Load without shortcuts

Separate the work from the response

External load describes work performed: distance covered, running speed, repetitions, time on task or mechanical output. Internal load describes the athlete’s physiological or perceptual response to that work. Heart rate and session rating of perceived exertion belong in the second category. Neither category is a complete measure of training stress, and neither makes the other redundant.

A repeated running drill illustrates the distinction. Two athletes may cover similar distances at similar speeds. One reports manageable effort; the other reports unusual heaviness and shows a different heart-rate response. Before labelling one athlete unfit or fatigued, check their recent training, environmental exposure, symptoms, role in the drill and the quality of the measurements.

Source note: Bourdon and colleagues, Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement, discusses internal and external load and their practical use. It is a monitoring framework, not a universal prescription.

Use heart rate for the question it can answer

Heart rate can help describe cardiovascular response, particularly during suitable endurance work. It does not track every form of demand equally well. Brief maximal efforts, heavy resistance training and rapid changes in intensity may not be represented adequately by a session average. The physiological response also has a time course; it does not rise and fall instantaneously with running speed.

Signal quality deserves attention before interpretation. Optical measurements at the wrist can be affected by movement and fit; chest-based systems also require good contact and correct use. Heat, hydration status, illness, medication and emotional stress may influence the reading. These are reasons to investigate, not automatic explanations for every unexpected trace.

Make perceived exertion a genuine report

A session rating of perceived exertion asks the athlete to summarise how demanding the session felt. When multiplied by duration, it provides a practical session-load estimate in arbitrary units. The method is useful partly because it is simple, but simplicity does not remove the need for a consistent scale, clear instructions and a repeatable collection process.

Avoid collecting answers in a way that rewards toughness or conformity. An athlete who expects a difficult conversation whenever they report high effort may stop reporting honestly. Keep individual responses private where appropriate, ask without leading language, and explain how the information influences planning. A rating should invite a discussion, not become a test of commitment.

Source note: Shona Halson’s review, Monitoring Training Load to Understand Fatigue in Athletes, considers practical monitoring measures and the importance of interpreting them together.

The same session is not the same experience for every athlete.

Read the week around the session

A demanding training day can be entirely appropriate within a planned programme. A modest day can be too much for an athlete returning from illness. The relevant context includes competition congestion, travel, previous exposure, strength work and non-sport stress. Session totals lose meaning when detached from the reason the session existed.

Compare the completed work with the planned stimulus. Was the objective high-speed exposure, technical rehearsal, aerobic development or recovery? A drill may meet its technical goal while producing less running than expected. That does not automatically make it unsuccessful. The staff must decide whether another stimulus is needed and whether adding it is appropriate for that athlete today.

Keep thresholds in their proper place

Speed zones and workload flags can organise attention, but their usefulness depends on definitions and purpose. An absolute speed threshold helps describe a common task demand. An individualised threshold may better express intensity relative to an athlete’s capacity. Each answers a different question. Record the definition and do not silently switch methods halfway through a season.

Be particularly cautious about treating an acute-to-chronic workload ratio, a proprietary readiness score or any single threshold as a personal injury forecast. Associations observed in groups do not automatically become accurate predictions for an individual. Calculation choices, incomplete data and the athlete’s changing circumstances can materially alter the interpretation.

Source note: the International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and injury risk describes a complex relationship involving more than workload alone. A flag is a prompt for assessment, not a diagnosis.

Finish with a decision you can explain

A useful staff discussion ends with a clear rationale: retain the plan, modify a specific component, gather another observation or refer a health concern. Record what was known, what remained uncertain and when the decision will be reviewed. This is more informative than colouring a row red without explaining what anyone should do.

Where pain, illness or concerning symptoms are present, involve qualified medical staff. Wearable data can contribute background information, but it cannot clear an athlete for training. Good workload practice makes room for both physical preparation and care; it does not require choosing one at the expense of the other.