
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

38050552
89890
10.26603/001c.89890
Original Research
Training Load and Current Soreness Predict Future Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness in Collegiate Female Soccer Athletes
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1869-5328
Pexa Brett S. 1
Johnston Christopher J. 2
Taylor Jeffrey B 3
Ford Kevin R. 4
1 Athletic Training High Point University https://ror.org/029qx3s09
2 Beaufort County School District
3 Physical Therapy High Point University https://ror.org/029qx3s09
4 School of Health Sciences High Point University https://ror.org/029qx3s09
Corresponding Author: Brett S. Pexa PhD, ATC, LAT Assistant Professor Department of Athletic Training Congdon School of Health Sciences High Point University High Point, NC, 27268 612-269-2428 bpexa@highpoint.edu
1 12 2023
2023
18 6 12711282
28 6 2023
13 10 2023
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Delayed onset muscles soreness (DOMS) is an indication of muscle stress and trauma that develops from excessive musculoskeletal loads. Musculoskeletal loads can be measured with wearable devices, but there is limited research on specific training load metrics that most correlate with DOMS after activity.

Purpose

To determine the predictive capabilities of training load variables on the development of lower extremity DOMS in female collegiate soccer athletes throughout an entire season.

Study Design

Prospective Cohort

Methods

Twenty-seven collegiate female soccer athletes reported their lower extremity DOMS each day prior to all soccer activity. Participants wore Polar heart rate and global positioning monitors to capture training load measures. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationships between the training load variables and change in DOMS when collapsed across dates. Separate linear mixed models were performed with the following day’s DOMS as the outcome variable, training load and the current day’s DOMS as predictor variables, and participants serving as random intercepts.

Results

All training load variables significantly predicted change in DOMS, with number of decelerations (ρ=0.72, p <0.001), minutes spent at greater than 80% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) (ρ=0.71 , p <0.001), and distance (ρ=0.70 , p <0.001) best correlating with change in DOMS. Linear mixed models revealed a significant interaction of all training load and current day’s DOMS on the following day’s DOMS (p<0.001), but number of decelerations, HRmax, and total number of accelerations demonstrated the highest coefficient of determination (R2 marginal=33.2% - 29.2% , R2 conditional= 46.9% - 44.8%).

Conclusions

Training load variables paired with the current day’s DOMS significantly predict lower extremity DOMS in the future, with number of decelerations, accelerations, and HRmax best predicting future DOMS. Although this demonstrates that training load variables predict lower extremity DOMS, future research should incorporate objective measures of strength or jump kinetics to identify if similar relationships exist.

Level of Evidence

Level 3

Soccer
Soreness
Training Load
Wearable
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Soccer activity leads to significant amounts of lower extremity injury,1 pain, and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS).2 Despite these negative aspects of training, consistent and appropriately prescribed training will also create positive adaptations to enhance sport performance.3 To minimize the negative aspects of training, clinicians have begun relying on wearable devices to capture internal and external training loads.4–7 These measures aid in predicting injury1,6–8 and performance capabilities,5 in addition to having impacts on athlete wellness measures.9–11 Tracking training loads is now extremely clinically feasible,4,12,13 however, there are numerous methods of tracking training loads, such as global positioning systems,10,12,14 heart rate monitors,6,15,16 and accelerometers.12 Additionally, these devices create many different training load outcome measures,8 such as heart rate, distances, velocities, accelerations, and all the banded derivatives of these measures, such as heart rate zones, speed zones, or acceleration intensities.17,18 These different combinations may cause confusion among sport stakeholders on which measures may be most beneficial to ensure their athletes are training and competing without excessively overloading tissue(s).14

By tracking training loads, sport stakeholders aim to identify the early development of injury and create data informed rest and recovery decisions. After training and competition, athletes experience decreased lower extremity force production,19,20 altered mental state,9,10 and increased reports of pain and DOMS.21 With appropriate rest and recovery, the body returns to homeostasis,2,19,21 eventually making positive adaptations that contribute to an athletes injury resilience.3 However, in competitive sport with high competition demand, such as American collegiate athletics, athletes often partake in high intensity activities before the body has completely recovered. Participating in competition or training with negative changes present may create additional muscular stress and trauma,22–24 culminating in an athlete who must remove themselves from play due to inability to compete without pain and/or dysfunction. Additionally, significant muscular stress and trauma could lead to lower force and power output and altered movement biomechanics,25 thus placing collegiate athletes at further risk for lower extremity injury.26 Therefore, it would be imperative to measure the dose of activity, via training load outcomes,27 and pair it with the response to activity, such as strength,21 wellness variables,9,10 or musculoskeletal DOMS.2,28,29 Delayed onset muscle soreness and force production demonstrate similar negative changes after activity2,30,31 for up to 72 hours after strenuous exercise,2,30,32 so DOMS could be used as an indicator of muscle stress, trauma, and fatigue. Since DOMS can reflect the fatigue and underlying structural changes, then it may also provide insight into alterations in strength output and movement biomechanics,25 which place collegiate athletes at risk for lower extremity injury.26

Sport stakeholders are looking for training load collection methods and measurements that will accurately reflect the response to activity. However, there is no consensus on which training load measure best predicts the positive and negative aspects of training. Research points to high-speed distance as one of the best predictors of acute and residual fatigue17 after soccer matches, and other research indicates that subjective measures, such as rating of perceived exertion, may be most beneficial for injury development.8 Training load measures should be able to predict day-to-day changes of musculoskeletal health regardless of whether they are based around a match. If training loads alter musculoskeletal health and subsequently lead to injury, then they should also predict day-to-day changes in musculoskeletal stress and trauma measures. With this information and the appropriate training load measure, stakeholders will create optimal training programs to optimize athlete health, wellness, and performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the predictive capabilities of training load variables on the development of lower extremity DOMS in female collegiate soccer athletes throughout an entire season. It is hypothesized that the number of decelerations and high-speed distance will best predict future lower extremity DOMS after accounting for the current day’s DOMS and intraindividual effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To answer the research question, a prospective research design was created to track an athlete’s daily lower extremity DOMS and training load throughout an entire competitive collegiate soccer season. Participants were sent a custom smartphone enabled survey to log DOMS location and intensity throughout the season. In the current study, DOMS was operationally defined as the self-reported soreness or pain experienced by the participants. Participants were asked to log their DOMS on all days during the competitive season. The raw DOMS data was collected and reported to the soccer coaches, athletic trainer, and strength coach daily for use within the team. Training load was tracked with a wearable sensor which incorporated global positioning systems (GPS), accelerometers, and a heart rate monitor to derive many different training load measures.

After institutional approval, participants were recruited from the active members of the university’s female soccer team. To be included, participants had to participate in team functions, have access to a smartphone, and be able to wear a training load tracking device during all on-field team activities. Participants were excluded if they did not participate in team on-field training. Twenty-seven collegiate female soccer athletes (age: 20.6 ± 1.4 years, height: 168.2 ± 5.2, mass: 67.8 ± 7.2) participated in the current study. After signing consent forms from the university IRB, participants were sent a DOMS tracking survey and assigned a wearable load tracking sensor.

Soreness Collection

A custom smartphone enabled survey was created and distributed to each team member. At preseason testing times, participants were instructed to upload the survey as an application on their smartphone, so they were able to complete the survey each day. The survey collected measures of readiness, fatigue, stress, sleep quality and DOMS. For DOMS, participants were first asked “Are you experiencing any soreness or pain today?”. If the participant selected “No”, then the survey was completed. If the participant selected “Yes”, the participant was shown a body map with outlined areas corresponding to specific body regions.33 Participants would place a marker at a specific body location, indicating that they were actively experiencing DOMS at this location. Participants could place up to 10 different markers. After placing a marker in a specific region, participants would then rate their overall DOMS in that region from 1 to 10, with 1 representing mild DOMS, and 10 representing severe DOMS/pain. If the participants responded to the initial DOMS question with “No”, or if the participant did not place a marker in a specific body region, the DOMS intensity rating was set as 0.

To attain lower extremity specific DOMS level, all lower extremity body regions’ DOMS intensity was summed. The specific body regions included the posterior glutes, posterior thigh/hamstrings, anterior thigh/quadriceps, anterior and posterior knee, posterior lower leg/calf, anterior and posterior ankle, anterior and posterior foot, anterior and posterior hip, and anterior lower leg/shin, and the athletes could select a region on either or both sides of the body. These regions were selected as body regions of interest based on the expertise of the authors and based on feedback from the team of sports medicine professionals. The body map which was used was validated and demonstrates high levels of reliability for reporting pain (ICC = 0.93).33 Since the participants could place up to 10 different locations of pain, and at each location the participant could indicate up to 10/10 soreness intensity, the overall scale of the DOMS outcome measure could be between 0-100.

Training load Collection

Each day during on-field soccer activities, participants wore a chest-mounted training load monitor via a elastic strap (Team Polar Pro, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The training load monitor incorporates a heart rate monitor, accelerometer, and GPS that is attached to a monitoring strap placed immediately beneath the xiphoid process of the sternum. To begin the training, participants were told to clip the training load monitor into their strap. The team’s athletic trainer would monitor the on-field activity and set the start and stop time. The entire session was collected, and all training load measures were captured and reported between the start and stop time. The training load data was viewable on a team issued tablet and, on a cloud-based service. The data were extracted from the cloud-based service at the end of the year and used for the current project. Specific training load data that was used is listed in Table 1.

186224 Table 1. Description of Training Load measure outcomes

Measure	Abbreviation	Description	Monitor	
Duration	Duration	Total time from start to cessation of official practice	Team Athletic Trainer tracked on tablet	
Distance	Distance	Total displacement during on-field session	GPS	
Average Speed	SpdAvg	Average velocity during on-field training	GPS	
High Speed Distance	HiSpdDist	Total distance over 16.9 km/h	GPS	
Sprint	Sprint	Total number of high intensity sprints recorded	GPS and Accelerometer	
Average Heart Rate	HRavg	Average heart rate during the training	Heart rate monitor	
High Intensity Heart Rate Minutes	HiIntHR	Number of minutes spent over 80% of Heart rate max	Heart Rate Monitor	
Accelerations	Accels	Total number of accelerations over 2.00 m/s2	Accelerometer	
Decelerations	Decels	Total number of accelerations under -2.00 m/s2	Accelerometer	
Calories	Cals	Estimated number of calories expended during training	Accelerometer, GPS, and Heart Rate Monitor	
Training Impulse	TRIMP	Estimated Bannister’s Training Impulse34{Banister, 1975 #47}	Accelerometer, GPS, and Heart Rate Monitor	

Data Reduction and Statistical Analyses

Data were reduced into daily values. Lower extremity DOMS information was taken from the daily surveys and synchronized with training load data. In instances where athletes reported the daily wellness survey twice, the average of lower extremity DOMS was used. It was expected that the training load variables would impact the future DOMS, so the next day’s lower extremity DOMS score was synchronized with the current day’s training load variables and the current day’s DOMS. With this data in place, a raw change score was calculated between the current day’s DOMS and the following day’s DOMS (Post – Pre). On days where the participants did not have training or they did not wear their training load monitor, the data row was removed due to the absence of data. Overall survey compliance was calculated as the total number of responses divided by the total number of player days from the start of the year to the end of the year. Outliers were assessed and removed if they were deemed extreme (> 3 standard deviations from the mean). To assess the correlation between team DOMS and the team’s daily training load, data were reduced into average daily values for all training load and lower extremity DOMS scores. Separate Pearson correlation coefficients were performed to assess the relationship between each training load measure and the raw change in DOMS between today and tomorrow’s DOMS. To assess the predictive capabilities of training load measures on individual level DOMS, separate linear mixed models were used with the following day’s lower extremity DOMS score as the outcome measure, the current day’s lower extremity DOMS score and each training load variable as a fixed factor along with an interaction term between the current day’s DOMS score and the training load variable. To account for the individual level variance that often comes with subjective repeated measures data, participant was used as a random intercept to allow for the differences in DOMS interpretation. To ensure that the training load measures significantly contributed to the overall model, a model with only the current day’s DOMS and the random intercept was created to compare to the training load model. Comparisons were performed with a chi-square test. If significant (p<0.05), the chi-square test would indicate that the training load model contributed to the overall amount of variance better than the raw DOMS only model. To attain the level of variance predicted by the models, both the conditional and marginal R2 values were calculated. The conditional R2 represents the amount of variance predicted by both the fixed and the random factors, while the marginal R2 represents the amount of variance predicted by the fixed factors alone. All analyses were performed in the R coding language and analyses were deemed significant at p<0.05.

RESULTS

The average daily athlete wellness survey compliance was 84.2%, ranging from 47.5% to 98.8%. During data analysis, it was evidence that participants’ compliance was lower than normal on off days, so when removing off days from the dataset, the daily athlete wellness survey compliance was 91%. Descriptive statistics for the training load measures are presented in Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that all training load variables were significantly associated with the raw change in DOMS (p<0.05). The training load variables that best predicted the DOMS change were number of decelerations (R2 = 0.58), high intensity heart rate minutes (R2 = 0.56), total distance (R2 =0.51), and calories expended during training (R2 = 0.49). Figure 1 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients of all training load variables.

186225 Table 2. Descriptive statistics of Training Load measure outcomes

Training Load Variable	Mean ± SD	
Distance (m)	4633.0	±	2813.0	
Accelerations (count)	699.0	±	297.0	
Calories (kCal)	405.0	±	182.0	
Decelerations (count)	265.0	±	157.0	
High Speed Distance (m)	184.0	±	237.0	
Average Heart Rate (bpm)	132.0	±	18.5	
Duration (min)	120.0	±	46.7	
Training Impulse (AU)	42.5	±	23.9	
High Intensity Heart Rate Minutes (min)	25.5	±	22.3	
Sprint (count)	12.2	±	8.8	
Average Speed (km/h)	2.6	±	0.9	

186226 Figure 1. Pearson Correlation Coefficients of each Training Load variable on the raw lower extremity soreness score change.

The linear mixed models demonstrated that all training load variables predicted the following day’s DOMS. Table 3 indicates the models and their impact on future DOMS. The training load variables that best predicted future DOMS were the number of decelerations (conditional R2 = 0.45, marginal R2 = 0.32, Figure 2), the number of minutes spent at high intensity heart rates (conditional R2 = 0.45, marginal R2 = 0.30, Figure 3), and the number of accelerations (conditional R2 = 0.43, marginal R2 = 0.27 Figure 4). The Chi-Square test revealed that the models with the training load variable and the interaction term fit the data better than the raw DOMS model (p<0.001).

186227 Table 3. Model Estimates of Training Load models on the following day’s soreness score.

Training Load Model	Parameter	Estimate	SE	DF	t value	p-⁠value	R2c	R2m	
Decelerations

	(Intercept)	-0.0448	0.357	43.800	-0.125	0.901	45.1	32.0	
Current Soreness	0.2062	0.041	1074.000	5.036	<0.001			
Training Load	0.0057	0.001	1065.000	8.047	<0.001			
Interaction	0.0010	0.000	1074.000	7.061	<0.001			
High Intensity Heart Rate Minutes

	(Intercept)	0.4679	0.339	31.910	1.381	0.177	44.6	30.4	
Current Soreness	0.2608	0.035	1074.000	7.467	<0.001			
Training Load	0.0401	0.005	1070.000	8.074	<0.001			
Interaction	0.0077	0.001	1074.000	6.980	<0.001			
Accelerations

	(Intercept)	-0.3303	0.423	60.370	-0.781	0.438	42.7	27.0	
Current Soreness	0.1440	0.054	1046.000	2.642	0.008			
Training Load	0.0026	0.000	1042.000	7.115	<0.001			
Interaction	0.0005	0.000	1052.000	6.008	<0.001			
Estimated Calories	(Intercept)	-0.1438	0.418	55.170	-0.344	0.732	42.8	26.9	
	Current Soreness	0.1018	0.051	1048.000	2.012	0.045			
	Training Load	0.0042	0.001	1043.000	6.896	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0009	0.000	1051.000	6.927	<0.001			
Distance	(Intercept)	0.0397	0.403	37.550	0.098	0.922	43.7	24.8	
	Current Soreness	0.2330	0.042	1062.000	5.529	<0.001			
	Training Load	0.0003	0.000	1053.000	8.000	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0001	0.000	1060.000	5.619	<0.001			
Average Heart Rate	(Intercept)	-1.9300	0.890	634.600	-2.169	0.030	39.0	23.7	
	Current Soreness	-0.5303	0.146	1072.000	-3.636	<0.001			
	Training Load	0.0259	0.006	1077.000	4.109	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0074	0.001	1077.000	6.530	<0.001			
Training Impulse	(Intercept)	0.4151	0.426	39.940	0.974	0.336	40.4	20.8	
	Current Soreness	0.2021	0.043	1055.000	4.724	<0.001			
	Training Load	0.0274	0.005	1050.000	5.673	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0063	0.001	1055.000	5.532	<0.001			
High Speed Distance	(Intercept)	0.9081	0.397	26.730	2.285	0.030	41.9	20.6	
	Current Soreness	0.3141	0.031	1039.000	10.133	< 0.001			
	Training Load	0.0045	0.001	1041.000	7.930	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0006	0.000	1048.000	3.872	<0.001			
Duration	(Intercept)	0.2621	0.466	56.860	0.563	0.576	39.2	18.9	
	Current Soreness	0.0852	0.061	1065.000	1.395	0.163			
	Training Load	0.0117	0.002	1053.000	5.030	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0025	0.001	1064.000	4.952	<0.001			
Number of Sprints	(Intercept)	0.7734	0.405	33.800	1.908	0.065	38.2	18.7	
	Current Soreness	0.2710	0.038	1077.000	7.085	<0.001			
	Training Load	0.0713	0.014	1070.000	5.110	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0113	0.003	1077.000	3.555	<0.001			
Average Speed	(Intercept)	0.0589	0.514	71.420	0.114	0.909	37.8	16.1	
	Current Soreness	0.1867	0.064	1065.000	2.929	0.003			
	Training Load	0.6058	0.128	1072.000	4.739	<0.001			
	Interaction	0.0844	0.027	1070.000	3.081	0.002			
R2c = Conditional R2. R2m = Marginal R2.

186228 Figure 2. Plot demonstrating the scatterplot between the next day soreness and number of decelerations, current soreness, and the interaction term. The predicted versus actual data is plotted on the right hand side.

186229 Figure 3. Plot demonstrating the scatterplot between the next day soreness and number of minutes over 80% heart rate max, current soreness, and the interaction term. The predicted versus actual data is plotted on the right hand side.

186230 Figure 4. Plot demonstrating the scatterplot between the next day soreness and number of accelerations, current soreness, and the interaction term. The predicted versus actual data is plotted on the right hand side.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to investigate the predictive capability of different training load variables on future DOMS in collegiate female soccer athletes. The results indicated that the number of decelerations, number of minutes spent at high intensity heart rates, and the number of accelerations best predicted future DOMS, after accounting for the current day’s DOMS. Additionally, all the training load models added additional variance when compared to models that had DOMS only. All the training load variables predicted future DOMS, so clinicians should have confidence in utilizing training load variables in tandem with current DOMS to predict future DOMS. If sport stakeholders are interested in finding the best options to monitor DOMS, they should consider the utilization of wearable devices that incorporate decelerations, accelerations, and minutes at high heart rates.

Training load monitors have become increasingly prevalent in the field of athletics due to their ability to assist in determining injury risk,7,8,12,28 performance changes,5 and wellness alterations.7,11 Windt and Gabbett aimed to create a framework for injury development by incorporating training load variables, and describing both positive and negative aspects of training. One of the primary negative components of sport participation is DOMS. Delayed onset muscle soreness is likely the result of muscle stress and trauma, as there is significant overlap in DOMS and other stress and trauma indicators, such as decreased strength,30,31 alterations to histological markers,31,32,35 and gross structural change.36 Significant muscular stress and trauma could lead to alterations in strength output and movement biomechanics,25 thus placing collegiate athletes at risk for lower extremity injury.26 The current study demonstrates that DOMS is affected significantly by the training load that is experienced by the athletes. Specifically, the number of decelerations over 2.0 m/s2 is primarily driving the amount of DOMS that the athlete experiences the following day.

Decelerations are whole body eccentric movements, and there is a substantial amount of literature indicating that eccentric muscle activity affects DOMS.30–32,37–39 Chapman et al.32 showed that high velocity eccentric contractions led to higher DOMS, higher creatine kinase levels, and larger decrements to muscle strength than slow velocity contractions in a controlled laboratory setting. In the current study, we demonstrated that the whole body decelerations were predictive of future soreness, thus translating Chapman’s work into a sport setting. Monitoring and tracking DOMS would be beneficial for sport stakeholders, including sports medicine professionals, strength and conditioning coaches, and sport coaches. When paired with a training load monitor, stakeholders could use this data in combination for practice planning, rehabilitation, and strength programming to appropriately load athletes and reduce negative aspects of trainings around important dates, such as competitions.

Training loads can be captured with many different methods, including global positioning units,10,12,14 accelerometers,12 heart rate monitors,6,15,16 and subjective surveys.4 Anecdotally, some training load monitoring devices will create exports with over 200 columns of information. With so much information, it can be tough to navigate training load measures to create usable conclusions from the data. However, recent recommendations indicate that training load should be viewed as a dose of activity, and a response variable should be used to determine the effect of the dose, as is done in medical and epidemiological research.3,27 If training load acts as the dose of sport, then in the current study, DOMS acts as a response variable to understand which of the doses is best predicting the response variable. The number of decelerations, number of high intensity heart rates, and number of accelerations best predicted DOMS. Sport stakeholders who are searching for training load monitoring systems may want to ensure that these variables are included in the system prior to purchase and application.

It is important to note that all of the training load variables significantly predicted next day soreness to some degree, but the number of decelerations accounted for up to 15% more variance than other training load variables. Previous literature has emphasized using training load measures such as total distance and high-speed distance with soccer athletes,18,21 but in the current study, the total number of decelerations accounted for 8% and 12% more variance, respectively. This is the first study to identify decelerations as the best predictor of athlete soreness, potentially due to the innovative measurement of soreness. If put into practice, clinicians would have more confidence using number of decelerations to predict future soreness rather than distance or accelerations, as these may be better suited to view long-term for injury risk reduction. The current study did not include more than one training load variable in each model, as there was significant amount of collinearity between the training load variables. Future research that uses models robust enough to deal with high collinearity could provide even more predictive power, such that future soreness could be predicted and mitigated through thoughtful scheduling and program creation.

Training load measures are often thought of as either external9,10,17,40 or internal.9,40,41 External loads are primarily the work that is being performed, such as distance, accelerations, or duration. Internal loads are perceptual or physiological measures that correspond to the external load being performed, and these are often measured as rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, or training impulse. In the current study, both internal and external measures of load were significantly associated with the following day’s DOMS. Both external load measures and internal load measures could be used to predict future soreness, so clinicians should feel comfortable selecting training load monitoring methods that capture any training load measure.

Although clinicians should use internal and external load measures, they should also use a response variable to determine the impact of that training load. Response variables provide key context for clinicians to identify athletes who are struggling or thriving. Previous authors have used force plate assessments,20 strength measurements,19,42,43 wellness surveys,9,10 or heart rate variability16 to determine fatigue status of athletes. The current study collected DOMS via a smartphone enabled survey with a body map that has established reliability and validity.33 This method is cost-effective, easy to implement, and could aid both sports medicine clinicians and strength and conditioning coaches to ensure that athletes are not being overloaded. Clinicians could also use this method over time to track return to play and use data driven decision making to prescribe future load. Future research should track other objective measures of fatigue to identify if training load predicts these measures in the same fashion that training load predicts DOMS. Additionally, the DOMS collection method in this study could be useful for many other research projects where repeated measures or return to play are being investigated.

This study is not without limitations. Training load measures were not collected during strength training sessions where additional load may have been accumulated. The load is likely to be consistent across athletes, except for internal load measures of heart rate indices, so future research should incorporate strength training sessions into the training load calculations. It was assumed that athletes were honest in their responses regarding lower extremity DOMS. The data were collected and reported back to the sport staff, so athletes may have altered the truth to look good for the staff. Prior to the beginning of the study, honesty was emphasized to the participants, and the coaching staff was educated on appropriate responses to the wellness survey. Additionally, although questions were asked about DOMS and athletes were instructed on the difference between DOMS and other sources of pain, the DOMS outcome scores could have come from another source, such as overuse injury or direct contact that does not require removal from sport. Finally, the training load data were significantly correlated, so data was modeled with one training load variable at a time. Although future projects intend to analyze the data with more robust models to gain greater predictive capability, the authors elected to move forward with a single training load variable in each model.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study demonstrate that training load measures significantly predicted lower extremity DOMS in collegiate female soccer athletes. The strongest predictors were the number of declarations, number of minutes spent at high heart rate, and number of accelerations. Clinicians who work with female soccer players should consider training load monitoring methods that collect these training load variables. Additionally, when high number of decelerations, minutes spent at high heart rates, and number of accelerations are present within a practice, the sport staff should expect higher lower extremity soreness in the following days. Future research should use similar methods to determine if training load variables can predict changes in objective fatigue measures in a similar fashion to the current study.

COI Statement

This study was funded in part by a National Athletic Trainers Association New Investigator’s Grant (#2021NIP01). The authors have no other conflicts to disclose.
==== Refs
Factors associated with noncontact injury in collegiate soccer: a 12-team prospective study of NCAA division I men’s and women’s soccer The American Journal of Sports Medicine Curtis Ryan M. Huggins Robert A. Benjamin Courteney L. Sekiguchi Yasuki Lepley Lindsey K. Huedo-Medina Tania B. Casa Douglas J. SAGE Publications 18 8 2021
49 11 3076 3087 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465211036447 10.1177/03635465211036447
Curcumin attenuates delayed-onset muscle soreness and muscle function deficits following a soccer match in male professional soccer players International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Abbott William Hansell Emily J. Brett Adam Škarabot Jakob James Lewis J. Clifford Tom 1 4 2023
18 4 347 353 1555-0265 10.1123/ijspp.2022-0283 10.1123/ijspp.2022-0283
How do training and competition workloads relate to injury? The workload—injury aetiology model British Journal of Sports Medicine Windt Johann Gabbett Tim J 2017
51 5 428 435 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096040 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096040 27418321
Use of RPE-based training load in soccer Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Impellizzeri FRANCO M. Rampinini ERMANNO Coutts AARON J. Sassi ALDO Marcora SAMUELE M. 6 2004
36 6 1042 1047 0195-9131 10.1249/01.mss.0000128199.23901.2f 10.1249/01.mss.0000128199.23901.2f 15179175
Seasonal changes and relationships in training loads, neuromuscular performance, and recovery and stress state in competitive female soccer players Frontiers in Sports and Active Living Ishida Ai Bazyler Caleb D. Sayers Adam L. Stone Michael H. Gentles Jeremy A. 11 10 2021
3 757253 2624-9367 10.3389/fspor.2021.757253 10.3389/fspor.2021.757253 34708201
Heart rate-based training intensity and its impact on injury incidence among elite-level professional soccer players Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Owen Adam L. Forsyth Jacky J. Wong Del P. Dellal Alexandre Connelly Sean P. Chamari Karim 6 2015
29 6 1705 1712 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000810 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000810 26010801
Subjective well-being and training load predict in-season injury and illness risk in female youth soccer players British Journal of Sports Medicine Watson Andrew Brickson Stacey Brooks Alison Dunn Warren 2017
51 3 194 199 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096584 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096584 27919919
The relationship between training load and injury in athletes: a systematic review Sports Medicine Eckard Timothy G. Padua Darin A. Hearn Darren W. Pexa Brett S. Frank Barnett S. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 26 6 2018
48 8 1929 1961 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-018-0951-z 10.1007/s40279-018-0951-z
Relationship between pre-training wellness scores and internal and external training loads in a Division I women’s lacrosse team Journal of Sports Sciences Crouch Alma K. Jiroutek Michael R. Snarr Ronald L. Bunn Jennifer A. 3 1 2021
39 9 1070 1076 0264-0414 10.1080/02640414.2020.1857106 10.1080/02640414.2020.1857106
The relationship between subjective wellness and external training load in elite English Premier League goalkeepers and a comparison with outfield soccer players International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Grimson Sophie Brickley Gary Smeeton Nicholas J. Brett Adam Abbott Will 1 3 2023
18 3 262 267 1555-0265 10.1123/ijspp.2022-0205 10.1123/ijspp.2022-0205
Impaired sleep mediates the negative effects of training load on subjective well-being in female youth athletes Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Watson Andrew Brickson Stacey SAGE Publications 8 2 2018
10 3 244 249 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738118757422 10.1177/1941738118757422 29420135
Accelerometer and GPS-derived running loads and injury risk in elite Australian footballers Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Colby Marcus J. Dawson Brian Heasman Jarryd Rogalski Brent Gabbett Tim J. 8 2014
28 8 2244 2252 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000362 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000362 25054573
Establishing the criterion validity and reliability of common methods for quantifying training load Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Wallace Lee K. Slattery Katie M. Impellizzeri Franco M. Coutts Aaron J. 8 2014
28 8 2330 2337 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000416 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000416 24662229
Training monitoring methods used in the field by coaches and practitioners: A systematic review International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching McGuigan Hannah Hassmén Peter Rosic Nedeljka Stevens Christopher J 24 3 2020
15 3 439 451 1747-9541 10.1177/1747954120913172 10.1177/1747954120913172
Validity of heart rate-based indices to measure training load and intensity in elite football players Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Silva Pedro Dos Santos Eduardo Grishin Mikhail Rocha José Mário 8 2018
32 8 2340 2347 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002057 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002057 28614162
Match fatigue time-course assessment over four days: Usefulness of the hooper index and heart rate variability in professional soccer players Frontiers in Physiology Rabbani Alireza Clemente Filipe Manuel Kargarfard Mehdi Chamari Karim 19 2 2019
10 FEB 109 1664-042X 10.3389/fphys.2019.00109 10.3389/fphys.2019.00109 30837890
Monitoring the athlete match response: can external load variables predict post-match acute and residual fatigue in soccer? A systematic review with meta-analysis Sports Medicine - Open Hader Karim Rumpf Michael C. Hertzog Maxime Kilduff Liam P. Girard Olivier Silva Joao R. 12 2019
5 1 2199-1170 10.1186/s40798-019-0219-7 10.1186/s40798-019-0219-7 31820260
Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes Sports Medicine Halson Shona L. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 9 9 2014
44 S2 139 147 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z 10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z 25200666
Recovery kinetics of knee flexor and extensor strength after a football match PLoS One Draganidis Dimitrios Chatzinikolaou Athanasios Avloniti Alexandra Barbero-Álvarez José C. Mohr Magni Malliou Paraskevi Gourgoulis Vassilios Deli Chariklia K. Douroudos Ioannis I. Margonis Konstantinos Gioftsidou Asimenia Fouris Andreas D. Jamurtas Athanasios Z. Koutedakis Yiannis Fatouros Ioannis G. 4 6 2015
10 6 e0128072 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0128072 10.1371/journal.pone.0128072 26043222
Etiology and recovery of neuromuscular fatigue following competitive soccer match-play Frontiers in Physiology Brownstein Callum G. Dent Jack P. Parker Paul Hicks Kirsty M. Howatson Glyn Goodall Stuart Thomas Kevin Frontiers Media SA 25 10 2017
8 OCT 1 14 1664-042X 10.3389/fphys.2017.00831 10.3389/fphys.2017.00831 29118716
Acute and residual soccer match-related fatigue: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sports Medicine Silva J. R. Rumpf M. C. Hertzog M. Castagna C. Farooq A. Girard O. Hader K. 2018
48 3 539 583 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-017-0798-8 10.1007/s40279-017-0798-8 29098658
National athletic trainers’ association position statement: Prevention of pediatric overuse injuries Journal of Athletic Training Valovich McLeod Tamara C. Decoster Laura C. Loud Keith J. Micheli Lyle J. Parker J. Terry Sandrey Michelle A. White Christopher 1 3 2011
46 2 206 220 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.206 10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.206 21391806
A conceptual model and detailed framework for stress-related, strain-related, and overuse athletic injury Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Kalkhoven Judd T. Watsford Mark L. Impellizzeri Franco M. 8 2020
23 8 726 734 1440-2440 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.02.002 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.02.002 32111566
Overuse injuries and burnout in youth sports: A position statement from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine British Journal of Sports Medicine Difiori John P Benjamin Holly J Brenner Joel S Gregory Andrew Jayanthi Neeru Landry Greg L Luke Anthony BMJ 24 1 2014
48 4 287 288 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093299 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093299
Neuromuscular fatigue alters postural control and sagittal plane hip biomechanics in active females with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Frank Barnett S. Gilsdorf Christine M. Goerger Benjamin M. Prentice William E. Padua Darin A. SAGE Publications 23 4 2014
6 4 301 308 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738114530950 10.1177/1941738114530950 24982701
Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: A prospective study The American Journal of Sports Medicine Hewett Timothy E. Myer Gregory D. Ford Kevin R. Heidt Robert S. Jr. Colosimo Angelo J. McLean Scott G. van den Bogert Antonie J. Paterno Mark V. Succop Paul SAGE Publications 4 2005
33 4 492 501 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546504269591 10.1177/0363546504269591 15722287
Understanding Training Load as Exposure and Dose Sports Medicine Impellizzeri Franco M. Shrier Ian McLaren Shaun J. Coutts Aaron J. McCall Alan Slattery Katie Jeffries Annie C. Kalkhoven Judd T. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 6 4 2023
53 9 1667 1679 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-023-01833-0 10.1007/s40279-023-01833-0 37022589
The relationship between training load and injury, illness and soreness: a systematic and literature review Sports Medicine Drew Michael K. Finch Caroline F. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 28 1 2016
46 6 861 883 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8 10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8
Relationships between training load, peak height velocity, muscle soreness and fatigue status in elite-level young soccer players: a competition season study BMC Pediatrics Nobari Hadi Eken Özgür Kamiş Okan Oliveira Rafael González Pablo Prieto Aquino Rodrigo 3 2 2023
23 1 55 1471-2431 10.1186/s12887-023-03869-7 10.1186/s12887-023-03869-7 36732715
Comparison in eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage among four limb muscles European Journal of Applied Physiology Chen Trevor C. Lin Kun-Yi Chen Hsin-Lian Lin Ming-Ju Nosaka Kazunori 2011
111 2 211 223 1439-6319 10.1007/s00421-010-1648-7 10.1007/s00421-010-1648-7 20852880
Two maximal isometric contractions attenuate the magnitude of eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism Chen Hsin-Lian Nosaka Kazunori Pearce Alan J. Chen Trevor C. Canadian Science Publishing 8 2012
37 4 680 689 1715-5312 10.1139/h2012-035 10.1139/h2012-035
Greater muscle damage induced by fast versus slow velocity eccentric exercise International Journal of Sports Medicine Chapman D. Newton M. Sacco P. Nosaka K. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 8 2006
27 8 591 598 0172-4622 10.1055/s-2005-865920 10.1055/s-2005-865920 16874584
Development and validation of the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry body map PAIN Reports Scherrer Kristen Hymel Ziadni Maisa S. Kong Jiang-Ti Sturgeon John A. Salmasi Vafi Hong Juliette Cramer Eric Chen Abby L. Pacht Teresa Olson Garrick Darnall Beth D. Kao Ming-Chih Mackey Sean 1 2021
6 1 e880 2471-2531 10.1097/pr9.0000000000000880 10.1097/pr9.0000000000000880 33490848
Modeling human performance in running Journal of Applied Physiology Morton R. H. Fitz-Clarke J. R. Banister E. W. 1 9 1990
69 3 1171 1177 8750-7587 10.1152/jappl.1990.69.3.1171 10.1152/jappl.1990.69.3.1171
Work and peak torque during eccentric exercise do not predict changes in markers of muscle damage British Journal of Sports Medicine Chapman D W Newton M J Zainuddin Z Sacco P Nosaka K 2007
42 7 585 591 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2007.037929 10.1136/bjsm.2007.037929 17873057
Gross ultrastructural changes and necrotic fiber segments in elbow flexor muscles after maximal voluntary eccentric action in humans Journal of Applied Physiology Lauritzen Fredrik Paulsen Gøran Raastad Truls Bergersen Linda Hildegard Owe Simen Gylterud 12 2009
107 6 1923 1934 8750-7587 10.1152/japplphysiol.00148.2009 10.1152/japplphysiol.00148.2009
Muscle damage following maximal eccentric knee extensions in males and females PLoS One Hicks K. M. Onambélé G. L. Winwood K. Morse C. I. 17 3 2016
11 3 e0150848 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0150848 10.1371/journal.pone.0150848 26986066
Influence of compression therapy on symptoms following soft tissue injury from maximal eccentric exercise Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Kraemer William J. Bush Jill A. Wickham Robbin B. Denegar Craig R. Gómez Ana L. Gotshalk Lincoln A. Duncan Noel D. Volek Jeff S. Putukian Margot Sebastianelli Wayne J. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 6 2001
31 6 282 290 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2001.31.6.282 10.2519/jospt.2001.31.6.282 11411623
Muscle damage responses of the elbow flexors to four maximal eccentric exercise bouts performed every 4 weeks European Journal of Applied Physiology Chen Trevor C. Chen Hsin-Lian Lin Ming-Ju Wu Chang-Jun Nosaka Kazunori Springer Science and Business Media LLC 5 3 2009
106 2 267 275 1439-6319 10.1007/s00421-009-1016-7 10.1007/s00421-009-1016-7 19263073
The relationships between internal and external measures of training load and intensity in team sports: a meta-analysis Sports Medicine McLaren Shaun J. Macpherson Tom W. Coutts Aaron J. Hurst Christopher Spears Iain R. Weston Matthew 2018
48 3 641 658 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-017-0830-z 10.1007/s40279-017-0830-z 29288436
Internal training load measures during a competitive season in collegiate women lacrosse athletes Int J Exerc Sci Fields J.B. Esco M.R. Merrigan J.J. White J.B. Jones M.T. 2020
13 4 778 788 http://www.intjexersci.com 32509129
Relationship between indicators of training loads in soccer players Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Casamichana David Castellano Julen Calleja-Gonzalez Julio San Román Jaime Castagna Carlo 2 2013
27 2 369 374 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182548af1 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182548af1
Eccentric hamstring strength and hamstring injury risk in Australian footballers Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Opar David A. Williams Morgan D. Timmins Ryan G. Hickey Jack Duhig Steven J. Shield Anthony J. 4 2015
47 4 857 865 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0000000000000465 10.1249/mss.0000000000000465 25137368
