TY - JOUR
T1 - International survey of training load monitoring practices in competitive swimming
T2 - How, what and why not?
AU - Barry, Lorna
AU - Lyons, Mark
AU - McCreesh, Karen
AU - Powell, Cormac
AU - Comyns, Tom
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify the training load (TL) monitoring practices employed in real-world competitive swimming environments. The study explores data collection, analysis and barriers to TL monitoring. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Online survey platform. Participants: Thirty-one responders working in competitive swimming programmes. Main outcome measures: Methods of data collection, analysis, level of effectiveness and barriers associated with TL monitoring. Results: 84% of responders acknowledged using TL monitoring, with 81% of responders using a combination of both internal and external TL, in line with current consensus statements. Swim volume (mileage) (96%) and session rate of perceived exertion (sRPE) (92%) were the most frequently used, with athlete lifestyle/wellness monitoring also featuring prominently. Thematic analysis highlighted that “stakeholder engagement”, “resource constraints” or “functionality and usability of the systems” were shared barriers to TL monitoring amongst responders. Conclusions: Findings show there is a research-practice gap. Future approaches to TL monitoring in competitive swimming should focus on selecting methods that allow the same TL monitoring system to be used across the whole programme, (pool-based training, dryland training and competition). Barriers associated with athlete adherence and coach/National Governing Body engagement should be addressed before a TL system implementation.
AB - Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify the training load (TL) monitoring practices employed in real-world competitive swimming environments. The study explores data collection, analysis and barriers to TL monitoring. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Online survey platform. Participants: Thirty-one responders working in competitive swimming programmes. Main outcome measures: Methods of data collection, analysis, level of effectiveness and barriers associated with TL monitoring. Results: 84% of responders acknowledged using TL monitoring, with 81% of responders using a combination of both internal and external TL, in line with current consensus statements. Swim volume (mileage) (96%) and session rate of perceived exertion (sRPE) (92%) were the most frequently used, with athlete lifestyle/wellness monitoring also featuring prominently. Thematic analysis highlighted that “stakeholder engagement”, “resource constraints” or “functionality and usability of the systems” were shared barriers to TL monitoring amongst responders. Conclusions: Findings show there is a research-practice gap. Future approaches to TL monitoring in competitive swimming should focus on selecting methods that allow the same TL monitoring system to be used across the whole programme, (pool-based training, dryland training and competition). Barriers associated with athlete adherence and coach/National Governing Body engagement should be addressed before a TL system implementation.
KW - Barriers
KW - Coaching
KW - Method
KW - Monitoring
KW - Training load
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119262655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.11.005
DO - 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.11.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 34814022
AN - SCOPUS:85119262655
SN - 1466-853X
VL - 53
SP - 51
EP - 59
JO - Physical Therapy in Sport
JF - Physical Therapy in Sport
ER -