4.4 Article

In-season training periodization of professional soccer players

Journal

BIOLOGY OF SPORT
Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 149-155

Publisher

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/biolsport.2017.64588

Keywords

Periodization; Football; Training load; Internal load; Perceived exertion

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to quantify the seasonal perceived respiratory and muscular training loads (i.e., sRPEres-TL and sRPEmus-TL) completed by elite-oriented young professional soccer players. Twenty four players (20.3 +/- 2.0 years) belonging to the same reserve team of a Spanish La Liga club participated in this study. Only the players that were available to train for a whole week with the team and also to play the weekly game were considered: Starters, players that participated in the match for at least 45 min and NonStarters, players that did not participate or played less than 45 minutes in the match. The competitive period was analysed after the division into 5x6-8 week blocks and 35x1 week microcycles. Data were also analysed with respect to number of days before the immediate match. Weekly TL variation across the in-season blocks was trivial-small for both groups except between Block 2 and Block 3 (ES= moderate). Substantial TL differences (ES= small-very likely) were found between training days, the TL pattern being a progressive increase up to MD-3 followed by a decrease until MD-1. Except for the match, sRPEres-/sRPEmus-TL was very similar between Starters and Non-Starters. In summary, perceived TL across the season displayed limited variation. Coaches periodized training contents to attain the highest weekly TL 72 hours before the match to progressively unload the players between MD-3 and the match day. The data revealed that the TL arising from the weekly game was solely responsible for the observed higher weekly TL of Starters in comparison with Non-Starters.

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