Int J Sports Med 2021; 42(04): 300-306
DOI: 10.1055/a-1268-8791

More than a Metric: How Training Load is Used in Elite Sport for Athlete Management

1   Department for Health , University of Bath, Bath,
2   Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary
Jo Clubb
3   Sports Performance, Buffalo Bills, Buffalo
Lorena Torres-Ronda
4   Performance, Philadelphia 76ers, Philadelphia
Daniel Howells
5   Sports Medicine and Performance, Houston Astros, Houston
Edward Leng
6   Football Medicine and Science Department, Manchester United FC, Manchester
7   Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto
Sean Carmody
8   Medical Department, Queens Park Rangers FC, London, UK
Michael Posthumus
9   Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Cape Town
10   Sports Science Institute of South Africa, Cape Town
11   Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Oslo
Johann Windt
12   Performance, Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Vancouver
13   Department of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver
› Author Affiliations


Training load monitoring is a core aspect of modern-day sport science practice. Collecting, cleaning, analysing, interpreting, and disseminating load data is usually undertaken with a view to improve player performance and/or manage injury risk. To target these outcomes, practitioners attempt to optimise load at different stages throughout the training process, like adjusting individual sessions, planning day-to-day, periodising the season, and managing athletes with a long-term view. With greater investment in training load monitoring comes greater expectations, as stakeholders count on practitioners to transform data into informed, meaningful decisions. In this editorial we highlight how training load monitoring has many potential applications and cannot be simply reduced to one metric and/or calculation. With experience across a variety of sporting backgrounds, this editorial details the challenges and contextual factors that must be considered when interpreting such data. It further demonstrates the need for those working with athletes to develop strong communication channels with all stakeholders in the decision-making process. Importantly, this editorial highlights the complexity associated with using training load for managing injury risk and explores the potential for framing training load with a performance and training progression mindset.

Publication History

Received: 27 June 2020

Accepted: 10 September 2020

Article published online:
19 October 2020

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

  • References

  • 1 Foster C, Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, de Koning JJ. Monitoring training loads: The past, the present and the future. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 2-8
  • 2 Gabbett TJ, Whyte DG, Hartwig TB. et al. The relationship between workloads, physical performance, injury and illness in adolescent male football players. Sports Med 2014; 44: 989-1003 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0179-5.
  • 3 Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014; 44: 139-147 . doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z
  • 4 Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A. et al. monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: S2161-S2170 DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0208.
  • 5 Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ. Internal and external training load: 15 years on. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; 14: 270-273 10.1123/ijspp.2018–0935
  • 6 Wang C, Vargas JT, Stokes T. et al. Analyzing activity and injury: lessons learned from the acute:chronic workload ratio. Sports Med 2020; 50: 1243-1254 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-020-01280-1.
  • 7 Impellizzeri FM, Woodcock S, McCall A et al. The acute-chronic workload ratio-injury figure and its ‘sweet spot’ are flawed.
  • 8 Impellizzeri FM, Woodcock S, Coutts AJ. et al. Acute to random workload ratio is ‘as’ associated with injury as acute to actual chronic workload ratio: time to dismiss ACWR and its components. SportRxiv Preprints 2020; DOI: 10.31236/
  • 9 Griffin A, Kenny IC, Comyns TM. et al. The association between the acute:chronic workload ratio and injury and its application in team sport: a systematic review. Sports Med 2020; 50: 561-580
  • 10 Andrade R, Halvorsen Wik E, Rebelo-Marques A. et al. Is the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with risk of time-loss injury in professional sports teams? A systematic review of methodology, variables and injury risk in practical situations. Sports Med 2020; 50: 1613-1635
  • 11 Gabbett TJ. Debunking the myths about training load, injury and performance: empirical evidence, hot topics and recommendations for practitioners. Br J Sports Med 2020; 54: 58-66 . doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099784
  • 12 Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM. Test validation in sports physiology: lessons learned from clinimetrics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2009; 4: 269-277 . doi:10.1123/ijspp.4.2.269
  • 13 Drew MK, Raysmith BP, Charlton PC. Injuries impair the chance of successful performance by sportspeople: A systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 1209-1214 . doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096731
  • 14 Banister EW, Calvert TW, Savage MV. et al. A systems model of training for athletic performance. Aust J Sports Med 1975; 7: 57-61
  • 15 Coggan A The Science of the Performance Manager. TrainingPeaks; 2008.
  • 16 Bittencourt NFN, Meeuwisse WH, Mendonca LD. et al. Complex systems approach for sports injuries: Moving from risk factor identification to injury pattern recognition–narrative review and new concept. Br J Sports Med 2016; 50: 1309-1314
  • 17 Meeuwisse WH, Tyreman H, Hagel B. et al. A dynamic model of etiology in sport injury: The recursive nature of risk and causation. Clin J Sport Med 2007; 17: 215-219 DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3180592a48.
  • 18 Windt J, Gabbett TJ. How do training and competition workloads relate to injury? The workload—injury aetiology model. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 428-435. bjsports-2016-096040
  • 19 Bertelsen ML, Hulme A, Petersen J. et al. A framework for the etiology of running-related injuries. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2017; 27: 1170-1180 DOI: 10.1111/sms.12883.
  • 20 Nielsen RO, Bertelsen ML, Moller M. et al. Training load and structure-specific load: applications for sport injury causality and data analyses. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52: 1016-1017
  • 21 Kalkhoven JT, Watsford ML, Impellizzeri FM. A conceptual model and detailed framework for stress-related, strain-related, and overuse athletic injury. J Sci Med Sport 2020; 23: 726-734 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.02.002
  • 22 McCall A, Fanchini M, Coutts A. Prediction: the modern-day sport-science and sports-medicine “Quest for the Holy Grail”. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 704-706
  • 23 Windt J, Zumbo BD, Sporer B. et al. Why do workload spikes cause injuries, and which athletes are at higher risk? Mediators and moderators in workload-injury investigations. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 993-994 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097255.
  • 24 Malone S, Owen A, Mendes B. et al. High-speed running and sprinting as an injury risk factor in soccer: Can well-developed physical qualities reduce the risk?. J Sci Med Sport 2018; 21: 257-262 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.05.016.
  • 25 Buchheit M Content is king, but context is God. In: High Intensity Training.; 2018.
  • 26 West SW, Williams S, Kemp SPT. et al. Training load, injury burden, and team success in professional rugby union: Risk versus reward. J Athl Train 2020; 55: 960-966 DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-0387.19.
  • 27 Paul DJ, Bradley PS, Nassis GP. Factors affecting match running performance of elite soccer players: Shedding some light on the complexity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2015; 10: 516-519
  • 28 Dalton-Barron N, Whitehead S, Roe G. et al. Time to embrace the complexity when analysing GPS data? A systematic review of contextual factors on match running in rugby league. J Sports Sci 2020; 38: 1161-1180 DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1745446.
  • 29 Windt J, Taylor D, Nabhan D. et al. What is unified validity theory and how might it contribute to research and practice with athlete self-report measures. Br J Sports Med 2018; 53: 1202-1203
  • 30 Buchheit M. Applying the acute:chronic workload ratio in elite football: Worth the effort?. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51: 1325-1327
  • 31 Klein G. Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. London, United Kingdom: Nicholas Brealey Publishing; 2014
  • 32 Windt J, Ardern CL, Gabbett TJ. et al. Getting the most out of intensive longitudinal data: A methodological review of workload-injury studies. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e022626 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022626.
  • 33 Nielsen RO, Bertlesen ML, Ramskov D. et al. Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research time-varying exposures. Br J Sports Med 2019; 53: 61-68
  • 34 Football Technology. FIFA Quality Performance Reports for EPTS.
  • 35 Bradley PS, Ade JD. Are current physical match performance metrics in elite soccer fir for purpose or is the adoption of an integrated approach needed?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 656-664 . doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0433
  • 36 Stern BD, Hegedus EJ, Ying-Cheng L. Injury prediction as a non-linear system. Phys Ther Sport 2020; 41: 43-48
  • 37 Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 813-817