ArticleJournal of human kinetics2026
The Relationship between Training Load Indicators and the Total Quality Recovery Scale during the Preseason Period in Collegiate Taekwondo Athletes.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between training load (TL) indicators and recovery status (total quality recovery, TQR) during the preseason training period in collegiate Taekwondo athletes. A total of 25 athletes (17 males and 8 females; age: 19.2 ± 1.04 years, training experience: 6.8 ± 3.40 years, body height: 168.0 ± 8.08 cm, body mass: 64.1 ± 8.38 kg, fat content: 15.9 ± 7.21%) participated in this prospective observational study. Over eight weeks, 855 training sessions were monitored. TL was quantified using the session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) method, and derived TL indicators [weekly load variation (SDΔ), rolling average acute:chronic workload ratio (RA ACWR), exponentially weighted moving average acute:chronic workload ratio (EWMA ACWR), training monotony (TM), and training strain (TS)] were calculated. Recovery status was assessed daily using the TQR scale. In the univariate linear mixed model analyses, SDΔ (β = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.51, -0.08], p = 0.006) and the EWMA ACWR (β = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.29], p < 0.001) were significantly associated with TQR. However, in the multivariate model, only the EWMA ACWR (β = -0.74, 95% CI [-0.97, -0.52], p < 0.001) remained a significant predictor. These findings suggest that the EWMA ACWR is the most sensitive TL indicator for capturing short-term changes in recovery status. Integrating the EWMA ACWR with simple tools such as the TQR scale may help coaches balance TL and recovery in preseason training. Future studies should include additional physiological and psychological markers to evaluate whether EWMA ACWR-based load management can effectively reduce injury risk and enhance athletic performance.
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.