See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337289530

How Much? How Fast? How Soon? Three Simple Concepts for Progressing
Training Loads to Minimize Injury Risk and Enhance Performance

Article in Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · November 2019

DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2020.9256

CITATIONS READS

36 4,426

1 author:

Tim Gabbett
Gabbett Performance Solutions
359 PUBLICATIONS 26,268 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MOST DEMANDING PASSAGES OF PLAY - FOOTBALL View project

Sprinting Performance in Elite Rugby Sevens View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tim Gabbett on 10 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RUNNING TITLE: Training for performance and injury reduction

How Much? How Fast? How Soon? Three Simple Concepts for Progressing Training
Loads to Minimize Injury Risk and Enhance Performance

Tim J. Gabbett

Gabbett Performance Solutions, Queensland, Australia

Correspondence to:
Dr. Tim J Gabbett
Gabbett Performance Solutions
Brisbane, 4011, Qld, Australia
Email: [email protected]

1
Athletes Need to Load in Order to Withstand Load!
Overload is a key principle of training – load must exceed capacity to improve performance.
Small, systematic increases in load that are slightly greater than load capacity will improve
tolerance to further load. However, if the applied load greatly exceeds load capacity, then tissue
tolerance is exceeded, and injury may occur.2,14 This editorial addresses key considerations for
rehabilitation practitioners when helping an athlete prepare for the demands of competition.

How Much? How Fast? How Soon?

Sports medicine practitioners play a role in maximizing the positive and minimizing the
negative adaptations to training – too much training may result in excessive fatigue; too little
training may mean athletes are underprepared for competition. Clearly a balance exists between
providing an adequate training stimulus to elicit performance benefits while minimizing the
risk of injury. How can practitioners determine how much training is too much? Following
injury, how soon can training loads be progressed? How quickly can athletes return to
competition?

The Floor, the Ceiling, and Time

When developing rehabilitation or performance programs, three key concepts are critical: the
“floor”, the “ceiling” and time. The floor represents the athlete’s current capacity, whereas the
ceiling represents the capacity needed to perform the specific activities of the sport. It is
possible to safely progress an athlete from the floor to the ceiling as long as the athlete is
afforded adequate time (Figure 1A).

The Challenges of Getting Pre-Season Right

A challenge in most sporting environments is the time required to progress from the floor to
the ceiling. If athletes’ training loads are progressed too rapidly, they will be at increased risk
of injury.5 This scenario occurs all too frequently. Consider athletes who enter a very short
training camp (or pre-season period), or who have sustained an injury. If the gap between the
current capacity and the required capacity is large, then the only way to progress from the floor
to the ceiling is to rapidly increase training load to ensure that the athletes are prepared for the
first competition game or return to play. Notwithstanding the fact that athletes with poorer
physical capacities9,11 and musculoskeletal dysfunction12 are at increased risk of injury, training
in this manner is associated with a high risk of injury5 and poor performance8 (Figure 1B).
Coaches can take more time to safely progress to higher training loads and prepare athletes for
the ceiling, but coaches do not have infinite time. Equally, if an inadequate training stimulus is
applied, then the athlete is at risk of being underprepared, underperforming, and re-injury.

2
How Does One Help Athletes Safely Progress from the “Floor” to the “Ceiling”?
The demands of elite performance are constantly evolving; in general, the complexity and
physicality are increasing every year.1 Reducing the ceiling is not a realistic option to help
athletes avoid injury and perform well. One option is to take more time to bridge the gap
between the floor and the ceiling, although most coaches will be less than impressed if their
best athletes are not fit enough to compete in the first game of the season or spend extended
periods of time in rehabilitation (Figure 1C). What if we could “buy” more time prior to the
official start of the pre-season? If athletes performed a minimum volume of training prior to
returning from an extended break, this would have the effect of artificially increasing the length
of the pre-season period, minimizing the detraining effect induced by off-season, thereby
ensuring that progression to the ceiling was gradual and systematic (Figure 1D).

Progressing athletes, of any performance level, from the floor to the ceiling is further
complicated when the athlete returns to pre-season training in a severely deconditioned state
or following off-season surgery. In these examples, the athlete’s current capacity is inadequate
to sustain normal training loads; rather than having an adequate floor their capacity is more
like “the basement”! (Figure 1E). This situation can also occur when athletes are injured; local
tissue capacity can immediately decrease, resulting in a reduction in the floor. In this respect,
given the same amount of time, progressing the athlete from their current capacity to the ceiling
would require rapid changes in training load – in turn, increasing injury risk. Another solution
to ensure that athletes are safely progressed from the floor to the ceiling is to raise the floor
(Figure 1F) – ensuring that when athletes are taking an extended break or enter rehabilitation,
they do not allow their physical capacity to fall to the basement. The benefit of raising the floor
is that it also provides athletes the opportunity to develop greater load capacity than previously
may have been possible (perhaps reaching “the penthouse”!) (Figure 1F). Preparation for
sporting activities involves year-round management, monitoring, and manipulation of training
load, with an understanding that the ceiling is somewhat of a ‘moving target’4 - different
capacities will require development depending on the specific phase of the season, and the
factors limiting performance for individual athletes.
Insert Figure 1 About Here
What Can Rehabilitation and Performance Staff Do to Help Athletes Achieve Their
Performance Goals?
Athletes participate in sport for many reasons, which may differ between elite and non-elite
competitors. Whether competing at an elite or non-elite level, athletes strive for continual
improvement and to achieve their personal best performances. To achieve high-level
performances, the load capacity of athletes must be adequate to meet the demands required of
competition. Athletes cannot perform if their current capacity is well below the capacity
required of their sport. Equally, athletes cannot perform if they are injured.
Taking the concepts of the floor, ceiling, and time, there are at least 5 simple ways rehabilitation
and performance staff can minimize the risk of injury and give athletes the best chance of
achieving their performance goals (summary box).

3
Summary Box. Five Ways to Ensure Athletes Are Well Prepared for the Demands of
Competition.
1. Maintain an adequate training load during the off-season3 and while injured. Loading
during these periods raises the floor (or alternatively ensures athletes avoid the
basement) and improves the athletes’ ability to tolerate load during pre-season and
on return to competition.
2. Identify the ceiling and ensure that training load is proportionate to competition
demands.3 Various methodologies (including the use of wearable and video
technologies) have been used to assess the sport-specific demands required at the
ceiling4,8,9,15. These may include (but not necessarily limited to) peak running
intensities4, longest ball-in-play periods8, repeated-sprint15 and repeated-effort
activity9. If expensive technology is not available, practitioners are encouraged to
access sport-specific literature to inform their training programs. The individual load
capacities, and the absolute competition demands will differ between elite and non-
elite, adult and adolescent, and male and female athletes; training demands should
also reflect these differences.
3. Assess individual differences in training tolerance among athletes. Very young and
older athletes11, and those with a long injury history4, poor training history10,
musculoskeletal deficiencies12, lower strength9 and aerobic fitness11 may have poorer
tolerance to rapid increases in training load. Furthermore, other physical (e.g.
biomechanical, movement patterns) and psychosocial (e.g. emotional, lifestyle)
factors can impact load capacity6. It might be tempting to rapidly increase training
loads in less fit athletes and those with musculoskeletal deficiencies. However, these
are the athletes who are least likely to tolerate this type of training progression, and
in turn most likely to sustain injury in response to this loading pattern. Along with
gradual loading progressions, a comprehensive assessment of the sport-specific (e.g.
strength, aerobic fitness) and tissue-specific (e.g. musculoskeletal) capacities is
required to ensure training loads are progressed on an individual basis. It is here that
sports medicine professionals (e.g. physical therapists and strength and conditioning
coaches) play a critical role.
4. Identify and prepare for the most demanding passages of play. Training for the
average demands of competition may mean athletes are underprepared for the “worst-
case scenario”.7,13 This may trigger at least 2 consequences: (1) athletes are unable
to perform the high-intensity tasks that often determine the outcome of the game,13
and (2) athletes are at greater injury risk when attempting to perform these activities.
5. Training programs require an understanding of the (1) physical demands of the sport,
(2) physical capacities required to perform these activities, and (3) factors that limit
performance on an individual basis. Coaches should consider and plan the
appropriate amount of time required to progress from the floor to the ceiling. The
resilience and robustness that comes from training takes time, and different physical
capacities will adapt at different rates. Progressive, gradual, and systematic increases
in training load allows athletes to safely progress to the ceiling, reducing injury risk,
improving availability, and enhancing performance.

4
From Risk to Resilience
Training loads can have positive and negative effects. The risk of injury increases with rapid
changes in training load. However, not all training load is bad – when prescribed appropriately
it can create resilient and robust athletes, capable of withstanding the high loads of competition
and thriving in the most demanding passages of play. Systematically increased training loads,
and identifying factors related to load tolerance, not only lowers the risk of injury but allows
athletes to progress to higher training loads typical of those required for elite performances.5
Importantly, once athletes have reached these high training loads, they are at reduced risk of
injury, and have greater likelihood of achieving their performance goals – loading allows
athletes to withstand further load!

5
FIGURE LEGEND

Figure 1. Different loading strategies that may be used to progress athletes from the “floor”
(i.e. current capacity) to the “ceiling” (i.e. required capacity).

6
References
1. Barnes C, Archer DT, Hogg B, et al. The evolution of physical and technical performance
parameters in the English Premier League. Int J Sports Med 2014;35:1095-1100.
2. Cook JL, Docking SI. “Rehabilitation will increase the ‘capacity’ of your … insert
musculoskeletal tissue here…” Defining ‘tissue capacity’: a core concept for clinicians. Br
J Sports Med 2015;49:1484-1485.
3. Drew MK, Cook J, Finch CF. Sports-related workload and injury risk: simply knowing the
risks will not prevent injuries. Br J Sports Med 2016; May 10. pii: bjsports-2015-095871.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095871. [Epub ahead of print].
4. Duthie GM, Thornton HR, Delaney JA, et al. Running intensities in elite youth soccer by
age and position. J Strength Cond Res 2018;32:2918-2924.
5. Gabbett TJ. Debunking the myths about training load, injury and performance: empirical
evidence, hot topics and recommendations for practitioners. Br J Sports Med 2018; in
press.
6. Gabbett T.J. The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter
and harder? Br J Sports Med 2016;50:273-280.
7. Gabbett TJ, Nielsen RO, Bertelsen M, et al. In pursuit of the “unbreakable” athlete. Br J
Sports Med 2018; in press.
8. Gabbett TJ, Hulin BT. Activity and recovery cycles and skill involvements of successful
and unsuccessful elite rugby league teams: A longitudinal analysis of evolutionary changes
in National Rugby League match-play. J Sports Sci 2018;36:180-190.
9. Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DG, Abernethy B. Physical demands of professional rugby league
training and competition using microtechnology. J Sci Med Sport 2012;15:80-86.
10. Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Johnston R, Jenkins DG. Relationships among PlayerLoad TM, high-
intensity intermittent running ability and injury risk in professional rugby league players.
Int. J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; in press.
11. Malone S, Hughes B, Doran DA, et al. Can the workload-injury relationship be moderated
by improved strength, speed and repeated-sprint qualities? J Sci Med Sport 2018;
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.010.
12. Malone S, Roe M, Doran DA, et al. High chronic training loads and exposure to bouts of
maximal velocity running reduce injury risk in elite Gaelic football. J Sci Med Sport
2017;20:250-254.
13. Malone S, Roe M, Doran A, et al. Protection against spikes in workload with aerobic
fitness and playing experience: the role of the acute:chronic workload ratio on injury risk
in elite Gaelic football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017;12:393-401.
14. Møller M, Nielsen RO, Attermann J, et al. Handball load and shoulder injury rate: a 31-
week cohort study of 679 elite youth handball players. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:231-237.
15. Spencer M, Lawrence S, Rechichi C, et al. Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey,
with special reference to repeated-sprint activity. J Sports Sci 2004; 22:843-850.
16. Verhagen E. and Gabbett T. Load, capacity and health: critical pieces of the holistic
performance puzzle. Br J Sports Med 2018; in press.

7
View publication stats