Monitoring of training loads

NewsBot · May 3, 2017

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
CONSENSUS PAPER
Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement
Pitre C. Bourdon et al
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Volume 12 Issue Suppl 2, April 2017

Monitoring the load placed on athletes in both training and competition has become a very hot topic in sport science. Both scientists and coaches routinely monitor training loads using multidisciplinary approaches, and the pursuit of the best methodologies to capture and interpret data has produced an exponential increase in empirical and applied research. Indeed, the field has developed with such speed in recent years that it has given rise to industries aimed at developing new and novel paradigms to allow us to precisely quantify the internal and external loads placed on athletes and to help protect them from injury and ill health. In February 2016, a conference on “Monitoring Athlete Training Loads—The Hows and the Whys” was convened in Doha, Qatar, which brought together experts from around the world to share their applied research and contemporary practices in this rapidly growing field and also to investigate where it may branch to in the future. This consensus statement brings together the key findings and recommendations from this conference in a shared conceptual framework for use by coaches, sport-science and -medicine staff, and other related professionals who have an interest in monitoring athlete training loads and serves to provide an outline on what athlete-load monitoring is and how it is being applied in research and practice, why load monitoring is important and what the underlying rationale and prospective goals of monitoring are, and where athlete-load monitoring is heading in the future.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · May 3, 2017

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future
Carl Foster, Jose A. Rodriguez-Marroyo, Jos J. de Koning
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Volume 12 Issue Suppl 2, April 2017

Training monitoring is about keeping track of what athletes accomplish in training, for the purpose of improving the interaction between coach and athlete. Over history there have been several basic schemes of training monitoring. In the earliest days training monitoring was about observing the athlete during standard workouts. However, difficulty in standardizing the conditions of training made this process unreliable. With the advent of interval training, monitoring became more systematic. However, imprecision in the measurement of heart rate (HR) evolved interval training toward index workouts, where the main monitored parameter was average time required to complete index workouts. These measures of training load focused on the external training load, what the athlete could actually do. With the advent of interest from the scientific community, the development of the concept of metabolic thresholds and the possibility of trackside measurement of HR, lactate, VO2, and power output, there was greater interest in the internal training load, allowing better titration of training loads in athletes of differing ability. These methods show much promise but often require laboratory testing for calibration and tend to produce too much information, in too slow a time frame, to be optimally useful to coaches. The advent of the TRIMP concept by Banister suggested a strategy to combine intensity and duration elements of training into a single index concept, training load. Although the original TRIMP concept was mathematically complex, the development of the session RPE and similar low-tech methods has demonstrated a way to evaluate training load, along with derived variables, in a simple, responsive way. Recently, there has been interest in using wearable sensors to provide high-resolution data of the external training load. These methods are promising, but problems relative to information overload and turnaround time to coaches remain to be solved.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · May 3, 2017

Qantification of Training and Competition Loads in Endurance Sports: Methods and Applications
Iñigo Mujika
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Volume 12 Issue Suppl 2, April 2017

Training quantification is basic to evaluate an endurance athlete’s responses to training loads, ensure adequate stress/recovery balance, and determine the relationship between training and performance. Quantifying both external and internal workload is important, because external workload does not measure the biological stress imposed by the exercise sessions. Generally used quantification methods include retrospective questionnaires, diaries, direct observation, and physiological monitoring, often based on the measurement of oxygen uptake, heart rate, and blood lactate concentration. Other methods in use in endurance sports include speed measurement and the measurement of power output, made possible by recent technological advances such as power meters in cycling and triathlon. Among subjective methods of quantification, rating of perceived exertion stands out because of its wide use. Concurrent assessments of the various quantification methods allow researchers and practitioners to evaluate stress/recovery balance, adjust individual training programs, and determine the relationships between external load, internal load, and athletes’ performance. This brief review summarizes the most relevant external- and internal-workload-quantification methods in endurance sports and provides practical examples of their implementation to adjust the training programs of elite athletes in accordance with their individualized stress/recovery balance.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Apr 11, 2018

How much is enough in rehabilitation? High running workloads following lower limb muscle injury delay return to play but protect against subsequent injury
Jordan Stares et al
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport; Article in Press

Objective
Examine the influence of rehabilitation training loads on return to play (RTP) time and subsequent injury in elite Australian footballers.

Design
Prospective cohort study.

Methods
Internal (sessional rating of perceived exertion: sRPE) and external (distance, sprint distance) workload and lower limb non-contact muscle injury data was collected from 58 players over 5 seasons. Rehabilitation periods were analysed for running workloads and time spent in 3 rehabilitation stages (1: off-legs training, 2: non-football running, 3: group football training) was calculated. Multi-level survival analyses with random effects accounting for player and season were performed. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each variable were produced for RTP time and time to subsequent injury.

Results
Of 85 lower limb muscle injuries, 70 were rehabilitated to RTP, with 30 cases of subsequent injury recorded (recurrence rate = 11.8%, new site injury rate = 31.4%). Completion of high rehabilitation workloads delayed RTP (distance: >49775 m [reference: 34613-49775m]: HR 0.12, 95%CI 0.04-0.36, sRPE: >1266 AU [reference: 852-1266AU]: HR 0.09, 95%CI 0.03-0.32). Return to running within 4 days increased subsequent injury risk (3–4 days [reference: 5-6 days]: HR 25.88, 95%CI 2.06-324.4). Attaining moderate-high sprint distance (427-710m) was protective against subsequent injury (154-426m: [reference: 427-710m]: HR 37.41, 95%CI 2.70-518.64).

Conclusion
Training load monitoring can inform player rehabilitation programs. Higher rehabilitation training loads delayed RTP; however, moderate-high sprint running loads can protect against subsequent injury. Shared-decision making regarding RTP should include accumulated training loads and consider the trade-off between expedited RTP and lower subsequent injury risk.
Click to expand...

Monitoring of training loads

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Photoacoustic Imaging for monitoring the microcirculation

Monitoring foot orthotic adherence

DMIST for monitoring healing of diabetic foot ulcers

Smart insole for continuous monitoring of frail people at home

Real Time Monitoring of Plantar Pressures

Spectroscopy for monitoring diabetic foot ulcers

Sensors in bath mat for diabetic foot monitoring

Share This Page

Monitoring of training loads

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Photoacoustic Imaging for monitoring the microcirculation

Monitoring foot orthotic adherence

DMIST for monitoring healing of diabetic foot ulcers

Smart insole for continuous monitoring of frail people at home

Real Time Monitoring of Plantar Pressures

Spectroscopy for monitoring diabetic foot ulcers

Sensors in bath mat for diabetic foot monitoring

Share This Page

Useful Searches