↓ Skip to main content

Training Load Monitoring in Team Sports: A Novel Framework Separating Physiological and Biomechanical Load-Adaptation Pathways

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
192 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
305 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
941 Mendeley
Title
Training Load Monitoring in Team Sports: A Novel Framework Separating Physiological and Biomechanical Load-Adaptation Pathways
Published in
Sports Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0714-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jos Vanrenterghem, Niels Jensby Nedergaard, Mark A. Robinson, Barry Drust

Abstract

There have been considerable advances in monitoring training load in running-based team sports in recent years. Novel technologies nowadays offer ample opportunities to continuously monitor the activities of a player. These activities lead to internal biochemical stresses on the various physiological subsystems; however, they also cause internal mechanical stresses on the various musculoskeletal tissues. Based on the amount and periodization of these stresses, the subsystems and tissues adapt. Therefore, by monitoring external loads, one hopes to estimate internal loads to predict adaptation, through understanding the load-adaptation pathways. We propose a new theoretical framework in which physiological and biomechanical load-adaptation pathways are considered separately, shedding new light on some of the previously published evidence. We hope that it can help the various practitioners in this field (trainers, coaches, medical staff, sport scientists) to align their thoughts when considering the value of monitoring load, and that it can help researchers design experiments that can better rationalize training-load monitoring for improving performance while preventing injury.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 192 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 941 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 936 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 165 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 12%
Student > Bachelor 111 12%
Researcher 69 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 51 5%
Other 176 19%
Unknown 255 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 445 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 62 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 4%
Unspecified 25 3%
Engineering 22 2%
Other 65 7%
Unknown 285 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#348,677
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#344
of 2,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,323
of 321,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#11
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.