Methods of monitoring internal and external loads and their relationships with physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes: A systematic review and best-evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND: With the increasing professionalisation of youth sports, training load monitoring is increasingly common in adolescent athletes. However, the research examining the relationship between training load and changes in physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes is yet to be synthesised in a systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine the research assessing internal and external methods of monitoring training load and physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes.
METHODS: Systematic searches of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL and SCOPUS were undertaken from the earliest possible records to March 2022. Search terms included synonyms relevant to adolescents, athletes, physical qualities, injury, or illness. To be eligible for inclusion, articles were required to: 1) be original research articles; 2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; 3) participants aged between 10 and 19 years and participating in competitive sport; 4) report a statistical relationship between a measure of internal and/or external load and physical qualities, injury or illness. Articles were screened and assessed for methodological quality. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted to identify trends in the relationships reported.
RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 4,125 articles. Following screening and a review of references, 59 articles were included. The most commonly reported load monitoring tools were session ratings of perceived exertion (n = 29) and training duration (n = 22). Results of the best-evidence synthesis identified moderate evidence of positive relationships between resistance training volume load and improvement in strength, and between throw count and injury. However, evidence for other relationships between training load and change in physical qualities, injury, or illness were limited or inconsistent.
CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should consider monitoring resistance training volume load for strength training. Additionally, where appropriate monitoring throw counts may be useful in identifying injury risk. However, given the lack of clear relationships between singular measures of training load with physical qualities, injury, or illness, researchers should consider multivariate methods of analysing training load, as well as factors that may mediate the load-response relationship, such as maturation.