4.4 Review

Validity of the Training-Load Concept

Journal

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0536

Keywords

athletic training; endurance training; exercise performance; exercise physiology; exercise training

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Training load (TL) is a commonly used concept in training prescription and monitoring, but it has not been validated as a measure of training dose. Recent studies have shown that most TL metrics are inconsistent with their theoretical training dose and are confounded by exercise duration. Therefore, there is a need to critically evaluate the validity of current TL metrics and develop new ones.
Training load (TL) is a widely used concept in training prescription and monitoring and is also recognized as as an important tool for avoiding athlete injury, illness, and overtraining. With the widespread adoption of wearable devices, TL metrics are used increasingly by researchers and practitioners worldwide. Conceptually, TL was proposed as a means to quantify a dose of training and used to predict its resulting training effect. However, TL has never been validated as a measure of training dose, and there is a risk that fundamental problems related to its calculation are preventing advances in training prescription and monitoring. Specifically, we highlight recent studies from our research groups where we compare the acute performance decrement measured following a session with its TL metrics. These studies suggest that most TL metrics are not consistent with their notional training dose and that the exercise duration confounds their calculation. These studies also show that total work done is not an appropriate way to compare training interventions that differ in duration and intensity. We encourage scientists and practitioners to critically evaluate the validity of current TL metrics and suggest that new TL metrics need to be developed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available