ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Intra and inter variation in training load, recovery state and technical-tactical performance across a standard microcycle in Sub-elite youth football players.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Seasonal Development of Anthropometric and Physical Performance Characteristics in Youth Trained Soccer Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Monitoring youth football requires integrating physical, perceptual, recovery, and tactical dimensions. However, evidence in younger sub-elite cohorts (U11-U13) remains scarce. This study aimed to analyze intra and inter variation in external load, internal load, recovery, and technical-tactical indicators across a competitive microcycle, comparing U11 and U13 sub-elite players. We hypothesized that (i) the match would elicit the highest objective intensities, while training would be perceived as more demanding, and (ii) U13 players would outperform U11 in high-intensity and tactical outcomes, whereas U11 would show higher perceived exertion and greater motor irregularity. Methods: Forty male sub-elite players (U11 = 30; U13 = 10) were monitored across a competitive microcycle (MD-4 to MD). External load was assessed via GPS (TD, AvS, HSR, HID, sprints, MRS, ACC, DEC), internal load through HR (U13 only) and session-RPE, recovery via TQR, and technical-tactical performance using FUT-SAT (DMI, MEI). Results: The match elicited the highest intensities in HSR, MRS, AvS, and HID, while all training sessions were perceived as ∼400 AU more demanding in sRPE than MD. U13 players outperformed U11 in intensity-and velocity-based measures (HSR +166%, sprints +150%, MRS +5%), while U11 showed higher TD (+10%), ACC (+23%), DEC (+29%), and sRPE (+6%). HR data in U13 revealed greater Z5 exposure in MD-4 vs. MD-1 and higher Z2 time on MD-1. In the tactical domain, U13 displayed superior offensive coverage effectiveness in both DMI and MEI, with no differences in other principles. Discussion: These findings demonstrate that the microcycle followed a structured pattern, with matches concentrating objective intensity and training sessions eliciting greater perceived effort. Practically, training for U11 should emphasize motor efficiency and load regulation, while U13 programs should target high-intensity capacity and tactical coordination. Over time, integrating multidimensional monitoring (GPS, sRPE, TQR, FUT-SAT) may guide coaches in aligning training stimuli with long-term development goals, bridging physical, perceptual, and tactical competencies in sub-elite youth football.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.