Different methods of training load quantification and their relationship to injury and illness in elite Australian football

Training Load and Fatigue Marker Associations with Injury and Illness: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies

“…In the 57 studies that investigated load–injury/illness relationships, many different load measures were used, including training exposure ( n   =  14, 24 %) [35, 40–52]; number of sessions/matches ( n   =  5, 8 %) [46, 47, 53–55], number of skill repetitions [e.g. number of deliveries bowled for cricketers] ( n   =  6, 10 %) [56–61]; days between/frequency of matches ( n   =  8, 14 %) [53, 55, 56, 62–66]; heart rate ( n   =  4, 7 %) [48, 55, 67, 68]; RPE ( n   =  2, 3 %) [69, 70]; sRPE ( n   =  21, 36 %) [26, 36, 40, 54, 57, 68, 70–84]; number/intensity of collisions ( n   =  2, 3 %) [64, 65]; distance [both self-reported and GPS derived] ( n   =  6, 10 %) [34, 49, 68, 69, 85, 86]; velocity/acceleration GPS-derived measures ( n   =  2, 3 %) [38, 85]; metabolic equivalents [MET] ( n  = 1, 1 %) [87]; the Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire [88] ( n   =  1, 1 %) [89]; and a combined volume and intensity ranking [1–5 scale] ( n  = 1, 1 %) [90]. A number of fatigue measures were also used in the 26 studies that investigated fatigue–injury/illness relationships, including perceptual wellness scales ( n   =  13, 50 %) [37, 39, 48–50, 75, 80, 81, 91–95]; sleep quantity/quality ( n   =  6, 23 %) [39, 48, 71, 80, 95, 96]; immunological markers ( n   =  12, 46 %) [49, 54, 73, 82, 83, 87, 89, 90, 97–100]; and stress hormone levels ( n   =  6, 23 %) [75, 81–83, 100, …”

“…A number of different sporting populations were represented, from recreational to elite level; namely, American Football ( n   =  1) [89]; Australian Football [AF] ( n   =  6) [68, 70, 84, 85, 94, 96]; basketball ( n   =  2) [81, 106]; cricket [fast bowlers] ( n   =  5) [56–58, 60, 61]; futsal ( n   =  1) [82]; soccer ( n   =  21) [37, 38, 40, 43–47, 53, 55, 62, 63, 67, 71, 75, 83, 92, 93, 95, 100, 101]; road cycling ( n   =  1) [73]; rugby league ( n   =  13) [26, 34, 36, 39, 64–66, 76–80, 94]; rugby union ( n   =  5) [41, 52, 54, 72, 94]; running ( n   =  4) [35, 42, 69, 86]; swimming ( n   =  4) [49, 74, 97, 98]; triathlon ( n   =  2) [48, 50]; wheelchair rugby ( n  = 1) [99]; and yacht racing ( n  = 1) [90]. Two studies used a mix of various sports [51, 87].…”

Calculating acute:chronic workload ratios using exponentially weighted moving averages provides a more sensitive indicator of injury likelihood than rolling averages

“…It has previously been suggested that players are not as well equipped to handle spikes in workload during the in-season period as they are during the preseason period due to increased match and physical demands,27 28 coupled with an increased emphasis on performance and recovery. While the preseason period is typically viewed as an opportunity to develop the required physical and physiological qualities to successfully compete during the in-season period,29 it is crucial that high workloads are prescribed systematically to apply adequate workloads to elicit a positive physiological change, while also minimising the negative physiological response 2 12 29. It has been shown that greater amounts of training during the preseason period may also offer a protective effect against injury during the subsequent in-season competitive period,30 31 highlighting the further importance placed on the preseason period.…”

How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury

“…The findings show that one of the most frequently used measures of load is the session RPE,117 120–124 127 146 150 152 153 175 178 179 or similar cross-products of training duration and subjectively reported intensity 104 105 149. These tools are particularly common in team sports, and have the advantage of combining external (duration) and internal (rating of perceived exertion) load, which may aid in revealing fatigue 26 30.…”

“…On the other hand, high absolute load was reported as not increasing injury risk in different studies that included athletics/running, Australian football, rugby league, rugby union and triathlon 137–151. In some instances, high absolute load appeared to offer protection from injury in elite116 134 152 153 and non-elite athletes 98 132 154–156…”