Elite soccer teams that participate in European competitions need to have players in the best physical and psychological status possible to play matches. As a consequence of congestive schedule, controlling the training load (TL) and thus the level of effort and fatigue of players to reach higher performances during the matches is therefore critical. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to provide the first report of seasonal internal and external training load that included Hooper Index (HI) scores in elite soccer players during an in-season period. Nineteen elite soccer players were sampled, using global position system to collect total distance, high-speed distance (HSD) and average speed (AvS). It was also collected session rating of perceived exertion (s-RPE) and HI scores during the daily training sessions throughout the 2015–2016 in-season period. Data were analysed across ten mesocycles (M: 1 to 10) and collected according to the number of days prior to a one-match week. Total daily distance covered was higher at the start (M1 and M3) compared to the final mesocycle (M10) of the season. M1 (5589m) reached a greater distance than M5 (4473m) (ES = 9.33 [12.70, 5.95]) and M10 (4545m) (ES = 9.84 [13.39, 6.29]). M3 (5691m) reached a greater distance than M5 (ES = 9.07 [12.36, 5.78]), M7 (ES = 6.13 [8.48, 3.79]) and M10 (ES = 9.37 [12.76, 5.98]). High-speed running distance was greater in M1 (227m), than M5 (92m) (ES = 27.95 [37.68, 18.22]) and M10 (138m) (ES = 8.46 [11.55, 5.37]). Interestingly, the s-RPE response was higher in M1 (331au) in comparison to the last mesocycle (M10, 239au). HI showed minor variations across mesocycles and in days prior to the match. Every day prior to a match, all internal and external TL variables expressed significant lower values to other days prior to a match (p<0.01). In general, there were no differences between player positions. Conclusions: Our results reveal that despite the existence of some significant differences between mesocycles, there were minor changes across the in-season period for the internal and external TL variables used. Furthermore, it was observed that MD-1 presented a reduction of external TL (regardless of mesocycle) while internal TL variables did not have the same record during in-season match-day-minus.

In-season training load quantification of one-, two-and three-game week schedules in a top European professional soccer team. Phb (2018), https://doi. AbstractTop European soccer teams that play in UEFA competitions often participate in one, two-or three-games per week. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the variations in training load (TL) according to each team's competitive schedule. The aim of this study was to quantify internal and external TLs within five microcycles: M4 and M5onegame weeks; M1 and M3two-game weeks; M2three-game week). The sample consisted of thirteen elite soccer players. A global positioning system (GPS) was used to measure the total distance covered and distances of different exercise training zones (1-5), the session ratings of perceived exertion (s-RPE) scores and the amount of creatine kinase (CK) created during daily training sessions for the 2015-2016 in-season period. The data were analysed with respect to the number of days prior to a given match. The main results indicate that there was a significant difference in training intensity for zone 1 between M5 and M3 (4010.2±103.5 and 4507.6±133.0 m, respectively); a significant difference in training intensity for zone 3 between M4 and M2 (686.1±42.8 and 801.2±61.2 m, respectively); a significant difference in the duration of the training sessions and matches between M5 and M2 (69.2±2.1 and 79.6±2.3) and M1 and M2 (69.7±1.0 and 79.6±2.3); and finally, there was a significant difference in CK between M1 and M5 (325.5±155.0 and 194.4±48.9). Moreover, therewas a significant decrease in TL in the last day prior to a match, for all microcycles and all variables. There was no significant difference with respect to s-RPE. This study provides the first report of daily external and internal TLs and weekly accumulated load (training sessions and match demands) during one, two, and three-game week schedules in a group of elite soccer players. Expected significant differences are found in daily and accumulated loads for within-and between-game schedules. A similar pattern is ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P Texhibited for one-and two-game week microcycles regarding the day before the match, which exhibits a decrease in all variables.

(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/inplasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Results: Eleven articles (n = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = −0.22; 95% CI = −0.55 to 0.12; p = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.

Background and Objectives: Interpretation of the load variations across a period seems important to control the weekly progression or variation of the load, or to identify in-micro- and mesocycle variations. Thus, the aims of this study were twofold: (a) to describe the in-season variations of training monotony, training strain and acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) through session ratings of perceived exertion (s-RPE), total distance and high-speed running (HSR); and (b) to compare those variations between starters and non-starters. Materials and Methods: Seventeen professional players from a European First League team participated in this study. They were divided in two groups: starters (n = 9) and non-starters (n = 8). The players were monitored daily over a 41-week period of competition where 52 matches occurred during the 2015–2016 in-season. Through the collection of s-RPE, total distance and HSR, training monotony, training strain and ACWR were calculated for each measure, respectively. Data were analyzed across ten mesocycles (M: 1 to 10). Repeated measures ANOVA was used with the Bonferroni post hoc test to compare M and player status. Results: The results revealed no differences between starters vs. non-starters (p > 0.05). M6 had a greater number of matches and displayed higher values for monotony (s-RPE, total distance and HSR), strain (only for total distance) and ACWR (s-RPE, TD and HSR). However, the variation patterns for all indexes displayed some differences. Conclusions: The values of both starters and non-starters showed small differences, thus suggesting that the adjustments of training workloads that had been applied over the season helped to reduce differences according to the player status. Even so, there were some variations over the season (microcycles and mesocycles) for the whole team. This study could be used as a reference for future coaches, staff and scientists.