Jordan L Fox1,2, Robert Stanton3,4, Charli Sargent4, Sally-Anne Wintour3, Aaron T Scanlan3,5. 1. School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia. j.fox2@cqu.edu.au. 2. Human Exercise and Training Laboratory, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia. j.fox2@cqu.edu.au. 3. School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia. 4. Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science, Central Queensland University, Wayville, SA, Australia. 5. Human Exercise and Training Laboratory, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate training loads promote favorable physical and physiological adaptations, reduce the likelihood of illness and injury, and, therefore, increase the possibility of success during competition. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to systematically examine the association between training load and performance outcomes in team sports. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases for original research published before July 2018. The search included terms relevant to training load, performance, and team sports. Articles were screened using pre-defined selection criteria, and methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors before data were extracted by the lead author. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 5848 articles, 2373 of which were duplicates. A further 17 articles were retrieved from additional sources. In total, 26 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review, with quality scores ranging from 6 to 10 out of 11. Training exposure was more strongly associated with aerobic performance than other external training load measures. High-intensity activity (≥ 90% of maximum heart rate) was strongly associated with aerobic performance. The individualized training impulse model was strongly associated with aerobic performance, whereas various other training impulse models and perceptual training load measures showed weak associations with aerobic performance. There were no clear associations between training load and neuromuscular variables or game-related statistics. CONCLUSION: We found no consistent associations between external training load measures and performance. High-intensity internal training load appears to be the most prominent indicator of aerobic performance.
BACKGROUND: Adequate training loads promote favorable physical and physiological adaptations, reduce the likelihood of illness and injury, and, therefore, increase the possibility of success during competition. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to systematically examine the association between training load and performance outcomes in team sports. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases for original research published before July 2018. The search included terms relevant to training load, performance, and team sports. Articles were screened using pre-defined selection criteria, and methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors before data were extracted by the lead author. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 5848 articles, 2373 of which were duplicates. A further 17 articles were retrieved from additional sources. In total, 26 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review, with quality scores ranging from 6 to 10 out of 11. Training exposure was more strongly associated with aerobic performance than other external training load measures. High-intensity activity (≥ 90% of maximum heart rate) was strongly associated with aerobic performance. The individualized training impulse model was strongly associated with aerobic performance, whereas various other training impulse models and perceptual training load measures showed weak associations with aerobic performance. There were no clear associations between training load and neuromuscular variables or game-related statistics. CONCLUSION: We found no consistent associations between external training load measures and performance. High-intensity internal training load appears to be the most prominent indicator of aerobic performance.
Authors: Miguel A Campos-Vazquez; Francisco J Toscano-Bendala; José C Mora-Ferrera; Luis J Suarez-Arrones Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Shaun J McLaren; Tom W Macpherson; Aaron J Coutts; Christopher Hurst; Iain R Spears; Matthew Weston Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Jennifer L Russell; Blake D McLean; Franco M Impellizzeri; Donnie S Strack; Aaron J Coutts Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: José L Maté-Muñoz; Juan H Lougedo; Manuel Barba; Ana M Cañuelo-Márquez; Jesús Guodemar-Pérez; Pablo García-Fernández; María Del C Lozano-Estevan; Rosa Alonso-Melero; María A Sánchez-Calabuig; Monserrat Ruíz-López; Fernando de Jesús; Manuel V Garnacho-Castaño Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: David S Logerstedt; Jay R Ebert; Toran D MacLeod; Bryan C Heiderscheit; Tim J Gabbett; Brian J Eckenrode Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Stephen W West; Sean Williams; Simon P T Kemp; Robin Eager; Matthew J Cross; Keith A Stokes Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Sullivan Coppalle; Guillaume Ravé; Jason Moran; Iyed Salhi; Abderraouf Ben Abderrahman; Sghaeir Zouita; Urs Granacher; Hassane Zouhal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Juan M García-Ceberino; Antonio Antúnez; Sebastián Feu; Sergio J Ibáñez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 3.390