Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorKarlsson, Ulrik Berg
dc.contributor.authorVagle, Markus
dc.contributor.authorWiig, Håvard
dc.contributor.authorLuteberget, Live Steinnes
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-24T12:11:50Z
dc.date.available2023-10-24T12:11:50Z
dc.date.created2023-06-15T17:56:45Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP). 2023, 18(6), 603-614.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1555-0265
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3098421
dc.descriptionI Brage finner du siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde ubetydelige forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på humankinetics.com / In Brage you'll find the final text version of the article, and it may contain insignificant differences from the journal's pdf version. The definitive version is available at humankinetics.comen_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to investigate (1) if there are differences in training load and intensity between the different training days within a microcycle and (2) if training load and intensity within the different training days are stable over the course of a season. Data were collected over a full season from a team in the women’s premier division in Norway. External load (total distance, high-speed-running distance, sprint distance, and the combined number of accelerations and decelerations [ACCDEC]) was assessed using a 10-Hz GPS system with a built-in accelerometer. Internal load was assessed through session rating of perceived exertion, which was multiplied with session duration (session rating of perceived exertion-load). Training days were classified in relation to their proximity to the upcoming match day (MD): MD − 4, MD − 3, MD − 2, and MD − 1. Contents on these days were standardized according to a weekly periodization model followed by the coaching staff. Differences between training days were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model. All training days were significantly different from each other across multiple variables. ACCDEC values were highest on MD − 4 (147.5 [13.0] ACCDEC count), and all distance variables were highest on MD − 3. All measures of training load were significantly reduced from MD − 3 to MD − 2 (effect size [ES] = 1.0–4.1) and from MD − 2 to MD − 1 (ES = 1.6-4.3). A significant negative effect across the season was observed for session rating of perceived exertion-load and ACCDEC (ES = 0.8–2.1). These results provide evidence that elite female football teams can be successful in differentiating training load between training days when implementing a weekly periodization approach.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectteam sportsen_US
dc.subjecttactical periodizationen_US
dc.subjectseasonal changeen_US
dc.subjectfemale athleteen_US
dc.subjectsocceren_US
dc.titleTraining Load Quantification in Women's Elite Football: A Season-Long Prospective Cohort Studyen_US
dc.title.alternativeTraining Load Quantification in Women's Elite Football: A Season-Long Prospective Cohort Studyen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber603-614en_US
dc.source.volume18en_US
dc.source.journalInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP)en_US
dc.source.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1123/ijspp.2022-0272
dc.identifier.cristin2155051
dc.description.localcodeInstitutt for fysisk prestasjonsevne / Department of Physical Performanceen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel