Differences in External Workload Demand between Session Types and Positions in Collegiate Men’s Ice Hockey

Abstract

Background: Despite the importance of using a thorough understanding of competition demands to optimize preparatory strategies, there is a paucity of longitudinal workload data in ice hockey. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine differences in workload characteristics between training and matches, and assess differences between forwards and defensemen. Methods: All players from a NCAA Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Team wore Catapult S5 units for all on-ice activities for two consecutive seasons. Seven workload variables (Player Load, Skating Load, Explosive Efforts, High Skate Load, Player Load·min-1, Skating Load·min-1, and Average Stride Force·lb-1) were used to quantify training and match workload characteristics. Results: Compared to training, matches resulted in significantly higher Player Load (p<0.001), Total Skating Load (p<0.001), Explosive Efforts (p<0.001), High Force Strides (p<0.001), and Average Stride Force·lb-1 (p=0.001), but training resulted in higher Player Load·min-1 (p<0.001) and Skating Load·min-1 (p<0.001). Compared to defensemen, forwards accumulated higher values in all seven workload measures, across all session types (p<.001). Conclusion: Matches required higher values in measures of intensity and volume, but lower work rate compared to training. Training had unique emphases based on when it occurred relative to the next match. Regardless of session type, forwards consistently produced higher workloads across all variables.

Simulated Game-Based Ice Hockey Match Design (Scrimmage) Elicits Greater Intensity in External Load Parameters Compared With Official Matches

“…Similar to distance per min, the more continuous movement and only obtaining data while the puck is in play, seems like the logical explanation for the small increase in PlayerLoad TM per min during simulation matches. When comparing PlayerLoad™ from matches, our results are lower than Neeld et al ( 2021 ) reported in collegiate level male players (total PlayerLoad TM 220–234 [DEF-FWD]) and what Douglas et al ( 2019b ) reported in two other studies in elite female players; 230–239 [DEF-FWD] and Douglas et al ( 2020 ); 228–246, [DEF-FWD]). This difference might be attributed to the methodological differences (inclusion of data), however, playing level and athlete caliber (Perez et al, 2020 ) could also contribute to the observed differences.…”

“…Similar to distance per min, the more continuous movement and only obtaining data while the puck is in play, seems like the logical explanation for the small increase in PlayerLoad TM per min during simulation matches. When comparing PlayerLoad TM from matches, our results are lower than Neeld et al (2021) ). This difference might be attributed to the methodological differences (inclusion of data), however, playing level and athlete caliber (Perez et al, 2020) 2020)].…”

“…Contrastingly, elite and subelite female players have also displayed a total PlayerLoad TM comparable to our results [total PlayerLoad TM 153–159 [DEF-FWD] Douglas et al ( 2019a ); and 160–183 [FWD-DEF] Douglas et al ( 2020 )]. PlayerLoad TM per min has been reported in three of the studies (Douglas et al, 2019b , 2020 ; Neeld et al, 2021 ), however, none of them excluded time on the bench, which makes it challenging to compare this metric to our results. Similar to our study, however solely using the inertial movement unit-device within the Clearsky T6-unit, Allard et al ( 2020 ) applied on ice load to quantify external load in a group of fifty male American Hockey League players over an entire season.…”

“…This difference might be attributed to the methodological differences (inclusion of data), however, playing level and athlete caliber (Perez et al, 2020) 2020)]. PlayerLoad TM per min has been reported in three of the studies (Douglas et al, 2019b(Douglas et al, , 2020Neeld et al, 2021), however, none of them excluded time on the bench, which makes it challenging to compare this metric to our results. Similar to our study, however solely using the inertial movement unit-device within the Clearsky T6-unit, Allard et al (2020) applied on ice load to quantify external load in a group of fifty male American Hockey League players over an entire season.…”

Quantifying training load and intensity in elite male ice hockey according to game-related contextual variables

“…In ice hockey, this is usually done using wearable technology embedding accelerometer and heart rate (HR) or collecting the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) during practice sessions and official games. However, limited attempts have been done to describe TL measures and intensity in elite ice hockey [ 2 – 5 ].…”