edwards S. High performance training and and Porcari JP. Validity and reliability of the exertion during high intensity and low
racing. In: The Heart Rate Monitor Book. session RPE method for monitoring intensity bouts of resistance exercise.
Edwards S, ed. Sacramento, CA: Feet exercise training intensity. South Afr J J Sports Sci Med 3: 8–15, 2004.
Fleet Press, pp. 113–123, 1993. Sports Med 18: 14–17, 2006. 49. McNair P, Lorr M, and Droppleman L.
24. Elloumi M, Makni E, Moalla W, Bouaziz T, 37. Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Blanch P, Chapman POMS Manual (2nd ed). San Diego, CA:
Tabka Z, Lac G, and Chamari K. Monitoring P, Bailey D, and Orchard JW. Spikes in Education and Industrial Testing Service,
training load and fatigue in Rugby Sevens acute workload are associated with 1981.
players. Asian J Sports Med 3: 175–184, increased injury risk in elite cricket fast 50. Microsoft office. Define and solve a problem
2012. bowlers. Br J Sports Med 48: 708–712, by using Solver, 2017. Available at:
25. Fleck SJ and Kraemer WJ. Designing 2014. https://support.office.com/en/article/
Resistance Training Programs (4th ed). 38. Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Lawson DW, Caputi Define-and-solve-a-problem-by-using-
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. pp. 7, P, and Sampson JA. The acute:chronic Solver-9ed03c9f-7caf-4d99-bb6d-
2014. workload ratio predicts injury: High chronic 078f96d1652c. Accessed December
26. Fortington LV, Berry J, Buttifant D, Ullah S, workload may decrease injury risk in elite 20, 2017.
Diamantopoulou K, and Finch CF. Shorter rugby league players. Br J Sports Med 50: 51. Moreira A, Crewther B, Freitas CG, Arruda
time to first injury in first year professional 231–236, 2016. AFS, Costa EC, and Aoki MS. Session
football players: A cross-club comparison 39. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Coutts AJ, RPE and salivary immune-endocrine
in the Australian Football League. J Sci Sassi A, and Marcora SM. Use of RPE- responses to stimulated and official
Med Sport 19: 18–23, 2016. based training load in soccer. Med Sci basketball matches in elite young male
27. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes Sports Exerc 36: 1042–1047, 2004. athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 52:
with reference to overtraining syndrome. 40. Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd L, 682–687, 2012.
Med Sci Sport Exerc 30: 1164–1168, and Aughey RJ. The validity and reliability of 52. Murray NB, Gabbett TJ, Townshend AD,
1998. GPS units for measuring distance in team Hulin BT, and McLellan CP. Individual and

38 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 combined effects of acute and chronic football: A comparison of the CR10 and 66. Turner AN, Bishop C, Springham M, and
running loads on injury risk in elite CR100 scales. J Strength Cond Res 27: Stewart P. Identifying readiness to train:
Australian footballers. Scand J Med Sci 270–276, 2013. When to push and when to pull. Prof
Sports 27: 990–998, 2017. Strength Cond 42: 9–14, 2016.
60. Soligard T, Schwellnus M, Alonso JM, Bahr
53. Padilla S, Mujika I, Orbananos J, R, Clarsen B, Dijkstra HP, Gabbett TJ, 67. Turner AN and Jeffreys I. The stretch-
Santisteban J, Angulo F, and Jose Goiriena Gleeson M, Hägglund M, Hutchinson MR, shortening cycle: Proposed mechanisms
J. Exercise intensity and load during mass- Van Rensburg CJ, Khan KM, Meeusen R, and methods for enhancement. Strength
start stage races in professional road Orchard JW, Pluim BM, Raftery M, Budgett Cond J 32: 87–99, 2010.
cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 796– R, and Engebretsen L. How much is too 68. Varley MC, Fairweather IH, and Aughey RJ.
802, 2001. much? (Part 1) International Olympic Validity and reliability of GPS for measuring
54. Paulson TA, Mason B, Rhodes J, and Committee consensus statement on load in instantaneous velocity during acceleration,
Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Individualized internal sport and risk of injury. Br J Sports Med 50: deceleration, and constant motion.
and external training load relationships in 1030–1041, 2016. J Sports Sci 30: 121–127, 2012.
elite wheelchair rugby players. Front
61. Stagno KM, Thatcher R, and van Someren 69. Wallace LK, Slattery KM, and Coutts AJ.
Physiol 6: 1–7, 2015.
KA. A modified TRIMP to quantify the in- The ecological validity and application of
55. Petersen C, Pyne D, Portus M, and season training load of team sport players. the session-RPE method for quantifying
Dawson B. Validity and reliability of GPS J Sports Sci 25: 629–634, 2007. training loads in swimming. J Strength
units to monitor cricket specific movement
62. Sweet TW, Foster C, McGuigan MR, and Cond Res 23: 33–38, 2009.
patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4:
381–393, 2009. Brice G. Quantitation of resistance training 70. Watson A, Brickson S, Brooks A, and Dunn
using the session rating of perceived W. Subjective well-being and training load
56. Saw AE, Main LC, and Gastin PB.
exertion method. J Strength Cond Res 18: predict in-season injury and illness risk in
Monitoring athletes through self-report:
796–802, 2004. female youth soccer players. Br J Sports
Factors influencing implementation. J Sport
63. Thornton HR, Delaney JA, Duthie GM, Med 51: 194–199, 2017.
Sci Med 14: 137–146, 2015.
Scott BR, Chivers WJ, Santuary CE, and 71. Weaving D, Marshall P, Earle K, Nevill A,
57. Saw AE, Main LC, and Gastin PB.
Dascombe BJ. Predicting self reported and Abt G. Combining internal- and
Monitoring the athlete training response:
illness for professional team sport athletes. external-training-load measures in
Subjective self-reported measures trump
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 11: 543–550, professional rugby league. Int J Sports
commonly used objective measures: A
systematic review. Br J Sports Med 50, 2016. Physiol Perform 9: 905–912, 2014.
281–291, 2016. 64. Thorpe RT, Strudwick AJ, Buchheit M, 72. Williams S, Trewartha G, Cross MJ, Kemp
58. Scott BR, Lockie RG, Knight TJ, Clark AC, Atkinson G, Drust B, and Gregson W. SPT, and Stokes KA. Monitoring what
and Janse De Jong XA. A comparison of Tracking morning fatigue status across in- matters: A systematic process for selecting
methods to quantify the in season training season training weeks in elite soccer training-load measures. Int J Sports Physiol
load of professional soccer players. Int J players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 11: Perform 12: S2101–S2106, 2017.
Sports Physiol Perform 8: 195–202, 947–952, 2016. 73. Williams S and Weaving D. Load
2013. 65. Turner A, Bishop C, Marshall G, and Read monitoring workshop. World Rugby
59. Scott TJ, Black CR, Quinn J, and Coutts AJ. P. How to monitor training load and mode Science Network Conference. University of
Validity and reliability of the session-RPE using sRPE. Prof Strength Cond 39: 15– Bath, United Kingdom, September 12,
method for quantifying training in Australian 20, 2015. 2017.

39
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.