↓ Skip to main content

The Association Between Training Load and Performance in Team Sports: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2018
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
98 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 Mendeley
Title
The Association Between Training Load and Performance in Team Sports: A Systematic Review
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0982-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordan L. Fox, Robert Stanton, Charli Sargent, Sally-Anne Wintour, Aaron T. Scanlan

Abstract

Adequate training loads promote favorable physical and physiological adaptations, reduce the likelihood of illness and injury, and, therefore, increase the possibility of success during competition. Our objective was to systematically examine the association between training load and performance outcomes in team sports. We systematically searched the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases for original research published before July 2018. The search included terms relevant to training load, performance, and team sports. Articles were screened using pre-defined selection criteria, and methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors before data were extracted by the lead author. The electronic search yielded 5848 articles, 2373 of which were duplicates. A further 17 articles were retrieved from additional sources. In total, 26 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review, with quality scores ranging from 6 to 10 out of 11. Training exposure was more strongly associated with aerobic performance than other external training load measures. High-intensity activity (≥ 90% of maximum heart rate) was strongly associated with aerobic performance. The individualized training impulse model was strongly associated with aerobic performance, whereas various other training impulse models and perceptual training load measures showed weak associations with aerobic performance. There were no clear associations between training load and neuromuscular variables or game-related statistics. We found no consistent associations between external training load measures and performance. High-intensity internal training load appears to be the most prominent indicator of aerobic performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 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 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 300 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 15%
Researcher 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 54 18%
Unknown 83 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 168 56%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Social Sciences 4 1%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 92 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 22 July 2021.
All research outputs
#654,912
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#623
of 2,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,142
of 348,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#10
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 348,468 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.