ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)1991
Quantification of training in competitive sports. Methods and applications.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association Between Obesity Indices and Heart Rate Variability: A Cross-Sectional Study in Asian Young College Students.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Predicting Athlete Workload in Women's Rugby Sevens Using GNSS Sensor Data, Contact Count and Mass.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Training stress, neuromuscular fatigue and well-being in volleyball: a systematic review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Effects of short bout small-sided game training on acid-based balance markers in youth male soccer players.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Athlete Monitoring Tools across 10 Weeks of Elite Youth Basketball Training: An Explorative Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Effect of Rifle Carriage on the Physiological and Accelerometer Responses During Biathlon Skiing.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- High Intensity Interval Training: A Potential Method for Treating Sarcopenia.Clinical interventions in aging · 2022Review
- Exercise Intensity during Olympic-Distance Triathlon in Well-Trained Age-Group Athletes: An Observational Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Intensity of resistance training via self-reported history is critical in properly characterizing musculoskeletal health.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Session RPE Breakpoints Corresponding to Intensity Thresholds in Elite Open Water Swimmers.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2020Article
- Stress in Academic and Athletic Performance in Collegiate Athletes: A Narrative Review of Sources and Monitoring Strategies.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2020Review
- Robust Exponential Decreasing Index (REDI): adaptive and robust method for computing cumulated workload.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2019Article
- CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2018Review
- Psychometric properties of the Zephyr bioharness device: a systematic review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2018Article
- Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Review
- Match analysis and the physiological demands of Australian football.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2010Review
- The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2009Review
- Characteristics of track cycling.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2001Review
- The use of heart rate to monitor the intensity of endurance training.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The training of competitive athletes can be assessed by retrospective questionnaires, diaries, physiological monitoring and direct observation of training behaviour. Questionnaires represent the most economical, most comprehensive and least accurate method. Diaries are more valid, but their drawbacks for long term quantitative studies are poor compliance and difficulties in processing the data they generate. Physiological monitoring (of oxygen consumption, heart rate or blood lactate concentration) provides objective measures of training intensity, and direct observation gives valid measures of most aspects of training; however, these methods are impractical for continuous, long term use. Coaches and athletes quantify training for purposes of motivation, systematisation of training and training prescription, but there has been little study of the use of training quantification by these practitioners. Motivation and systematisation are probably achieved best with diaries. Direct observation appears to be the best method of ensuring compliance with a training prescription, although heart rate monitoring is also a promising method for prescribing endurance training intensity. Sport scientists quantify training to study its effects on the performance and health status of competitive athletes. Most studies have been descriptive rather than experimental, and unvalidated questionnaires have been the predominant method of assaying training. The main areas of research include performance prediction and enhancement, overtraining, reproductive dysfunction, injury, illness, and nutritional status. Training has substantial effects in all of these areas. There is a need for more experimental studies that utilise validated measures of training to investigate how to reduce sports injuries and enhance competitive sports performance. More attention could also be given to methodological issues of training quantification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
1784872What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.