PURPOSE: This study was designed to quantify the daily distribution of training intensity in a group of professional soccer players in Norway based on three different methods of training intensity quantification. METHODS: Fifteen male athletes (age, 24 ± 5 y) performed treadmill test to exhaustion to determine heart rate and VO2 corresponding to ventilatory thresholds (VT1, VT2), maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and maximal heart rate. VT1 and VT2 were used to delineate three intensity zones based on heart rate. During a 4 wk period in the preseason (N = 15), and two separate weeks late in the season (N = 11), all endurance and on-ball training sessions (preseason: N = 378, season: N= 78) were quantified using continuous heart rate registration and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Three different methods were used to quantify the intensity distribution: time in zone, session goal and sRPE. RESULTS: Intensity distributions across all sessions were similar when based on session goal or by sRPE. However, intensity distribution based on heart rate cut-offs from standardized testing was significantly different (time in zone). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that quantifying training intensity by using heart rate based total time in zone is not valid for describing the effective training intensity in soccer. The results also suggest that the daily training intensity distribution in this representative group of high level Norwegian soccer players is organized after a pattern where about the same numbers of training sessions are performed in low lactate, lactate threshold, and high intensity training zones.
PURPOSE: This study was designed to quantify the daily distribution of training intensity in a group of professional soccer players in Norway based on three different methods of training intensity quantification. METHODS: Fifteen male athletes (age, 24 ± 5 y) performed treadmill test to exhaustion to determine heart rate and VO2 corresponding to ventilatory thresholds (VT1, VT2), maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and maximal heart rate. VT1 and VT2 were used to delineate three intensity zones based on heart rate. During a 4 wk period in the preseason (N = 15), and two separate weeks late in the season (N = 11), all endurance and on-ball training sessions (preseason: N = 378, season: N= 78) were quantified using continuous heart rate registration and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Three different methods were used to quantify the intensity distribution: time in zone, session goal and sRPE. RESULTS: Intensity distributions across all sessions were similar when based on session goal or by sRPE. However, intensity distribution based on heart rate cut-offs from standardized testing was significantly different (time in zone). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that quantifying training intensity by using heart rate based total time in zone is not valid for describing the effective training intensity in soccer. The results also suggest that the daily training intensity distribution in this representative group of high level Norwegian soccer players is organized after a pattern where about the same numbers of training sessions are performed in low lactate, lactate threshold, and high intensity training zones.
Authors: Luke Haile; Fredric L Goss; Robert J Robertson; Joseph L Andreacci; Michael Gallagher; Elizabeth F Nagle Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Filipe Manuel Clemente; Cain Clark; Daniel Castillo; Hugo Sarmento; Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis; Thomas Rosemann; Beat Knechtle Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Javier Raya-González; Daniel Castillo; Javier Yanci; Asier Los Arcos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel Castillo; Javier Raya-González; Hugo Sarmento; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Javier Yanci Journal: Biol Sport Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 2.806