ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Relative, individualized, or normalized? A conceptual clarification of running speed terminology in soccer.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. 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.
- Not all players warm up the same: position-specific external load during standardized pre-match protocol in women's handball.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is inconsistency in quantifying, defining and interpreting running speed nomenclature in soccer. In particular, the terms "relative", "individualized", and "normalized" are frequently used interchangeably, despite referring to different conceptual and methodological approaches. This lack of clarity may affect the interpretation of running intensity and limit comparability across studies. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to clarify the conceptual distinctions between these terms in the context of soccer performance analysis. We distinguish between absolute thresholds (e.g., a value expressed without context), relative comparisons based on external references, individualized reference values (e.g., a value obtained during treadmill protocol), and normalized metrics that express running speed as a proportion of an individual's physiological characteristic (e.g., percentage of the maximum speed). Using theoretical arguments and applied examples, it was shown that many approaches described as "relative" or "individualized" correspond, in methodological terms, to normalization. Moreover, it was also highlight that the interpretation of normalized intensity depends on the reference used, as different tests (e.g., linear sprint tests vs. intermittent field tests) reflect distinct physiological and mechanical characteristics. Clarifying these distinctions is important to improve methodological rigor and consistency in the analysis of running demands. By contextualizing running demands according to each athlete's maximum speed registered until the point of monitoring, this approach may better approximate the normalized locomotor stimulus imposed by a given training load, in relation to the player's true, albeit inherently unknown, maximal potential exposure. Future research should adopt more precise terminology and clearly report the reference values and scaling procedures used when quantifying running demands in soccer.
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.