Table 5.
Studies with predominantly focus on weekly training load distribution analysis.
| Reference (Year) | Study Purpose | Periodization Structure | Independent Variable | Main Findings | Practical Applications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abade et al. [47] | Described time–motion and physiological profile of regular training sessions. | ND | Age of players |
Distance and speed: TD were higher in U17 (F = 45.84, p < 0.001). High- and very-high intensity activity were less in U19 (F = 11.8, p > 0.001). The number of sprints performed were different between U17 and U19 (F = −7.2, p < 0.001) Accelerometry: Total and relative body impacts were lower in U15 (F = 7.3, p < 0.01). HR: HR values showed significant effects of zone (F = 575.7, p < 0.001) and interaction with age group (F = −7.2, p < 0.001). |
High variability between elite team TSs. Constrained SSG to develop basic tactical principles and technical skill may promote low physio local demands. |
| Akenhead et al. [53] | Described the distribution of external load during in-season 1-game weeks in in-season. Examined inter-day and interposition variation within microcycle (focus on acceleration). | Weekly microcycle (1-game week) with “match day minus” format: MD-5, MD-4, MD-3, MD-2, MD-2, MD-1, MD. | Training day and playing position |
Distance and speed: Highest total weekly load (%) occurred on MD-4, with the lowest values on MD-1. CM covered ∼8–16% greater TD than other playing positions (excluding WM) and covered ∼17% greater distance accelerating than CD (p = 0.03, d = 0.7). There are associations between AvS (m × s−2) and the rate of accumulation for HSR, SPD, >1TOTAL, and >3TOTAL. Acceleration: ACC/DEC did not differ across days with the greatest variation tending to be in MD-1. No interaction between day and playing positional were found. |
Monitoring only speed-based locomotor variables may not provide sufficient information about training demands. Quantification acceleration variables may add additional information. |
| Brito et al. [69] | Analyzed the influence of match-related contextual variables on TL and fatigue. Concomitantly, investigated if there were variations throughout the season. | Four different season phases: preparation I (3 weeks), competition I (18 weeks), preparation II (8 weeks, winter break) and competition II (12 weeks). | Contextual variables (e.g., result of previous MP, MP location, and quality of opposition). |
Distance and speed: Weekly TLs were higher after playing a defeat or draw (p ≤ 0.05; d = 0.30–0.45) and after an away MP (p ≤ 0.05; d = 0.23). Weekly TL decreased as the season progressed (p < 0.001). Perceived Exertion: Internal load variation ranged 5 to 72% throughout the season (29–49% to weekly TL; 18–44% to fatigue scores). |
Internal load variability within a season may need a more individualized approach to prepare initial and subsequent match conditions. Adding that variability together relatively stable fatigue scores may modulate pace during training. |
| Clemente et al. [89] | Analyzed intra-week variations during a typical weekly external load and compared variance in four professional teams. | Weekly microcycle (1-game week) with “match day minus” format: MD+1, MD + 2, MD-5, MD-4, MD-3, MD-2, MD-2, MD-1, MD. | Training day |
Distance and speed: MD-1 had significantly less training while other days were more intense (p = 0.001). Portuguese team showing significantly higher intensity (SPR distance) and volume (total distance) in all days with exception of MD-1 than the Dutch team (p < 0.05). Accelerometry: Dutch team had significantly greater value of PL in MD-3 (p = 0.005; d = 1.18) and Portuguese team had higher PL in the MD+2 (p = 0.005; d = 1.78). |
The training TL and tapering strategies were different between teams in different countries. However, both teams applied a significant tapering phase in the last two days before the competition in an attempt to reduce residual fatigue accumulation. |
| Clemente et al. [88] | Quantified weekly external load and intra-week variations during a pre-season training and compared variance in two professional teams. | Weekly microcycle (1-game week) with “match day minus” format: MD-5, MD-4, MD-3, MD-2, MD-2, MD-1, MD. | Training day |
Distance and speed: Weekly TL presented significant differences between TS considering the duration (p = 0.011), walking distance (p = 0.017), running distance (p = 0.004), and number of sprints (p = 0.006). Variations between weeks were small and intra-week variations in the measures associated with great volume and lower intensity. Accelerometry: Weekly TL also presented significant differences between TS considering PL (p = 0.040). |
Intra-week TL is not linear or standardized during in-season competition and monitoring weekly variance for the same type of day provided a useful strategy to control training adaptations. |
| Coutinho et al. [47] | Described the time–motion and physiological performance profiles during a typical weekly microcycle. | Weekly microcycle (1-game week) divided into: post-match (session after the match), pre-match (session before the match), and middle week (average of remaining sessions). | Age of players and weekly microcycle division (pre-match, mid-week, and post-match). |
Distance and Speed: U15 Mid-week showed a higher number of sprints, distance covered in intermediate speed zones, and time spent above 90% HRmax. Pre-match presented a higher distance covered above 18 km × h−1 and time spent below 75% HRmax. U17 Pre-match and post-match presented lower distance covered values than mid-week. U19 Post-match showed higher distance covered above 13 km × h−1, body impacts (>10 g), and time spent above 85% HRmax. Accelerometry: U15 body impacts showed significant differences across all TSs. U17 pre-match and post-match presented moderate differences in body impacts. U19 middle-week showed higher values in body impacts and pre-match presented less values than the middle-week (35% to 100%). |
Appropriate physical and physiological load during middle-week TSs should be ensured. Understanding the weekly training and match load variations can contribute to optimizing short- and mid-term planning during different developmental stages. |
| Jeong et al. [55] | Quantified and compared TL during a preseason and in-season training process. | Season phases divided into preseason and in-season. Training mode subdivided into physical training, technical/tactical training, and physical and technical/tactical training. | Training mode/type or sub-components and season phase. | HR and Perceived Exertion: Preseason load was higher than in-season load (p < 0.05). Time spent in 80–100% maximum heart rate zones greater proportion in preseason and in-season, while technical/tactical sessions had higher intensities in the pre-season (p < 0.05). | Preseason is more intense than in-season training. Emphasis on higher intensities and time spent in technical/tactical specific TSs may provide the necessary physiological conditioning. |
| Malone et al. [56] | Quantified the seasonal TL, including both the preseason and in-season phase. | Season phases divided into preseason and in-season. Mesocycle ranged from 1 to 6 weeks (week blocks) and weekly microcycle (1-game week) with “match day minus” format: MD-5, MD-4, MD-3, MD-2, MD-2, MD-1, MD. | Season phase, mesocycle, training day and playing position. | HR and Perceived Exertion: typical daily TL did not differ during each week of the preseason. Daily TD covered was greater in the 1st mesocycle than in the 6th. %HRmax values were also greater in the 3rd mesocycle than in the 1st. TL was lower on MD-1 (regardless mesocycle) and no differences were found in other days (MD-2 to MD-5). Positional differences were found during both preseason and in-season phases. In total, CM and WD covered the highest TD. Defenders (CD and WD) displayed higher %HRmax values. | Quantify TL using different measures can provide physiological patterns across a full competitive season. First and last TSs optimized recovery and prevent fatigue accumulation. Positional differences should also be considered in the loading analysis. |
| Oliveira et al. [72] | Quantified TL using s-RPE and HI across mesocycles during an in-season comparing player positions. | Mesocycle (one month) and weekly microcycle (1-game week) with “Match day minus” format: MD-5, MD-4, MD-3, MD-2, MD-2, MD-1, MD. | Mesocycle, training day, and playing position. |
Distance and speed: Daily TD covered was higher at the start (M1 and M3) compared to the final mesocycle (M10) of season. HSR distance was greater in M1 than M5. CM covered more distance and WM cover more distance at HSR. Acceleration and accelerometry: All TL variables expressed significant lower values to other days prior to a MP and no difference between player positions (p < 0.01). Perceived Exertion: Perceptual response was higher in M1 in comparison to the last mesocycle. sRPE presented a non-perfect pattern by decreasing values until MD-1: MD-5 < MD-4 < MD-3 > MD-2 > MD-1. HI showed minor variations across mesocycles and in days before MP. |
Combination of different TL measures could provide evidence to fully evaluate the patterns observe across the in-season. MD-1 presented a reduction of external load (regardless of mesocycle) and HI did not change, except for MD+1. |
| Owen et al. [108] | Analyzed a training mesocycle whilst quantifying TL across playing position and examined the effect of match location, match status, and age of players. | Mesocycle (6 × 1-week block) and weekly microcycle (1-game week) with “match day minus” format: MD-4, MD-3, MD-2, MD-2, MD-1, MD. | Mesocycle, training day, contextual variables (match location and match status), age of players, and playing position. |
Distance and speed: Typical daily TL did not differ throughout each week of the mesocycle in-season period. TL were significantly lower on MD-1 (p < 0.05). Lower AvSs were reported in training post-successful MP compared to defeats (p < 0.05), and more specifically when a MP was played away compared to home fixtures (p < 0.05). Acceleration and accelerometry: Significant differences in physical outputs were also found between MD-2, MD-3 and MD-4 (p < 0.05). |
Analysis of training mesocycle and microcycle positional demands may provide useful information to training program design and tactical strategy. Physical outputs on MD-2, MD-3, and MD-4 highlighting a structured periodized tapered approach. |
| Rago et al. [61] | Quantified the weekly TL according to different match-related contextual factors. | Training structure included speed endurance training (e.g., repeated sprint activity) and aerobic high-intensity training (e.g., interval training). The remaining TS mainly concerned ball-possession games and team/opponent tactics. Individual/reconditioning sessions were excluded from the analysis. The periodization structure has not been described. | Contextual variables (opponent standard, match location, and match outcome). |
Distance and speed: TD covered and HSR during training were higher in the week after playing against a bottom-level or top-level opponent compared to a medium-level opponent (p < 0.05). TD covered and HSR was higher in the week following a draw or a win, and higher before a loss compared to a draw (p < 0.05). Acceleration: The decrease in training volume (e.g., TD) and mechanical work (accelerations and decelerations) performed throughout the season may have been related to changes in training activities prescribed by the technical staff as a consequence of cumulative seasonal TL (p < 0.05). |
Weekly TL seems to be slightly affected by match-related contextual variables, with special emphasis on the opponent standard and match outcome. Higher training volume was observed before and after playing against a top-level opponent, and after losing a match, whereas the volume of high-intensity training seems to be higher when preparing for a game against a top-level opponent. |
>1Total—acceleration or deceleration ≥ 1 m × s−2; >3Total—acceleration or deceleration ≥ 3 m × s−2; ACC—acceleration; AvS—average speed; CD—central defenders; CM—central midfielders; DEC—deceleration; g—G force; HR—heart rate; HRmax—maximum heart rate; HSR—high speed running; M—mesocycle; MD—match day; MP—match play; ND—not described; SPR—sprinting; SSG—small-sided games; TD—total distance; TL—training load; TS—training session; TSs—training sessions; U15—under-15; U17—under-17; U19—under-19; WD—wide defenders; WM—wide midfielders.