Cargando…

The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions

This article addresses several key issues that have been raised related to subjective training load (TL) monitoring. These key issues include how TL is calculated if subjective TL can be used to model sports performance and where subjective TL monitoring fits into an overall decision-making framewor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coyne, Joseph O. C., Coutts, Aaron J., Newton, Robert U., Haff, G. Gregory
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35426569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00433-y
_version_ 1784687883811028992
author Coyne, Joseph O. C.
Coutts, Aaron J.
Newton, Robert U.
Haff, G. Gregory
author_facet Coyne, Joseph O. C.
Coutts, Aaron J.
Newton, Robert U.
Haff, G. Gregory
author_sort Coyne, Joseph O. C.
collection PubMed
description This article addresses several key issues that have been raised related to subjective training load (TL) monitoring. These key issues include how TL is calculated if subjective TL can be used to model sports performance and where subjective TL monitoring fits into an overall decision-making framework for practitioners. Regarding how TL is calculated, there is conjecture over the most appropriate (1) acute and chronic period lengths, (2) smoothing methods for TL data and (3) change in TL measures (e.g., training stress balance (TSB), differential load, acute-to-chronic workload ratio). Variable selection procedures with measures of model-fit, like the Akaike Information Criterion, are suggested as a potential answer to these calculation issues with examples provided using datasets from two different groups of elite athletes prior to and during competition at the 2016 Olympic Games. Regarding using subjective TL to model sports performance, further examples using linear mixed models and the previously mentioned datasets are provided to illustrate possible practical interpretations of model results for coaches (e.g., ensuring TSB increases during a taper for improved performance). An overall decision-making framework for determining training interventions is also provided with context given to where subjective TL measures may fit within this framework and the determination if subjective measures are needed with TL monitoring for different sporting situations. Lastly, relevant practical recommendations (e.g., using validated scales and training coaches and athletes in their use) are provided to ensure subjective TL monitoring is used as effectively as possible along with recommendations for future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9012875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90128752022-05-02 The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions Coyne, Joseph O. C. Coutts, Aaron J. Newton, Robert U. Haff, G. Gregory Sports Med Open Current Opinion This article addresses several key issues that have been raised related to subjective training load (TL) monitoring. These key issues include how TL is calculated if subjective TL can be used to model sports performance and where subjective TL monitoring fits into an overall decision-making framework for practitioners. Regarding how TL is calculated, there is conjecture over the most appropriate (1) acute and chronic period lengths, (2) smoothing methods for TL data and (3) change in TL measures (e.g., training stress balance (TSB), differential load, acute-to-chronic workload ratio). Variable selection procedures with measures of model-fit, like the Akaike Information Criterion, are suggested as a potential answer to these calculation issues with examples provided using datasets from two different groups of elite athletes prior to and during competition at the 2016 Olympic Games. Regarding using subjective TL to model sports performance, further examples using linear mixed models and the previously mentioned datasets are provided to illustrate possible practical interpretations of model results for coaches (e.g., ensuring TSB increases during a taper for improved performance). An overall decision-making framework for determining training interventions is also provided with context given to where subjective TL measures may fit within this framework and the determination if subjective measures are needed with TL monitoring for different sporting situations. Lastly, relevant practical recommendations (e.g., using validated scales and training coaches and athletes in their use) are provided to ensure subjective TL monitoring is used as effectively as possible along with recommendations for future research. Springer International Publishing 2022-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9012875/ /pubmed/35426569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00433-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Current Opinion
Coyne, Joseph O. C.
Coutts, Aaron J.
Newton, Robert U.
Haff, G. Gregory
The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions
title The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions
title_full The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions
title_fullStr The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions
title_full_unstemmed The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions
title_short The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions
title_sort current state of subjective training load monitoring: follow-up and future directions
topic Current Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35426569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00433-y
work_keys_str_mv AT coynejosephoc thecurrentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT couttsaaronj thecurrentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT newtonrobertu thecurrentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT haffggregory thecurrentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT coynejosephoc currentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT couttsaaronj currentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT newtonrobertu currentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections
AT haffggregory currentstateofsubjectivetrainingloadmonitoringfollowupandfuturedirections