A new approach to quantify internal and external training load for intermittent sports

  • Roberto Andrés González-Fimbres Universidad Estatal de Sonora. Ley Federal del Trabajo S/N, Colonia Apolo, Hermosillo, Sonora, México, CP 83100
  • María Grethel Ramírez-Siqueiros Universidad Estatal de Sonora. Ley Federal del Trabajo S/N, Colonia Apolo, Hermosillo, Sonora, México, CP 83100
  • Luis Felipe Reynoso-Sánchez Universidad Autónoma de Occidente, Dpto. Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Blvd. Macario Gaxiola y Carretera Internacional, s/n. Narciso Mendoza, Los Mochis, Sinaloa, México. C.P. 81217
  • José Trinidad Quezada-Chacón Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas. Av. Benjamin Franklin no. 4650 Zona PRONAF CP 32315
  • Janeth Miranda-Mendoza Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Organización Deportiva. Cd. Universitaria, S/N, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, México, C.P. 66455
  • Germán Hernández-Cruz Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Organización Deportiva. Cd. Universitaria, S/N, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, México, C.P. 66455

Resumen

The aim of this study was to propose a modified training impulse method (TRIMP) to quantify internal training load (ITL) in intermittent team sports and examine its relationship with external training load (ETL) during a preparatory period. Over 12 weeks, 11 male youth field hockey players (14.41 ± 0.51 years) were evaluated in regard to their ETL using triaxial accelerometers (Actigraph) and data was later contrasted with ITL, which was measured using heart rate (HR) monitors (Polar Team2) by four different TRIMP methods: Banister´s (bTRIMP), Edwards´s (eTRIMP), individualized (iTRIMP) and modified (mTRIMP). A correlation was found between HR (beat/min) and ETL (r = 0.699, R2 = 0.489, p < 0.01) and among TRIMP methods (r = 0.808-0.984, p < 0.01), however, the consistency between methods did not agree (p < 0.01). The ETL correlated in all TRIMP methods: bTRIMP (r = 0.509, R2 = 0.259, p < 0.01), eTRIMP (r = 0.336, R2 = 0.113, p < 0.01), iTRIMP (r = 0.224, R2 = 0.050, p < 0.01) and mTRIMP (r = 0.516, R2 = 0.267, p < 0.01). The proposed mTRIMP can be a valid option for ITL quantification; furthermore, indexes combining ITL and ETL should be used for a complete training assessment.
Publicado
2019-07-18
Sección
Artículos