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

net/publication/314400296

Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load in

professional Dutch Eredivisie football players

Article · March 2017

DOI: 10.1080/24733938.2017.1282163

CITATIONS READS

35 1,539

4 authors, including:

Tom Stevens Geert J Savelsbergh

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
7 PUBLICATIONS 196 CITATIONS 313 PUBLICATIONS 6,356 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peter J Beek
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
455 PUBLICATIONS 14,654 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Improving mobility and standing balance in Parkinson’s disease through circuit class training: Effects on clinical outcomes, posturography and brain connectivity View
project

Statusmonitoring of elite athletes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter J Beek on 04 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Science and Medicine in Football

ISSN: 2473-3938 (Print) 2473-4446 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsmf20

Quantification of in-season training load relative

to match load in professional Dutch Eredivisie
football players

Tom G. A. Stevens, Cornelis J. de Ruiter, Jos W. R. Twisk, Geert J. P.

Savelsbergh & Peter J. Beek

To cite this article: Tom G. A. Stevens, Cornelis J. de Ruiter, Jos W. R. Twisk, Geert J. P.
Savelsbergh & Peter J. Beek (2017) Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load
in professional Dutch Eredivisie football players, Science and Medicine in Football, 1:2, 117-125,
DOI: 10.1080/24733938.2017.1282163

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2017.1282163

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 03 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 902

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsmf20
SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL, 2017
VOL. 1, NO. 2, 117–125
https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2017.1282163

Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load in professional

Dutch Eredivisie football players
Tom G. A. Stevensa,b, Cornelis J. de Ruitera, Jos W. R. Twiskc, Geert J. P. Savelsbergha,d and Peter J. Beeka
a
Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MOVE Research
Institute Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Sport Science, Amsterdamsche Football Club Ajax, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; cDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; dFaculty of Sports and
Nutrition, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Objectives: The aims of this study were (1) to quantify and compare the load of a professional football Accepted 16 December 2016
team's training days and matches and (2) to compare training of nonstarters the day after the match
KEYWORDS
with regular training of starters and nonstarters. Elite soccer; nonstarters;
Methods: On-field training load during in-season training days (categorized as days before match day, i.e., external load; acceleration;
MD minus) and 3 friendly matches were recorded using alocal positioning measurement system. metabolic power;
Results: Mixed linear models showed lower load when training approached match day. Relative to match time-motion
values (100%), training values for running (52 -20%; MD-4 -MD-1) and high-speed running (38 -15%) were
lower than for total distance (67 -35%), and all considerably lower than match values. On average,
medium and high accelerations and decelerations during training were more similar to match values
(90 -39%). Load during nonstarters training was lower than during regular training for almost all variables
on MD-4 and several high-intensity variables on MD-3 and MD-2.
Conclusions: The results highlight that acceleration and deceleration measures complement more
commonly used external load variables based on distance and speed. Furthermore, nonstarters are
potentially under-loaded compared to starters, especially in terms of (high-speed) running.

Introduction Indeed, numerous studies have provided detailed informa-

tion about the external load of elite football players during
In team sports, the daily monitoring of training and match
matches (see Sarmento et al. 2014 for a review), including
load can help coaches and practitioners to plan, structure,
acceleration and metabolic variables (Osgnach et al. 2010;
evaluate and therewith optimize their training process
Varley & Aughey 2013; Russell et al. 2014; Wehbe et al. 2014;
(Borresen & Lambert 2009). Recently, it has, for example,
Ingebrigtsen et al. 2015; Dalen et al. 2016), since these vari-
been reported that increased 1–2-weekly cumulative training
ables have been considered both metabolically and mechani-
loads and week-to-week changes in training load led to
cally relevant (Greig et al. 2006; Stevens et al. 2015). Only
increased injury risks in Australian Football (Rogalski et al.
recently, however, several studies have described the in-sea-
2013). The quantification of training and match load can there-
son training periodization practices of elite football teams in
fore aid to decrease injuries and optimize performance in
detail, including a comparison of training days within weekly
team sport athletes (Cummins et al. 2013).
micro-cycles (Akenhead, Harley, & Tweddle, 2016; Malone et al.
Due to the increased use of contemporary tracking tech-
2015; Anderson et al. 2016). Malone et al. (2015) found that
nologies, professional clubs can now easily collect objective
only the last training before the match differed from the other
internal (physiological) and external (physical) load variables
training days on several internal and external load variables,
of players during both training and match play (Buchheit
but they did not include accelerations and metabolic power
et al. 2014b). Several of these load variables have been
estimations because the accuracy of GPS measurements of
linked to subjective ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) in
high-intensity velocity changes is limited (Akenhead et al.
football (Gaudino et al. 2015) and other team sports (Lovell
2014; Buchheit et al. 2014a). Nevertheless, Akenhead et al.
et al. 2013; Gallo et al. 2015). However, a combination of
(2016) used GPS and reported that when the training session
variables predicted RPE better than any variable alone in
was closer to match day distance ran while accelerating and
rugby (Lovell et al. 2013). This may indicate that multiple
decelerating followed a similar decrease as total distance and
objective external and internal load variables should be
distance ran at high speeds. However, to date no study has
included in order to accurately describe the physical and
described the number of accelerations and decelerations nor
physiological demands of team sports in general and foot-
the metabolic demands of whole training sessions. Moreover,
ball in particular (Buchheit et al. 2015; Casamichana &
since training and match are usually measured with different
Castellano 2015).

CONTACT Tom G. A. Stevens [email protected]

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
118 T. G. A. STEVENS ET AL.

tracking systems, no study so far has directly compared these games, finishing drills and running drills for the whole team.
demands between training sessions and matches. As a result, Players that did not finish the whole training session were
the load of training sessions relative to matches remains excluded. Match data (excluding warming-up) were collected
unclear. for 2 friendly matches (2 × 45 min) and 1 training match
Therefore, the first aim of the present study was to quantify (2 × 30 min) using the same LPM system. Individual observa-
and compare the external and internal load, including accel- tions were included if players played at least 60 min. Match
erations, decelerations and metabolic demands, of a profes- values were then recalculated to 90 min. Out of a total of 1029
sional football team’s typical training days and matches, individual training and match observations (median = 39.5;
measured with the same highly accurate local positioning range = 3–55), 43 observations (4.2%) contained invalid time-
measurement (LPM) system. We hypothesized that training motion data and 185 observations (18.0%) contained invalid
load is lower on training days closer to the next match. heart rate data due to technical issues with equipment and
Furthermore, because training sessions usually include exer- therefore these data could not be included.
cises played in relatively small areas, we hypothesize that, The team that took part in the study often played 2
compared to matches, the values during training are higher matches per week due to participation in domestic cup and
for accelerations and decelerations compared to the tradi- European competition. This irregular match schedule led to
tional used total distance and distance ran at high speeds. various types of micro-cycles with different numbers of (full)
Additionally, nonstarters that do not or just briefly play in the days between matches (12 × 2, 14 × 3, 2 × 4, 2 × 5, 9 × 6, 1 × 8
match often have an extra training session the day after the and 1 × 9). Consequently a “typical” week (usually regarded as
match, when starters have a recovery session. However, since 1 match per week with 6 full days between matches) is
the number of nonstarters is usually low, this may affect the difficult to define for top teams playing in multiple competi-
organization and thereby the content and load of this extra tions. We therefore classified training sessions based on the
session. Therefore, the second aim of this study was to com- number of days before match day (i.e., MD minus) (Malone
pare these extra training sessions of nonstarters with regular et al. 2015). For example, MD-2 means that this session took
training sessions of the whole team (starters and nonstarters). place 2 days before match day.
Since the extra nonstarters training offers a possibility to The second day after the match was usually a day off for
compensate in load for the missed match, we hypothesize the team under investigation (except for the micro-cycle
that the training sessions of nonstarters have at least a similar with 2 full days between matches). As a result, there were
load compared to regular training sessions. only 2 micro-cycles (8 and 9 full days) that contained regular
training sessions that took place more than 4 days before
the next match; these 3 training sessions were excluded
Methods from analysis. Regular training sessions (44 in total) were
Participants subsequently categorized as MD-4, MD-3, MD-2 and MD-1.
Nonstarters training sessions (32 in total) were also categor-
Twenty-eight elite outfield football players of a Dutch ized as MD-4, MD-3 and MD-2. Because there is a minimum
Eredivisie team (mean ± SD: 21.9 ± 3.2 years, 182 ± 7 cm, of 2 full days between matches, the nonstarters training
76 ± 7 kg) took part in this study. Players approved the use of session – always the day after the match – will never take
training and match data for the purpose of the present study place on MD-1. In addition, for the nonstarters there were
by written consent. The study was approved by the Ethics only 2 training sessions classified as MD-4. Therefore, also
Committee Human Movement Sciences of the Vrije sessions that took place more than 4 days before the next
Universiteit Amsterdam. match (8×MD-6 and 1×MD-8) where included in the non-
starters MD-4 category. All these sessions (MD-4, MD-6 and
MD-8) where expected to have a similar (high) training load
Design
since, different from MD-3 and MD-2, there was no need to
Training load data were collected for outfield players using a taper for the upcoming match.
LPM system (specifications below) during the 2014–2015 in-
season. Both preseasons (summer and winter) and training
Data collection and data analysis
sessions during the FIFA International Match Calendar were
excluded. Training sessions that were not on the home ground Players’ physical activity of training and test matches was
outdoor training pitches (104 m × 65 m) – such as 20 sessions measured with a LPM system (version 05.91T; Inmotiotec
at the home stadium the day before a match and 8 sessions GmbH, Regau, Austria). LPM data sampled at 31 Hz or higher
before and after matches abroad – were not recorded. Two were filtered (integrated “weighted Gaussian average” filter set
training sessions were not fully recorded due to technical at 85%; speed frame interval set at 50 ms) using Inmotio
issues with the monitoring system and therefore excluded software (version 3.7.0.152; Inmotiotec GmbH, Regau,
from analysis. All remaining main team training sessions (reg- Austria). Recently, the LPM system showed acceptable accu-
ular training, including starters and nonstarters) and training racy for measures of speed and mean acceleration and decel-
sessions the day after the match (nonstarters training) were eration for intermittent activities (Stevens et al. 2014).
analysed. All training sessions included a warming-up and Integrated metabolic power calculation, based on the equa-
either combination of technical drills, passing drills, small- tion of Di Prampero et al. (2005), which was extended by
and large-sided games with or without goalkeepers, tactical Osgnach et al. (2010) for use in team sports, was employed
 SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 119

to estimate metabolic power and therewith energy expendi- easily deal with unbalanced designs, repeated measures and
ture. Adjustable terrain factor (KT) and energy cost of constant missing data. To examine inter-day differences of regular train-
running on flat terrain (in J ∙ kg−1 ∙ m−1) were set at 1.05 and ing sessions and matches, a 3-level linear mixed model was
4.0, respectively (Sassi et al. 2011; Stevens et al. 2015). used. Single training sessions were clustered within MD minus
Variables selected for analysis were training duration (min), (i.e., days before the next match) and the observations of MD
total distance (m), estimated energy expenditure (kJ · kg−1), minus were clustered within players. MD minus was entered to
running (14.4–19.8 km · h−1) distance (m), high-speed running the linear mixed model as a categorical independent variable
(>19.8 km · h−1) distance (m) and distance (m) producing high in order to estimate the difference in the outcomes between
power (>20 W · kg−1), in which high power is assumed to the different days before the match. To examine differences
reflect mainly anaerobic activities (Osgnach et al. 2010). between regular training and nonstarters training sessions 3
Additionally, the number of medium (1.5–3.0 m · s−2) and similar 3-level linear mixed models were used (separate mod-
high (>3.0 m · s−2) acceleration and medium (-1.5 to els for MD-4, MD-3 and MD-2), but in this case training mode
-3.0 m · s−2) and high (<-3.0 m · s−2) decelerations were (regular vs. nonstarters training) was entered as independent
selected for analysis. Acceleration thresholds were close to variable to the model. Significance was set at P < .05.
those suggested by Johnston et al. (2014). Accelerations and
decelerations had to last at least 0.5 s (Dalen et al. 2016).
Furthermore, accelerations were only included when they Results
resulted in velocities above 2.78 m · s−1 (= 10.0 km · h−1) Inter-day differences of regular training
during the acceleration phase, whereas decelerations were
only included when they started above and ended below a Descriptive data (mean ± SD) of match, regular training and
velocity of 2.78 m · s−1. These velocity thresholds were applied nonstarters training are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 pre-
to only include real accelerations and decelerations of intense sents the results of the mixed linear model analysis; it
whole-body movements, and therewith to exclude “fake” shows estimated training load variables of each regular
accelerations that were solely the result of upper-body move- training day expressed as a percentage of estimated
ments, as checked visually from video footage. Heart rate was match values. Match was significantly different from all
measured using LPM-integrated Polar Wearlink® technology training days for all variables, except duration, which was
(Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The highest heart rate not significantly different between match and MD-4. In
measured during either Yo-Yo IR2 tests, training sessions or general, training load variables declined when match day
test matches was designated as the player’s maximum heart approached (MD-4 > MD-3 > MD-2 > MD-1).
rate. Finally, time spent above 90%HRmax, generally accepted Relative to match values (100%), training values for total
as an average threshold needed to maintain and improve distance were between 67% and 35% (range MD-4–MD-1;
aerobic endurance in elite team sport athletes (Hoff et al. Figure 1). Lower values were found for running (52–20%)
2002; Owen et al. 2011), was included as a measure of internal and especially high-speed running (38–15%). On average,
(cardiovascular) load. medium and high accelerations and decelerations during
training were more similar to match values (90–39%).
Figure 2 shows the estimated cumulative load per variable
during a typical week consisting of 1 recovery training (not
Statistics
recorded), a day off, 4 consecutive training days and a match.
Linear mixed modelling (MLwiN, version 2.22) (Goldstein 2003) All values were expressed as the number of matches equalling
was used for data analysis as this statistical technique can this load. As can be seen, the total weekly load (including

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of training load variables of match, regular training, and nonstarters training (mean ± SD).
Regular training (starters and nonstarters) Nonstarters training (MD+1)
Match MD-4 MD-3 MD-2 MD-1 MD-4 MD-3 MD-2
# sessions 3 6 9 14 15 11 12 9
# players per session 18 ± 6 19 ± 2 19 ± 3 18 ± 2 8±3 8±3 10 ± 2
N total (time-motion/HR) 38 (37/33) 92 (91/72) 152 (143/131) 242 (231/210) 257 (253/215) 69 (67/54) 88 (86/65) 78 (78/64)
Duration (min) 90 ± 0 a 88 ± 11 82 ± 7 77 ± 12 59 ± 7 85 ± 13 82 ± 8 82 ± 11
Total distance (m) 10927 ± 619 7267 ± 913 6120 ± 1188 5219 ± 881 3848 ± 454 6022 ± 993 5775 ± 986 5455 ± 825
EE (kJ · kg−1) 58 ± 3 40 ± 6 33 ± 6 29 ± 5 21 ± 2 33 ± 5 32 ± 4 30 ± 4
Time >90%HRmax (min) 22 ± 18 17 ± 10 4±6 4±5 3±4 9±9 6±6 4±4
RUN (m) 1614 ± 320 834 ± 169 692 ± 219 510 ± 156 328 ± 101 372 ± 137 349 ± 129 383 ± 148
HSR (m) 738 ± 244 249 ± 85 281 ± 134 175 ± 108 106 ± 53 291 ± 267 105 ± 115 75 ± 47
# medium ACC 165 ± 25 131 ± 31 82 ± 25 81 ± 21 55 ± 13 88 ± 19 79 ± 18 84 ± 15
# high ACC 61 ± 14 66 ± 18 44 ± 13 45 ± 15 26 ± 8 38 ± 12 35 ± 12 40 ± 14
# medium DEC 111 ± 19 98 ± 23 64 ± 18 65 ± 17 44 ± 10 69 ± 15 65 ± 15 67 ± 14
# high DEC 58 ± 14 49 ± 16 30 ± 11 29 ± 11 23 ± 8 26 ± 11 27 ± 11 27 ± 8
HP (m) 2472 ± 315 1363 ± 266 1066 ± 335 854 ± 242 565 ± 124 951 ± 297 750 ± 181 741 ± 173
a
match values have been recalculated to 90 min; mean ± SD values are based on all included samples, including repeated measures of individual players; note that
the nonstarters MD-4 training also includes training sessions with more than 4 days to the next match.
MD-4: training session 4 days before Match Day (MD); HR: heart rate; EE: estimated energy expenditure; RUN: running (14.4–19.8 km · h−1); HSR: high-speed running
(>19.8 km · h−1); ACC: accelerations (medium: 1.5–3.0 m · s−2; high: >3.0 m · s−2); DEC: decelerations (medium: -1.5 to -3.0 m · s−2; high: <-3.0 m · s−2); HP: high
power (>20 W · kg−1).
120 T. G. A. STEVENS ET AL.

Figure 1. Estimated training load variables of typical training days expressed as a percentage of estimated match values.
Values above the horizontal line represent the estimated full match values for each variable (=100%); error bars of training days indicate 95% confidence interval of
the mean difference between each estimated training day and estimated match, expressed as a relative match value. Error bars of the match indicate 95%
confidence interval of the estimated match value, expressed as a relative match value.
Abbreviations: MD-4 = training session 4 days before match day (MD); EE = estimated energy expenditure; HR = heart rate; RUN = running (14.4–19.8 km · h−1);
HSR = high-speed running (>19.8 km · h−1); ACC = accelerations (medium: 1.5–3.0 m · s−2; high: >3.0 m · s−2); DEC = decelerations (medium: -1.5 to -3.0 m · s−2;
high: <-3.0 m · s−2); HP = high power (>20 W · kg−1).
Estimated match and training session means are different from each other unless indicated by: a = not different from match, b = not different from MD-4, c = not
different from MD-3, d = not different from MD-2, e = not different from MD-1.

Figure 2. Cumulative weekly training load of a typical week with 1 match and 4 subsequent training sessions (MD-4, MD-3, MD-2 and MD-1) expressed as number of
matches per variable.
A typical week with 1 match was considered to be a week with a recovery training (day after the match; not recorded), a day off, 4 subsequent training sessions
(MD-4, MD-3, MD-2 and MD-1) and a match.
Abbreviations: MD-4 = training session 4 days before match day (MD); EE = estimated energy expenditure; HR = heart rate; RUN = running (14.4–
19.8 km · h−1); HSR = high-speed running (>19.8 km · h−1); ACC = accelerations (medium: 1.5–3.0 m · s−2; high: >3.0 m · s−2); DEC = decelerations (medium:
-1.5 to -3.0 m · s−2; high: <-3.0 m · s−2); HP = high power (>20 W · kg−1).
 SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 121

Figure 3. Estimated training load variables of regular and nonstarters training days expressed as a percentage of estimated match values.
Values above the horizontal line represent the estimated full match values for each variable (=100%); note that the nonstarters MD-4 training also includes training
sessions with more than 4 days to the next match.
Abbreviations: Regular = regular training session; non-start = nonstarters training session 1 day after match day (MD); MD-4 = training session 4 days before MD;
EE = estimated energy expenditure; HR = heart rate; RUN = running (14.4–19.8 km · h−1); HSR = high-speed running (>19.8 km · h−1); ACC = accelerations (medium:
1.5–3.0 m · s−2; high: >3.0 m · s−2); DEC = decelerations (medium: -1.5 to -3.0 m · s−2; high: <-3.0 m · s−2); HP = high power (>20 W · kg−1).
Regular and nonstarters training are different from each other when indicated by * (P < 0.05) or ** (P < 0.001).

training sessions and match) was higher for acceleration vari- and -57 ± 33%), high accelerations (-20 ± 10% and -10 ± 9%)
ables (3.1–3.9 matches) compared to running (2.5 matches) and high power (-30 ± 10% and -13 ± 8%). Figure 4(a) shows
and high-speed running (2.1 matches). that nonstarters have on average a lower estimated total
load than starters during a typical week with 1 match, espe-
cially on running (-31%), high-speed running (-29%), high
Regular training versus nonstarters training power (-24%) and time above 90%HRmax (-30%). During
weeks with 2 matches a week nonstarters show even less
Nonstarters training on the day after the match showed
total load, with for time above 90%HRmax, running distance
significantly lower values on MD-4 than regular training on
and high-speed running distance on average less than a full
MD-4 for almost all training load variables, while training
match (Figure 4(b)).
duration was not significantly different (Figure 3).
Considerably lower values were found for nonstarters train-
ing compared to regular training for total distance (mean
Discussion
difference ± 95% CI = -17 ± 5%), energy expenditure
(-18 ± 5%), but especially time spent above 90%HRmax In the present study, we objectively quantified and com-
(-52 ± 35%), running (-55 ± 13%), medium (-33 ± 9%) and pared the load of an elite football team’s typical training
high (-42 ± 12%) accelerations, medium (-29 ± 8%) and high days and matches. Consistent with our hypothesis, training
(-46 ± 15%) decelerations and high power (-30 ± 9%). Lower load in general decreased when match day approached.
values for nonstarters training compared to regular training Furthermore, as expected, the number of medium and
were also found on MD-3 and MD-2 for running (-49 ± 14% high accelerations and decelerations during training were
and -25 ± 10%, respectively), high-speed running (-62 ± 32% in general closer to whole match values than total
122 T. G. A. STEVENS ET AL.

Figure 4. Cumulative weekly load for starters and nonstarters during a typical week with 1 match (A) and 2 matches (B) expressed as number of matches per
variable.
A typical week with 1 match (A) was considered to be a week starting with a recovery training for the starters (not recorded) and a nonstarters training session for
the nonstarters (MD+1), followed by a day off, 4 subsequent training sessions (MD-4, MD-3, MD-2 and MD-1) and a match (only for starters). A typical week with 2
matches (B) consisted of 2 recovery sessions (starters) or 2 MD+1 sessions (nonstarters), 2 MD‒1 sessions, 2 matches (only for starters) and a day off.
Abbreviations: Regular = regular training session; non-start = nonstarters training session 1 day after match day (MD); MD‒4 = training session 4 days before MD; EE
= estimated energy expenditure; HR = heart rate; RUN = running (14.4‒19.8 km · h‒1); HSR = high‒speed running (>19.8 km · h‒1); ACC = accelerations (medium:
1.5‒3.0 m · s‒2; high: >3.0 m · s‒2); DEC = decelerations (medium: ‒1.5 to ‒3.0 m · s‒2; high: <‒3.0 m · s‒2); HP = high power (>20 W · kg‒1).

distance, running and high-speed running. This highlights training of the week (MD-4 and MD-3, respectively). Malone
the importance of quantifying accelerations and decelera- et al. (2015) found no differences in training load between the
tions in addition to the more traditional external load first 3 training sessions of the week. Altogether these results
variables. Moreover, in this study we compared training indicate that differences exist in the distribution of training
sessions of nonstarters (the day after the match) with load between high-level football teams, especially in the mid-
regular training sessions of the whole team (starters and dle (MD-5, MD-4, MD-3) of a full training week.
nonstarters). In contrast to our hypothesis, the nonstarters To fairly compare our data with other studies that assessed
training showed in general lower values than regular train- the in-season training load of full sessions in top-level leagues
ing, especially on MD-4, contributing to a lower weekly of professional football (Akenhead et al., 2016; Scott et al.
total load for nonstarters than starters. 2013; Malone et al. 2015; Anderson et al. 2016), we used the
Several studies involving English Premier League teams averages of the 4 training days in our study. Average training
have also found that during a typical week – 6 full days duration (77 min), total distance (5614 m), running (591 m)
between matches – the last day before the match (MD-1) and high-speed running (203 m) were high in the range of, or
has usually the lowest load (Akenhead et al., 2016; Malone even somewhat higher than, what other teams demonstrated
et al. 2015; Anderson et al. 2016). However, whereas our study (65–76 min, 3898–5667 m, 220–412 m and 41–205 m, respec-
showed the highest training load on the first training of the tively) (Akenhead et al., 2016; Scott et al. 2013; Malone et al.
week (MD-4), both Akenhead et al. (2016) and Anderson et al. 2015; Anderson et al. 2016). To date, as far as we are aware, no
(2016) showed the highest training load for the second other studies have reported the number of accelerations or
 SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 123

decelerations or metabolic power variables during full training although energy expenditure would potentially be a better
sessions. Time spent above 90%HRmax during training encom- indicator of total workload than distance covered (Polglaze
passed 8% (28 min) of total weekly training time, which is et al. 2016), in the present study estimated energy expendi-
comparable to the 7% (21 min per week) found by Akenhead ture provided very similar information as total distance cov-
et al. (2016). However, the time spent above 90%HRmax in our ered during training (Pearson’s correlation = 0.99).
study was rather low on MD-3, MD-2 and MD-1 (3–4 min) It can be very valuable to express training load data against
compared to MD-4 (17 min) and match value (23 min), assum- the match reference, since this facilitates the interpretation of
ing limited aerobic conditioning on the last 3 days preceding the data, and hence the training prescription as well as the
the match. Therefore, it appears that during in-season, when communication between practitioners, coaches and players. As
players have to peak frequently in competition (1–2 times a far as we know, this is the first study that directly compares
week), matches actually form the most important physiologi- professional football players’ training load to match load mea-
cal stimulus. There seems only time for extra physiological sured with the same accurate tracking system. We acknowledge
conditioning during the middle of full-week micro-cycles, that, because we could only use data of test matches played on
since the other days are too close to the match and therefore the home training ground, the match sample size is rather small.
would most likely either hinder physiological adaptations or However, 37 individual samples were still used to estimate
cause prematch fatigue (Issurin 2010). external load variables. Nevertheless, match activity based on
The average total distance ran during the matches in our samples of less than 90 min that are extrapolated to 90 min
study (10,927 m) reflected that of top-level leagues in Europe could possibly overestimate full match activity. However, when
and Australia (range 10,063–11,230 m) (Bradley et al. 2010, we extrapolate 60 min match samples to 90 min and compare
2013; Osgnach et al. 2010; Manzi et al. 2014; Wehbe et al. those to the measured data in studies that divided their 90 min
2014; Ingebrigtsen et al. 2015; Dalen et al. 2016). Also running data in 15 min bins (Mohr et al. 2003; Bradley et al. 2009;
(14.4–19.8 km · h−1) distance and high-speed running Akenhead et al. 2013; Russell et al. 2014) we see that extrapola-
(>19.8 km · h−1) distance were within the range of the same tion leads to an overestimation of complete match data of about
top-level leagues (1614 m vs. 1612–1758 m and 738 m vs. 4% for measures of total distance, high-speed running distance
646–1061 m, respectively). While the estimated energy expen- and acceleration and deceleration. Moreover, in our study, the
diture of matches in our study (~58 kJ · kg−1 above resting) inclusion of these 22 samples of less than 90 min led to values
was close to the values reported for the Italian Serie A (60– for the internal and external load variables that were only about
61 kJ · kg−1) (Osgnach et al. 2010; Manzi et al. 2014), distance 2% higher (ranging from -0.1% for running to 4.6% for medium
at high power was somewhat lower (2480 m vs. deceleration) compared to our samples (N = 15) of complete
2712–2839 m). Nevertheless, the above comparisons show (90 min) matches. Therefore, data from the literature as well as
that the matches in the present study are representative for the present study indicate that potential inaccuracies caused by
matches in top-level leagues. the extrapolation were small and certainly do not affect our
It is difficult to compare our acceleration data of the main outcomes and conclusions.
matches with literature, since currently there is little consensus To facilitate the interpretation of training and match
regarding the use of acceleration thresholds in team sports data, we also believe that it is preferable to use the number
(Johnston et al. 2014). Whereas our study showed the total of accelerations rather than distance in a corresponding
number of accelerations and decelerations above 1.5 m · s−2 acceleration zone, particularly because these 2 variables
(226 and 169, respectively) and 3.0 m · s−2 (61 and 58), other provide rather similar information, as in our study
studies that considered matches in elite leagues (Bradley et al. (Pearson’s correlation = 0.88–0.92). Since the beginning of
2010; Varley & Aughey 2013; Russell et al. 2014; Wehbe et al. the 2015–2016 seasons FIFA allows the use of electronic
2014; Ingebrigtsen et al. 2015; Dalen et al. 2016) used absolute tracking of players during official matches. Future research
thresholds of 0.5, 2.0, 2.5, 2.78, 3.0 and 4.0 m · s−2. It is should focus on a comparison of acceleration demands
important to realize that even if there was agreement, com- between training sessions and official matches measured
parison between acceleration variables measured with differ- with the same tracking system. Also position-specific pro-
ent tracking systems (and system versions) would be difficult files should be taken into account, although the implica-
(Buchheit et al. 2014b). We believe that the thresholds used in tions of these differences for training prescription are as of
our study, which are close to those proposed by Johnston yet unclear (Carling 2013).
et al. (2014), led to meaningful (whole-body) accelerations In the present study, we also compared nonstarters train-
and decelerations for data collected with the LPM system. ing sessions with regular training sessions. Although we
The usefulness of metabolic power variables estimated realize that the outcomes might be highly specific for the
using time-motion data has recently been a topic of debate team under investigation, we believe that the finding that
(Buchheit et al. 2015; Osgnach et al. 2016). We acknowledge the loads in these nonstarters sessions was generally lower
that care should be taken using both estimated energy expen- than regular training load is important, as it highlights the
diture as well as the (arbitrarily chosen) distance ran at high general risk for under-loading nonstarters. During a typical
power (>20 W · kg−1) as measures for external load, especially week with 1 match nonstarters showed on average a lower
when applied at an individual level (Stevens et al. 2016). total load than starters (up to ~30% less for running and
Currently, energy expenditure is underestimated, even when high-speed running), even though we did not include the
measured with a highly accurate LPM system, and most likely starters’ match warming-up and (low-intensity) recovery ses-
even more when using GPS (Stevens et al. 2015). Moreover, sion. Interestingly, compared to starters, nonstarters spent
124 T. G. A. STEVENS ET AL.

significantly greater time above 90%HRmax on MD-3, while Disclosure statement

several external load variables were lower. One might spec-
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ulate that the smaller number of players in the nonstarters
training (~9 vs. ~18 in regular training) induces an increase
of ball touches, dribbles (Owen et al. 2011) and duels (Owen
et al. 2014). This could increase the internal load due to a References
higher need for coordination (ball control) and static Akenhead R, French D, Thompson KG, Hayes PR. 2014. The acceleration
strength (duels), not reflected by the external load variables dependent validity and reliability of 10 Hz GPS. J Sci Med Sport.
that mainly quantify the players’ locomotion. Altogether, 17:562–566.
there is clearly a challenge to sufficiently load nonstarters Akenhead R, Harley J, Tweddle S. 2016. Examining the external training
within a football-specific context (Akenhead et al., 2016), load of an English Premier League football team with special reference
to acceleration. J Strength Conditioning Res. 30:2424–2432. Advance
especially on (high-speed) running. online publication.
Akenhead R, Hayes PR, Thompson KG, French D. 2013. Diminutions of
acceleration and deceleration output during professional football
Conclusion match play. J Sci Med Sport. 16:556–561.
Anderson L, Orme P, Di Michele R, Close GL, Morgans R, Drust B, Morton
● MD-4 showed the highest training load, including accel-
JP. 2016. Quantification of training load during one-, two- and three-
eration and metabolic variables, after which training game week schedules in professional soccer players from the English
load gradually decreased when match day approached. Premier League: implications for carbohydrate periodisation. J Sports
● Relative to match values, acceleration load during training Sci. 34:1250–1259.
was in general higher than total distance ran and distance Borresen J, Lambert MI. 2009. The quantification of training load, the
training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med.
ran at high speeds.
39:779–795.
● Acceleration load on the most intense training day (MD-4) Bradley PS, Carling C, Gomez Diaz A, Hood P, Barnes C, Ade J, . . . Mohr M.
was close to match load. 2013. Match performance and physical capacity of players in the top
● Nonstarters training showed in general a lower load than three competitive standards of English professional soccer. Hum Mov
regular training, especially on MD-4, contributing to a con- Sci. 32:808–821.
Bradley PS, Di Mascio M, Peart D, Olsen P, Sheldon B. 2010. High-intensity
siderably lower total weekly load for nonstarters compared
activity profiles of elite soccer players at different performance levels. J
to starters. Strength Conditioning Res. 24:2343–2351.
Bradley PS, Sheldon W, Wooster B, Olsen P, Boanas P, Krustrup P. 2009.
High-intensity running in English FA Premier League soccer matches. J
Sports Sci. 27:159–168.
Practical implications Buchheit M, Al Haddad H, Simpson BM, Palazzi D, Bourdon PC, Di Salvo V,
Mendez-Villanueva A. 2014a. Monitoring accelerations with GPS in
The data presented in this study highlight the impor- football: time to slow down? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 9:442–445.
tance of including accelerations and decelerations as Buchheit M, Allen A, Poon TK, Modonutti M, Gregson W, Di Salvo V. 2014b.
external load measures, since they provide additional Integrating different tracking systems in football: multiple camera semi-
information to more commonly used variables. In foot- automatic system, local position measurement and GPS technologies. J
Sports Sci. 32:1844–1857.
ball practice, we advise to choose and report on only a Buchheit M, Manouvrier C, Cassirame J, Morin J-B. 2015. Monitoring loco-
few variables (3–6) to keep communication simple and motor load in soccer: is metabolic power, powerful? Int J Sports Med.
effective. These variables should include at least a mea- 36:1149–1155.
sure of cardiovascular load, distance ran at high speed Carling C. 2013. Interpreting physical performance in professional soccer
and total number of intense accelerations in order to match-play: should we be more pragmatic in our approach? Sports
Med. 43:655–663.
sufficiently describe the high-intensity demands of pro- Casamichana D, Castellano J. 2015. The relationship between intensity
fessional football (Gaudino et al. 2015). Estimations of indicators in small-sided soccer games. J Hum Kinet. 46:119–128.
energy expenditure could be useful for nutritionist advis- Cummins C, Orr R, O’Connor H, West C. 2013. Global positioning systems
ing on energy intake, but the values estimated based on (GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: a systematic review.
metabolic power should be seen as a minimum since Sports Med. 43:1025–1042.
Dalen T, Ingebrigtsen J, Ettema G, Havard GH, Wisløff W. 2016. Player load,
these values currently are underestimated. Coaches and acceleration, and deceleration during 45 competitive matches of elite
practitioners should be aware of the potential risk of soccer. J Strength Conditioning Res. 30:351–359.
under-loading nonstarters. They should offer additional Di Prampero PE, Fusi S, Sepulcri L, Morin JB, Belli A, Antonutto G.
physical loading, preferably in a football-specific context, 2005. Sprint running: a new energetic approach. J Exp Biol.
for example, by increasing the number of players during 208:2809–2816.
Gallo T, Cormack S, Gabbett T, Williams M, Lorenzen C. 2015.
the nonstarters training, organizing additional test Characteristics impacting on session rating of perceived exertion train-
matches or by letting nonstarters play in matches of a ing load in Australian footballers. J Sports Sci. 33:467–475.
lower team. Train harder with a non-starter, especially in Gaudino P, Iaia FM, Strudwick AJ, Hawkins RD, Alberti G, Atkinson G, Gregson
terms of running and high-speed running. W. 2015. Factors influencing perception of effort (session-RPE) during
elite soccer training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 10:860–864.
Goldstein H. 2003. Multilevel statistical models. 3rd ed. London, UK:
Acknowledgements Edward Arnold.
Greig MP, McNaughton LR, Lovell RJ. 2006. Physiological and mechanical
The authors would like to thank the coaches and players of the team response to soccer-specific intermittent activity and steady-state activ-
considered in the study for their cooperation. ity. Res Sports Med. 14:29–52.
 SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 125

Hoff J, Wisloff U, Engen LC, Kemi OJ, Helgerud J. 2002. Soccer specific Polglaze T, Dawson B, Peeling P. 2016. Gold standard or fool’s gold? The
aerobic endurance training. Br J Sports Med. 36:218–221. efficacy of displacement variables as indicators of energy expenditure
Ingebrigtsen J, Dalen T, Hjelde GH, Drust B, Wisloff U. 2015. Acceleration in team sports. Sports Med. 46:657–670.
and sprint profiles of a professional elite football team in match play. Rogalski B, Dawson B, Heasman J, Gabbett TJ. 2013. Training and game loads
Eur J Sport Sci. 15:101–110. and injury risk in elite Australian footballers. J Sci Med Sport. 16:499–503.
Issurin VB. 2010. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of Russell M, Sparkes W, Northeast J, Cook CJ, Love TD, Bracken RM, Kilduff
training periodization. Sports Med. 40:189–206. LP. 2014. Changes in acceleration and deceleration capacity through-
Johnston RJ, Watsford ML, Pine MJ, Spurrs RW. 2014. Standardisation of out professional soccer match-play. J Strength Conditioning Res.
acceleration zones in professional field sport athletes. Int J Sports Sci Advance online publication. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000805
Coaching. 9:1161–1168. Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Anguera MT, CampaniCo J, Matos N, LeitAo JC.
Lovell TW, Sirotic AC, Impellizzeri FM, Coutts AJ. 2013. Factors affecting 2014. Match analysis in football: a systematic review. J Sports Sci.
perception of effort (session rating of perceived exertion) during rugby 32:1831–1843.
league training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 8:62–69. Sassi A, Stefanescu A, Menaspa P, Bosio A, Riggio M, Rampinini E. 2011.
Malone JJ, Di Michele R, Morgans R, Burgess D, Morton JP, Drust B. 2015. The cost of running on natural grass and artificial turf surfaces. J
Seasonal training-load quantification in elite English premier league Strength Conditioning Res. 25:606–611.
soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 10:489–497. Scott BR, Lockie RG, Knight TJ, Clark AC, Janse De Jonge XA. 2013. A
Manzi V, Impellizzeri F, Castagna C. 2014. Aerobic fitness ecological valid- comparison of methods to quantify the in-season training load of
ity in elite soccer players: a metabolic power approach. J Strength professional soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 8:195–202.
Conditioning Res. 28:914–919. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23428492
Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. 2003. Match performance of high-standard Stevens TGA, De Ruiter CJ, Beek PJ, Savelsbergh GJP. 2016. Validity and
soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. J reliability of 6-a-side small-sided game locomotor performance in
Sports Sci. 21:519–528. assessing physical fitness in football players. J Sports Sci. 34:527–534.
Osgnach C, Paolini E, Roberti V, Vettor M, Di Prampero PE. 2016. Metabolic Stevens TGA, De Ruiter CJ, Van Maurik D, Van Lierop CJ, Savelsbergh GJP,
power and oxygen consumption in team sports: a brief response to Beek PJ. 2015. Measured and estimated energy cost of constant and
Buchheit et al. Int J Sports Med. 37:77–81. shuttle running in soccer players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 47:1219–1224.
Osgnach C, Poser S, Bernardini R, Rinaldo R, Di Prampero PE. 2010. Energy Stevens TGA, De Ruiter CJ, Van Niel C, Van De Rhee R, Beek PJ,
cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: a new match analysis Savelsbergh GJP. 2014. Measuring acceleration and deceleration in
approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 42:170–178. soccer-specific movements using a Local Position Measurement (LPM)
Owen AL, Wong Del P, McKenna M, Dellal A. 2011. Heart rate responses system. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 9:446–456.
and technical comparison between small- vs. large-sided games in elite Varley MC, Aughey RJ. 2013. Acceleration profiles in elite Australian soccer.
professional soccer. J Strength Conditioning Res. 25:2104–2110. Int J Sports Med. 34:34–39.
Owen AL, Wong DP, Paul D, Dellal A. 2014. Physical and technical compar- Wehbe GM, Hartwig TB, Duncan CS. 2014. Movement analysis of Australian
isons between various-sided games within professional soccer. Int J national league soccer players using global positioning system tech-
Sports Med. 35:286–292. nology. J Strength Conditioning Res. 28:834–842.

View publication stats