Volume vs Intensity
Since August of 2024, I have been very fortunate to acquire a set of Catapult Vector GPS Devices for athlete monitoring during programming. What I love about these wearables, is that they are able to eliminate the guess work when it comes to managing training loads for each athlete, which is ideal for appropriate programming, especially for volume and intensity. However, we still need to take into consideration an athlete’s rate of perceived exertion while also looking at the measurable data. Today we are going to look at volume vs. intensity when it comes to referee fitness training.
In my experience training referees and athletes, finding a good balance between the amount of volume and intensity will yield the best possible results for fitness.
What is volume? - - Volume is the total amount of work done in a workout.
What is intensity? - - Intensity is in reference to how hard your body is working during physical activity.
Both of these items can be measured. With volume being measured by time, distance, reps, sets etc. While intensity can be measured through the athlete’s rate of perceived exertion. As we will see later with some data, both volume and intensity can have yield different results when cross referencing with an athlete’s perceived exertion.
One thing to always remember; a workload that consists of high volume cannot make up for lack of intensity and a high intensity cannot make up for lack of volume. A good rule to use, if an athlete is going to do a lot of volume of work, we have to make sure the intensity is low to moderate. If the athlete is planning on working at a very high intensity, we have to make sure the volume is low to moderate. Training consistently at high volume and high intensity can lead to overtraining, injures, and the dreaded athlete burnout.
As we look at the image below from of the catapult device, this was an explosive sprint training workout. Meaning the athlete is focusing on all-out effort in terms of form, force production, and explosiveness. Also, the athlete is getting a full recovery after each sprint.
The training sessions is as follows,
5m sprints - total of 10 - 45 seconds-60sec rest between each sprint
10m sprints - total of 8 - 90 seconds rest between each sprint
20m sprints - total of 6 - 2 mins rest between each sprint
5m, 10m, 20m explosive sprints
A total of 24 sprints with an average distance of just under 12m, with this measurement, the volume visually looks low. Also, after discussing this session with the athlete, their perceived exertion was between a 4-5 at best and when we look at it from total meters covered this was which 2070m. This would be considered low for volume.
This data is also in comparison to a referee’s Match Day. While the overall volume may be low in comparison, the intensity at which the sprint or high-speed distance seems, to be much higher; in other words, the cumulative total distance of all the 24 sprints = 254m, which can be considered moderate for volume but the intensity is high, and the athlete’s perceived exertion was low to moderate.
When using the Catapult devices to measure this session, it definitely fits into the low volume, high intensity model. However, that doesn’t quite explain the athletes lower perceived exertion. Another tool to use would be to measure how the athlete feels the day after and then what is on the training schedule the next day for the athlete. The schedule was set for a High Intensity Interval run the next day.
The numbers/data that came back after that high intensity interval run was not as good as his last and was consistently missing distances throughout his run. The athlete explained that he didn’t feel as strong as the previous week, felt a little extra fatigue, and his perceived exertion based on the same volume and intensity of work the week before was much higher; meaning he felt the high intensity session felt harder than last week even thou the training load stayed the same from the week before.
Which leads us to the data from explosive sprint the day before and the athletes perceived exertion.
Based upon how the athlete felt after the explosive sprint session, he felt he could handle the high intensity interval run the next day. However, we must also look at the data and use it accordingly. Looking at the total catapult data and athlete’s perceived exertion from the session and then ask the question
“Do we continue as planned or do we need to make adjustments in the schedule?
With all the measurements/data I would say that the referee/athlete needed to take an extra day and rest or do active recovery instead of doing a high intensity run. We must think in the mindset of less is more or taking one step back to go two steps forward.
To help find a good balance or use a guide to aid in this process, a mentor of mine put together a great training curve model that is relevant to every referee/athlete. Each week of training should have a trend that goes in this order - development day, a stimulation day, and a recovery day.
A development day is a training session that is low to moderate.
A stimulation day is a training session that is a high intensity.
A recovery day is low intensity
Then repeating the cycle curve again.
This would look like a 6-day training week, 2 days of each in the curve and with 1 day of no training. This can obviously be changed and altered based on given weeks, especially with a referee’s schedule of matches. This provides a good routine that any referee/athlete can implement into their weekly routine to avoid overtraining or becoming stale.
Dynamic Athlete Training uses Catapult as a part of their Elite Training Programming and is a vital tool to help keep athletes balanced, along with their perceived exertion rate. Being able to balance volume and intensity is something every referee/athlete must do. Using wearable tech devices and an athlete’s perceived exertion are great to use as a guideline. However, they must be utilized and analyzed properly. Being able to find the right combination of the two, will come down each individual athlete’s experience, training load tolerance, and analysis of data/perceived exertion by the athlete/coach.