Relationships between type and duration of training and well-being status of volleyball athletes

Relações entre tipo e duração do treinamento e status de bem-estar de atletas de voleibol

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to describe weekly variations in the type and duration of training, as well as wellness-related parameters, in elite volleyball players. Twenty-four youth elite volleyball players from the French national team (age: 17.8 ± 1.0 y.o.) were monitored daily, and the type of training, training duration, participation in matches, and wellness status were measured over 22 weeks. Volleyball training duration varied from 100 to 510 minutes per week, while strength and conditioning training duration varied from 97 to 262 minutes per week. Fatigue levels varied from 1.5 to 2.8 A.U., and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) varied from 1.5 to 2.5 A.U. Large positive correlation were found between sleep and match duration (r = 0.64) and between stress and weekly volume (r = 0.52). Additionally, moderate positive correlation were found between fatigue and match duration (r = 0.36); between sleep and weekly volume (r = 0.35); between DOMS and match duration (r = 0.43); between stress and strength training (r = 0.42), volleyball training (r = 0.35), and match duration (r = 0.47). The present study revealed natural variations in training volume across the season and moderate dependency between weekly training/match durations and wellness status.

Key words:  Aerobic training; Performance; Strength training; Training load; Wellness

RESUMO

O objetivo deste estudo foi descrever as variações semanais no tipo e duração do treinamento, bem como parâmetros relacionados ao bem-estar, em jogadores de elite de voleibol. Vinte e quarto jovens jogadores de elite de voleibol da seleção Francesa (idade: 17,8 ± 1,0 anos) foram monitorados diariamente, e o tipo de treinamento, a duração do treinamento, a participação em partidas e o status de bem-estar foram medidos durante 22 semanas. A duração do treinamento de voleibol variou de 100 a 510 minutos por semana, enquanto a duração do treinamento de força e condicionamento variou de 97 a 262 minutos por semana. Os níveis de fadiga variaram de 1,5 a 2,8 A.U., e a dor muscular tardia (DMT) variou de 1,5 a 2,5 A.U. Correlação positiva grande foi encontrada entre sono e duração do jogo (r = 0,64) e entre estresse e volume semanal (r = 0,52). Além disso, uma correlação positiva moderada foi encontrada entre fadiga e duração da partida (r = 0,36), entre sono e volume semanal (r = 0,35), entre DMT e duração da partida (r = 0,43), entre estresse e treinamento de força (r = 0,42), treinamento de voleibol (r = 0,35), e duração da partida (r = 0,47). O presente estudo revelou variações naturais no volume de treinamento ao longo da temporada e dependência moderada entre treinamento semanal/duração da partida e status de bem-estar.

Palavras-chave:  Treinamento aeróbico; Desempenho; Treinamento de força; Carga de treinamento; Bem-estar

INTRODUCTION

The practice of monitoring training sessions is invaluable to coaches when planning a competitive season and adapting the workload during training sessions and weeks to prepare players for competition^1,2. Furthermore, monitoring the load of athletes provides information about their biological and physical stress levels, and allows coaches to assess workloads so that injuries can be avoided³. Training workload has been investigated in different sports with the aim of assessing and monitoring external and internal load^3,4. Internal and external load are the main variables of interest when monitoring workload during training sessions and competition moments^5,6. Because of the specificity of each sport, the demands vary, and, consequently, the methods used to assess training sessions need to be adjusted accordingly⁷. As a case in point, volleyball is an intermittent sport involving short bursts of high-intensity effort interspersed with longer periods of low intensity⁸. In this sense, monitoring training workload should be intuitive and should be intended to provide efficient data analysis and interpretation while enabling efficient reporting of simple yet scientifically valid feedback⁹.

Moreover, it is known that internal training load in volleyball is sometimes greater during the preparatory mesocycle than during the competitive mesocycle¹⁰. In fact, a general conditioning and hypertrophy training regimen, along with specific volleyball conditioning, is deemed necessary in the preparatory mesocycle for the development of lower-body strength, agility, and speed performance in volleyball players¹¹. For that reason, recent studies that have assessed internal load—namely, the wellness status of elite male volleyball players—have revealed the usefulness of combining players’ repeated perception effort (RPE) and well-being (Hooper index) to provide information about the impact of training and competition on players^1,6,12,13. Regarding the wellness status of players during training sessions¹⁴, a study revealed that volleyball training sessions cause meaningful changes in the physiological and perceptual measures of fatigue and muscle soreness from the second training session of the week until the last training day of the week.

The previous facts signify the importance of monitoring internal load during different types of strength and conditioning in training sessions, as well as monitoring players’ wellness status to provide athletes and coaches with important information^9,15. There is a lack of evidence about the distribution of the duration of training sessions and matches and these factors’ relationships with well-being, especially in young players. However, using the duration of training sessions and matches as indicators of training volume could help coaches to identify critical periods of the season, mainly if those parameters are closely related to variations in well-being.

Thus, the purpose of this study was: (i) to analyze weekly variations in training duration (organized by type of training, namely, volleyball-specific training and strength and conditioning training) and match duration; (ii) to analyze weekly variations in well-being parameters; and (iii) to analyze the relationships of training and match duration with well-being variables.

METHODS

Participants

Twenty-four youth elite volleyball players from the French national team participated in this study (age: 17.8 ± 1.0 years old; height: 193.9 ± 0.02 cm; body mass: 75.04 ± 8.21 kg). The wellness status of the players was monitored daily. Moreover, the duration was recorded for each training session and match. The following inclusion criteria were applied: (i) participation in the majority of training sessions (at least 80% of all sessions); (ii) missing no more than one consecutive week of training (due to injury, for example); and (iii) medical clearance at the beginning of each microcycle to participate in training without any limitations. The study was approved by the local institute’s research ethics committee.

Experimental approach and procedures

A correlational study design was implemented. Training data were collected during the first half of a season, thus spanning 22 weeks. As this is a descriptive, correlational study, all training programs were planned by the coach and his staff according to the preparatory and competitive period of the team. The players responded to the Hooper questionnaire daily. The questionnaire consisted of four categories of items (delayed onset muscle soreness [DOMS], sleep quality, fatigue, and stress). The questionnaires were applied in the morning, 30 minutes before the first training session of the week. All players were accustomed to the daily procedures used in this research as part of their habitual training routine.

The training and match durations were recorded separately by the same researcher throughout the study period. Each training session was classified either as volleyball training (field-based training sessions), strength training (resistance training in the weight room), aerobic training (cardiorespiratory training performed in the weight room) and other training (any other training performed in the weight room, [e.g., stretching, recovery]). The sum of the duration of all weight room training activities (strength, aerobic, and other) was considered as strength and conditioning training duration. Warm-up and cool-down exercises were included when measuring the duration of all training sessions. The duration of play during matches was recorded for each player. The training and match durations were classified as dependent variables.

Hooper questionnaire

The Hooper questionnaire (adjusted to a 7-point scale)¹⁶ was used. On the scale, a value of 1 means ‘very, very low,’ and a value of 7 means ‘very, very high’ for stress, fatigue, and DOMS levels; for sleep quality, 1 means ‘very, very bad’ and 7 means ‘very, very good.’ The questionnaire was used because it is easy to use, involves no cost, and is non-invasive. Furthermore, it is a promising option for tracking fatigue, sleep, stress, and soreness during a sports season^17-19.

The players were familiarized with the questionnaire and the scale before the study began. Approximately 30 minutes before the training session, each player was asked to rate their perception of the quantity of fatigue, stress, and DOMS, as well as the quality of their sleep during the previous week. Responses were given individually to prevent players from hearing the scores of their teammates.

Statistical procedures

Descriptive statistics of training duration were presented in the form of mean and standard deviation. The normality and homogeneity of the sample was tested and observed by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Levene test, respectively, for a p > 0.05. After confirmation of the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of the sample, correlation coefficients between training duration and well-being measures were determined by using the Pearson r (r). The following thresholds were used to classify the magnitude of correlations²⁰: [0.0-0.1], trivial correlation; [0.1-0.3], small correlation; [0.3-0.5], moderate correlation; [0.5-0.7], large correlation; [0.7-0.9], very large correlation; and >0.9, nearly perfect correlation. The statistical procedures were executed in the SPSS software (version 24.0, IBM, USA) for a p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Descriptive values of weekly duration (min) of volleyball training, strength and conditioning and match can be found in Figure 1. The highest volleyball training durations were reached on weeks 10 (520 min) and 12 (510 min) and the lowest duration was reached on week 19 of ~100 min. The highest strength and conditioning duration was reached on week 2 of 262 min and the lowest duration was reached on week 19 of 97 min. Finally, the highest match duration was reached on week 17 of 1053 min and the lowest duration reached 38 min on week 6, although there were no matches in weeks 1, 2 and 5. A fluctuation pattern in the duration distribution is quite noticeable, in which a decrease in the overall load can be observed in weeks 11 and 19 with a mean duration value of ~200 min for week 11 and of ~100 min for week 19. In the first weeks (1 to 9) of the season it was observed that strength and condition duration remained high compared to volleyball training, however a shift on durations was observed from week 10, in which volleyball training assumed a more relevant role, although both remained similar throughout the season.

Figure 1
Weekly duration (min) of volleyball training, strength and conditioning and match.

A specific analysis to the duration of strength and aerobic training (included in the strength and conditioning training volume) can be found in Figure 2. Strength training reached the highest durations on weeks 12, 14 and 17 of ~300 min and the lowest duration on week 15 of ~50 min, while the highest aerobic training duration was reached on week 2 of ~400 min and the lowest duration on weeks 3, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 21 of ~0 to 50 min. Higher durations of aerobic training were observed in the first 2 weeks of the season with a significant drop from week 3 and maintaining lower durations from week 4 to week 22. On the other hand, for strength training, it was observed a 4-week mesocycle pattern (3 weeks of loading following 1 week of unloading) from the beginning until the end of the season.

Figure 2
Weekly duration (min) of strength training and aerobic training.

The accumulated duration of training and match can be found in Figure 3. The highest training/match duration was reached in weeks 2, 12 and 22 of ~1.100 min and the lowest duration was observed in week 19 of ~250 min. In the first 3 weeks of the season it was observed higher durations between ~850 to 1.100 min following a slight decrease in weeks 4 and 5 to ~600 min. From week 6 it was observed a 5 to 6-week mesocycle with higher durations following 1 week of unloading (i.e. smaller durations), in which an unloading phase was observed in weeks 11 and 19 similarly to the observed in Figure 1.

Figure 3
Total weekly duration (min) in training and match.

Mean of fatigue, sleep, DOMS and stress scores in each week of the analyzed period can be found in the Figure 4. The highest fatigue levels felt by athletes were reached in week 20 of ~2.8 AU from the Hooper scale and the lowest levels were reached in week 10 of ~1.5 AU. For sleep variable, the highest values were found in week 17 of ~2.2 AU and the lowest values were found in week 10 of ~1.4 AU. Relatively to delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), the highest values were found in week 18 of ~2.5 AU, and the lowest values of ~1.5 AU in week 5. Finally, for stress variable, the highest values were found in weeks 6 and 17 of ~1.5 AU and the lowest values were found in weeks 4 and 5 of ~1.0 AU. It was found that from week 5 to week 14 (10 weeks period) the fatigue, sleep and DOMS variables have a progressive increase during 5 weeks dropping in the 6^th week from weeks 5 to 9 and from weeks 10 to 14, following a relatively consistent values until the end of the 22-week period. While for stress variable, it was found consistent values from the beginning to the end of the 22 weeks period analyzed.

Figure 4
Mean of fatigue, sleep, DOMS and stress scores in each week of the analyzed period.

Correlations between well-being variables and training duration were tested and can be found in Table 1. Large positive correlation coefficients were found between sleep and match duration (r = 0.64[0.3;0.84]) and between stress and weekly volume (r = 0.52[0.13;0.77]). Moderate positive correlation coefficients were found between fatigue and match duration (r = 0.36[0.07;0.68]), between sleep and weekly volume (r = 0.35[-0.08;0.67]), between DOMS and match duration (r = 0.43[0.01;0.72]) and between stress and strength training (r = 0.42[0.0;0.71]), volleyball training (r = 0.35[-0.08;0.67]) and match duration (r = 0.47[0.06;0.74]).

Table 1
Correlation coefficients between well-being measures and training duration.

	Strength training (min)	Aerobic Training (min)	S&C (min)	Volleyball Training (min)	Matches (min)	Weekly volume (min)
Fatigue (A.U.)	-0.04	-0.04	-0.09	-0.12	0.36	0.06
	[-0.45;0.39]	[-0.45;0.39]	[0.49;0.34]	[-0.52;0.32]	[0.07;0.68]	[0.37;0.47]
	Trivial	Trivial	Trivial	Small	Moderate	Trivial
Sleep (A.U.)	0.08	0.01	0.15	-0.12	0.64	0.35
	[-0.35;0.49]	[-0.41;0.43]	[-0.29;0.54] Small	[-0.52;0.32]	[0.3;0.84]	[-0.08;0.67]
	Trivial	Trivial		Small	Large	Moderate
DOMS(A.U.)	-0.21	-0.12	-0.21	-0.11	0.43	0.04
	[-0.58;0.23]	[-0.52;0.32]	[-0.58;0.23]	[-0.51;0.33]	[0.01;0.72]	[-0.39;0.45]
	Small	Small	Small	Small	Moderate	Trivial
Stress (A.U.)	0.42	-0.08	0.19	0.35	0.47	0.52
	[0;0.71]	[-0.49;0.35]	[-0.25;0.57]	[-0.08;0.67]	[0.06;0.74]	[0.13;0.77]
	Moderate	Trivial	Small	Moderate	Moderate	Large

• Note: S&C: strength and conditioning; Training load: sum of S&C and volleyball training; Weekly load: sum of training load and matches. DOMS: delayed onset muscle soreness.; A.U.: arbitrary units; min.: minutes.

DISCUSSION

The purposes of this study were to (i) analyze weekly variations in the duration of training sessions and matches; (ii) investigate weekly variations in well-being parameters; and (iii) explore the relationships of training and match duration with well-being variables.

Fluctuations in duration distribution were registered throughout the period of analysis. In the first three weeks, high total duration (training and match combined) and strength and conditioning duration (first two weeks) were observed, clearly characterizing a traditional approach to the preparatory period, as high training volumes were applied at perhaps not-so-high intensities²¹. During the following weeks, aerobic training duration decreased, but strength and volleyball training durations showed a wave-like fluctuation.

An analysis of all the different load variables showed that all components were considered to create a wave to better manage and control all the training loads. Nevertheless, when strength and conditioning training had higher durations, the match and/or specific volleyball training durations decreased and vice-versa. This implies that coaches understand that not all matches present the same degree of difficulty; therefore, they take the opportunity to change their weekly structure accordingly. Especially in the first two weeks of training, strength and conditioning training were high due to their incorporation in the preparatory period, which is mainly characterized as a period of high training volume combined with a focus on fitness development (e.g., endurance, strength, and speed)²². In the present study, strength and conditioning training had a longer duration than volleyball training until week 9. This result is in line with the literature²³, including other studies on volleyball^24,25.

The athletes’ physical capacity is an important element of success in sports²⁶. Strength and conditioning training, which includes strength and aerobic training in the present study, was related to greater load during the first weeks of the season. However, the distribution of these two physical capacities did not stay the same throughout the season. For instance, aerobic capacity registered its highest value in the second week, but its prevalence dropped on week 3 and stayed low from weeks 4 to 22. Although high aerobic capacity is an integral indicator of the functional capacities of all systems involved in supply, transportation, and energetic oxygen transformation (cardiorespiratory capacity and functional muscle capacity to produce ATP in the presence of oxygen)²⁶, it has been reported that volleyball requires a relatively high anaerobic work capacity²⁷.

Thus, the increased load of aerobic exercises in the pre-season was intended to increase aerobic capacity. Meanwhile, for all other weeks, the focus shifted to anaerobic capacity. Strength capacity was frequently stimulated throughout the study period, registering a similar pattern of 3:1 (i.e., increased load for three weeks, followed by a decrease the following week). This fluctuation in load, allowed the coach to better manage the workload and prevent athletes from becoming over-fatigued, thus ensure the alternation of loads and allowing for overcompensation.

In weeks 1, 2, and 5, no matches were registered (Figure 1). This is because these were the pre-season weeks. In the first two weeks, the athletes did not have the physical fitness needed to play in perfect conditions, and in the fifth week, they did not have a match so that they could start in a perfect fit the official season after a week of tapering. As is a common strategy at this stage, the games that took place in weeks 3 and 4 were probably friendly preparation games, encouraging team engagement and coordination. In fact, during the training program, a considerable amount of time should be devoted to drills that improve the players’ ability to play as one cohesive unit²⁸.

Nevertheless, in volleyball training and match load, the same concern with maintaining a load fluctuation seems to be evident, as the largest loads were spread out (weeks 2, 12, and 22). Furthermore, the lowest value for this variable was registered on week 19, which coincided with Christmas and New Year’s Eve, thus resulting in frequent disruptions in the training schedule.

Sleep, fatigue, and DOMS increased progressively as the official competition began (weeks 6 to 9), and then consistent values were maintained until week 22. Differently, stress showed higher values at the beginning of the official season (week 6) and in week 17 (which matches with the longest match duration registered and, therefore, could well have been the hardest opponent of the analyzed period). Finally, large positive correlations were found between sleep and match duration (r = 0.64) and between stress and weekly duration (r = 0.52). Meanwhile, moderate positive correlations were registered between fatigue and match duration (r = 0.36), sleep and weekly duration (r = 0.35), and DOMS and match duration (r = 0.43). Furthermore, stress was correlated with strength training (r = 0.42), volleyball training (r = 0.35), and match duration (r = 0.47). Overall, match duration had moderate to strong correlations with sleep, stress, fatigue, and DOMS, making it the only external variable that was significantly correlated with all wellness variables. Therefore, match duration might be a good indicator of internal load.

Finally, there are some curious aspects of the indirect measures of internal load. Fatigue was the highest in week 20, even though the previous week had the lowest training duration. This finding could indicate that fatigue accumulated across all previous training weeks and is related to the asynchrony of the recovery processes^29,30. This non-linearity of adaptation and fatigue processes is reinforced by the fact that fatigue was the lowest in week 10, which had one of the highest training durations of the 22 weeks. Incidentally, sleep was low in week 10 but high in weeks 19 and 20. This again points towards the accumulated effects of fatigue towards week 20, as the long sleep times imply a need for recovery. DOMS peaked in week 18, preceding the peak of overall fatigue by approximately two weeks, again underlining the asynchrony of responses to training.

The correlation analysis showed that match duration is perhaps the best measure of external load for inferring internal load, as it was the only measure that presented moderate to strong correlations with all wellness variables. However, since this was an correlational study of a single team, there is no means of comparison. Therefore, these effects are to be interpreted with caution because it is not known whether these correlations are generalizable or reflect an idiosyncrasy of this specific sample. Future studies should analyze an entire season to gain a better understanding of the evolution of the studied parameters throughout a season.

Finally, as a practical approach, the strength of this study revealed how the variations wellness measures could be so important to coaches plan their season. This monitoring could also reveal both individual and team variations regarding wellness measures. In this sense, the simple fact to apply this questionnaires, should add relevant information for coaches to plan their season with different perspective and accordingly to the athletes needs.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the variations of wellness measures, sleep, fatigue and DOMS increased progressively at the beginning of the official season and then remained constant until the end of the study. Thus, it concluded that wellness measures are training-duration-dependent.

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

• How to cite this article Lima RF, Silva AF, Afonso J, Silva R, Castro HO, Clemente FM. Relationships between type and duration of training and well-being status of volleyball athletes. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2022, 24:e75672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-0037.2022v24e75672
• Funding
  This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This study was funded by the authors.

REFERENCES

• ¹ Lima RF, Silva A, Afonso J, Castro H, Clemente FM. External and internal load and their effects on professional volleyball training. Int J Sports Med 2020;41(7):468-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1087-2183 PMid:32059245.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1087-2183
• ² Nikolaidis PT, Gkoudas K, Afonso J, Clemente-Suarez VJ, Knechtle B, Kasabalis S, et al. Who jumps the highest? Anthropometric and physiological correlations of vertical jump in youth elite female volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2017;57(6):802-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06298-8 PMid:27139794.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06298-8
• ³ Delecroix B, McCall A, Dawson B, Berthoin S, Dupont G. Workload and non-contact injury incidence in elite football players competing in European leagues. Eur J Sport Sci 2018;18(9):1280-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1477994 PMid:29860935.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1477994
• ⁴ Lima RF, Palao JM, Clemente FM. Jump performance during official matches in elite volleyball players: A case study. J Hum Kinet 2019;67(1):259-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0080 PMid:31523323.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0080
• ⁵ Conte D, Kolb N, Scanlan AT, Santolamazza F. Monitoring training load and well-being during the in-season phase in national collegiate athletic association division i men’s basketball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018;13(8):1067-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0689 PMid:29431544.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0689
• ⁶ Clemente FM, Silva AF, Clark CCT, Conte D, Ribeiro J, Mendes B, et al. Analyzing the seasonal changes and relationships in training load and wellness in elite volleyball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020;15(5):731-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0251 PMid:32015214.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0251
• ⁷ Lambert MI, Borresen J. Measuring training load in sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010;5(3):406-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.5.3.406 PMid:20861529.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.5.3.406
• ⁸ Sheppard JM, Gabbett T, Taylor KL, Dorman J, Lebedew AJ, Borgeaud R. Development of a repeated-effort test for elite men’s volleyball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2007;2(3):292-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2.3.292 PMid:19168929.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2.3.292
• ⁹ Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014;44(Suppl 2):S139-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z PMid:25200666.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z
• ¹⁰ Aoki MS, Arruda AFS, Freitas CG, Miloski B, Marcelino PR, Drago G, et al. Monitoring training loads, mood states, and jump performance over two periodized training mesocycles in elite young volleyball players. Int J Sports Sci Coaching 2017;12(1):130-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747954116684394
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747954116684394
• ¹¹ Trajković N, Milanovic Z, Sporis G, Milic V, Stankovic R. The effects of 6 weeks of preseason skill-based conditioning on physical performance in male volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26(6):1475-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318231a704 PMid:21904244.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318231a704
• ¹² Clemente FM, Owen A, Serra-Olivares J, Nikolaidis PT, Van der Linden CMI, Mendes B. Characterization of the weekly external load profile of professional soccer teams from Portugal and the Netherlands. J Hum Kinet 2019;66(1):155-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0054 PMid:30988849.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0054
• ¹³ Lima RF, Palao J, Castro H, Clemente F. Measuring the training external jump load of elite male volleyball players : an exploratory study in Portuguese League. Retos 2019;36(36):454-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.47197/retos.v36i36.68321
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.47197/retos.v36i36.68321
• ¹⁴ Tavares F, Simões M, Matos B, Smith TB, Driller M. Wellness, muscle soreness and neuromuscular performance during a training week in volleyball athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2018;58(12):1852-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07818-5 PMid:29072031.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07818-5
• ¹⁵ Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A, Gastin P, Kellmann M, Varley MC, et al. Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017;12(Suppl 2):S2161-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2017-0208 PMid:28463642.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2017-0208
• ¹⁶ Hooper SL, Mackinnon LT. Monitoring overtraining in athletes: recommendations. Sports Med 1995;20(5):321-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199520050-00003 PMid:8571005.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199520050-00003
• ¹⁷ Claudino JG, Gabbett TJ, de Sá Souza H, Simim M, Fowler P, Borba DA, et al. Which parameters to use for sleep quality monitoring in team sport athletes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2019;5(1):e000475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000475 PMid:30729029.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000475
• ¹⁸ Rabbani A, Clemente FM, Kargarfard M, Chamari K. Match fatigue time-course assessment over four days: usefulness of the hooper index and heart rate variability in professional soccer players. Front Physiol 2019;10:109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00109 PMid:30837890.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00109
• ¹⁹ Oliveira R, Brito JP, Martins A, Mendes B, Marinho DA, Ferraz R, et al. In-season internal and external training load quantification of an elite European soccer team. PLoS One 2019;14(4):e0209393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209393 PMid:31009464.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209393
• ²⁰ Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2006;1(1):50-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.1.1.50 PMid:19114737.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.1.1.50
• ²¹ Bompa T, Carrera M. Periodization training for sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
• ²² Jeong T-S, Reilly T, Morton J, Bae S-W, Drust B. Quantification of the physiological loading of one week of “pre-season” and one week of “in-season” training in professional soccer players. J Sports Sci 2011;29(11):1161-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.583671 PMid:21777053.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.583671
• ²³ Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med 2010;40(3):189-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11319770-000000000-00000 PMid:20199119.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11319770-000000000-00000
• ²⁴ Clemente FM, Silva AF, Clark CC, Conte D, Ribeiro J, Mendes B, et al. Analyzing the seasonal changes and relationships in training load and wellness in elite volleyball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020;15(5):731-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0251 PMid:32015214.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0251
• ²⁵ Duarte TS, Coimbra DR, Miranda R, Toledo HC, Werneck FZ, Freitas DGSD, et al. Monitoring training load and recovery in volleyball players during a season. Rev Bras Med Esporte 2019;25(3):226-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1517-869220192503195048
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1517-869220192503195048
• ²⁶ Ranković G, Mutavdžić V, Toskić D, Preljević A, Kocić M, Nedin-Ranković G, et al. Aerobic capacity as an indicator in different kinds of sports. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2010;10(1):44-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2010.2734 PMid:20192930.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2010.2734
• ²⁷ Tsunawake N, Tahara Y, Moji K, Muraki S, Minowa K, Yukawa K. Body composition and physical fitness of female volleyball and basketball players of the Japan inter-high school championship teams. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci 2003;22(4):195-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.2114/jpa.22.195 PMid:12939535.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2114/jpa.22.195
• ²⁸ Nikolaidis PT, Ziv G, Arnon M, Lidor R. Physical characteristics and physiological attributes of female volleyball players-The need for individual data. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26(9):2547-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8c06 PMid:22076096.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8c06
• ²⁹ Drew MK, Finch CF. The relationship between training load and injury, illness and soreness: a systematic and literature review. Sports Med 2016;46(6):861-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8 PMid:26822969.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8
• ³⁰ Kenney W, Wilmore J, Costil D. Physiology of sport and exercise. 6th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2015.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 May 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  15 July 2020
• Accepted
  31 Mar 2021