4.6 Article

Quantification of the typical weekly in-season training load in elite junior soccer players

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 30, Issue 15, Pages 1573-1580

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.709265

Keywords

soccer; training; physical development

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the typical weekly training load experienced by elite junior soccer players during the in-season competitive period. Altogether, eight under-14 (U14), eight under-16 (U16) and eight under-18 (U18) players were monitored over a 2-week period during the first month of the 2010-11 competitive season. This time period included one competitive match per week. Physiological loading was monitored using heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). Training and match loads were calculated by multiplying the global session RPE and duration (session-RPE). Total weekly training load (training and match) increased with age (U14, 2524 +/- 128 arbitrary units [AU]; U16, 2919 +/- 136 AU; U18, 3948 +/- 222 AU; P < 0.05). Differences in the daily training load across the training week were also evident in the older age group relative to both U14 and U16. The amount of time engaged in low (<50% HRmax) and high (>90% HRmax) intensity activity during training and match-play was significantly lower and higher respectively in the U18 compared to the U14 group (P < 0.05). When comparing activity, the intensity (% HRmax) of field training (U18, 69 +/- 2%; U16, 74 +/- 1%; U14, 74 +/- 2%) was significantly lower compared to match-play (U18, 81 +/- 3%; U16, 84, +/- 2%; U14, 83 +/- 2) across all age groups (P < 0.05). Findings demonstrate that age related differences in the volume and intensity of weekly in-season training load are evident amongst elite professional junior soccer players. These differences may reflect a systematic approach to the long-term physical development of elite junior players.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available