Validity of the Training-Load Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training load (TL) is a widely used concept in training prescription and monitoring and is also recognized as as an important tool for avoiding athlete injury, illness, and overtraining. With the widespread adoption of wearable devices, TL metrics are used increasingly by researchers and practitioners worldwide. Conceptually, TL was proposed as a means to quantify a dose of training and used to predict its resulting training effect. However, TL has never been validated as a measure of training dose, and there is a risk that fundamental problems related to its calculation are preventing advances in training prescription and monitoring. Specifically, we highlight recent studies from our research groups where we compare the acute performance decrement measured following a session with its TL metrics. These studies suggest that most TL metrics are not consistent with their notional training dose and that the exercise duration confounds their calculation. These studies also show that total work done is not an appropriate way to compare training interventions that differ in duration and intensity. We encourage scientists and practitioners to critically evaluate the validity of current TL metrics and suggest that new TL metrics need to be developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".