The Relationships Between Perceived Wellness, Sleep, and Acute: Chronic Training Load in National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I Male Soccer Players

Abstract

Sekiguchi, Y, Curtis, RM, Huggins, RA, Benjamin, CL, Walker, AJ, Arent, SM, Adams, WM, Anderson, T, and Casa, DJ. The relationships between perceived wellness of, sleep of, and acute: chronic training load on National Collegiate Athletics Association division I male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 35(5): 1326-1330, 2021-The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between perceived wellness, sleep, and acute: chronic workload ratio (ACWR) throughout a collegiate men's soccer season. Sixty male collegiate soccer players (mean[M] ± SD; age, 21±2 year; body mass, 77.6 ± 6.5 kg; height, 180.1 ± 6.4 cm; body fat%, 9.9 ± 3.9% ; and V̇o2max, 53.1 ± 5.0 ml·kg-1·min-1) participated in this study. During each session, players used a heart rate and global positioning satellite-enabled chest strap to measure training impulse and ACWR. The ACWR values were trichotomized at the individual level giving an equal number of observations within each ACWR category of low, moderate, and high ACWR (M ± SD; low, 0.658 ± 0.23; moderate, 0.92 ± 0.15; and high, 1.17 ± 0.16). Stress, fatigue, and soreness levels were collected using 1-10 Likert scales and sleep duration, and sleep quality were measured by the Karolinska Sleep Diary. Stress, fatigue, soreness levels, and sleep quality were transformed to corresponding z-scores at the individual level. Fatigue levels were significantly higher when ACWR was high compared with low (mean difference [95% confidence intervals], effect size, p-value; 0.31 [0.21, 0.42], 0.29, p < 0.001) and moderate (0.14 [0.03, 0.24], 0.13, p = 0.01). Fatigue levels were also significantly higher when the ACWR was moderate compared with low (0.18 [0.07, 0.28], 0.16, p = 0.001). Soreness levels were significantly higher when the ACWR was high compared with low (0.25 [0.14, 0.36], 0.23, p < 0.001). Stress levels were significantly greater when the ACWR was high compared with low (0.19, [0.08, 0.29], 0.18, p < 0.001) and compared with moderate (0.15, [0.05, 0.25], 0.14, p = 0.004). There were no differences in sleep duration or sleep quality in different ACWR. The ACWR may be a useful tool to achieve an appropriate balance between training and recovery to manage daily fatigue and soreness levels in athletes.