MONITORING THE TRAINING LOAD WITH COACH ID

Controlling an athlete’s training load is fundamental to maintaining their performance. At the highest level, athletes are faced with frequent competitions and  few recovery days between high intensity efforts. Poor training and inappropriate recovery are some of the most common causes of injuries and for this reason it is essential to understand the impact of competition and training on athletes.

In the scope of load quantification we distinguish between two kinds, external load and internal load. External load refers to the physical impact of the athlete’s actions (eg: running distance, weight lifted, number and intensity of sprints, jumps, contacts) while internal load is related to physiological demands (heart rate, VO2max, blood lactate level or subjective perception of effort). The individual characteristics of an athlete (eg: chronological age, training level, injury history and physical ability) combined with applied external and internal loads determine the training result.

The quantification of external and internal load sometimes requires means that are not available to all clubs. For example, to monitor external load, GPS monitoring devices are required. As for internal load, to analyze heart rate or VO2 max, an analysis monitor and gas analyzer are required, respectively. In this article, we highlight a highly validated parameter for estimating, prescribing and controlling training load which is used at the highest level in football- rate of perceived exertion or RPE.

RPE

RPE consists of an athlete’s subjective rating of the perceived effort during training or competition (4). The most common scale is one proposed by Foster, in an adaptation of Borg-10, that asks athletes to assign an intensity between 0-10 of the training or competition, as shown in the figure below:

The overall intensity of the training or competition is evaluated by multiplying the athlete’s perceived effort and the duration of the training or competition (RPE x minutes). The perceived effort should be taken within 30 minutes post completion of the training or competition. As an example, if an athlete’s perceived effort is 8 and the session lasted 90 minutes then: 8x90 = 720 AU (AU is an arbitrary unit of load). This relationship allows the coach to analyze the impact of his process every day and analyze another very important issue: the relationship between acute and chronic load.

Acute and chronic may have different temporal interpretations. In Coach ID app we have defined acute load as the average of the previous 5 days, and chronic load as the average of the previous 28 days (4 weeks). Thus, if an athlete has an average of 500 AU in the previous 5 days and 400 AU in the previous 28 days, the ratio of acute to chronic is 1.25. With this information, we can observe that the ratio is between the parameters for optimal load (as we will see below). This calculation is done automatically by the app. The acute to chronic ratio ranges we use are the following:

<0.8, light load (under-training and high relative risk of injury);
0.8 to 1.3, optimal load (low risk of injury);
>1.3, high load (over-training and high relative risk of injury)

Evidence suggests that accumulated high levels (appropriately planned) of training seem to play a protective role against injuries (1). Studies reveal that sometimes reducing training loads to a level of under-training may not be the best option to prevent injuries. We speak, of course, of non-contact injuries.

 

For a simpler and more intuitive analysis,  Coach ID app features a yellow, green or red color mark every day depending on the player's range. This way the coach can adapt his sessions and stimulus in a more individual way and on a daily basis. To obtain this data, the coach only has to define sessions and matches in the planning grid and all participating players will receive a notification in their COACH ID CONNECT app shortly after the end of the training or competition to evaluate their efforts. In this way, coaches have all the information they need need without having to collect data and waste time with spreadsheets.

Coach id app image

 

WELLNESS

WELLNESS

Monitoring an athletes’ well-being through subjective questionnaires is a common practice in high-performance sport (2). In fact, a recent study of UEFA's elite fitness coaches showed that wellness questionnaires (3) are one of the most used tools.

 

 

These questionnaires are used to determine an athlete’s readiness for new stimulus. In the questionnaire proposed by Coach ID app, whenever there is a training or competition in the coach’s plan, the morning before the training or competition, the athletes will receive a notification in Coach ID connect to rate their (individual) well-being according to the 5 parameters below (each scale is from 1-5, where 1 is the worst result and 5 the best result  relatively to players sensations ):

- Fatigue
- Sleep quality
- Muscle soreness
- Stress level
- Mood

 

Image from Coach ID app

 

With instantaneous access to this data, the coach can preview the impact perceived by athletes and adjust his plans according to the data. This tool can be used to analyze why a player is not performing as expected.

The next image shows the process to connect coaches with players:

COACH ID app was designed to help coach’s integrate players’ well-being and effort intensity data into the coaching process. We believe that the new generation of players want to be better informed and, above all, feel their opinions and well-being are valued. By allowing players to provide feedback, we are also encouraging them to think about their bodies, performance and effort intensity.

We are IDentifying them with the coach's project!

 

 

 

Bibliography:

  1. Gabbett, T., 2016. The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?.British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(5), pp.273-280. http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/01/12/bjsports-2015-095788?__hstc=196135283.0bb2ae1552d2dda845881b6516c33848.1481673600081.1481673600082.1481673600083.1&__hssc=196
  2. Gastin PB, Meyer D, Robinson D (2013) - Perceptions of wellness to monitor adaptive responses to training and competition in elite Australian football. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27:2518–26. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31827fd600
  3. McCall, A., Dupont, G., & Ekstrand, J. (2016). Injury preven strategies, coach compliance and player adherence of 33 of the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study teams: a survey of team’ head medical officers. British Journal of Sports Medicine 0, 1-6, consultado a partir de com/carga-de-entrenamiento-y-lesiones/© Mundo Entrenamiento ISSN: 2444-2895
  4. Fifa – Juegos com efectivos reducidos y preparación física integrada
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram