Subjective Wellness Measures Do Not Vary In College Soccer Players Despite Differences In Training Loads

PURPOSE: Collegiate soccer is a demanding sport and the protracted nature of the season means coaches must attempt to balance training loads (TL) with attention to fitness and recovery. This can be done by using global positioning systems (GPS), and more recently, by employing subjective wellness (SW) questionnaires to assess player stress, soreness, fatigue etc. While these have been used at the elite level, there is limited data on SW in college players. Therefore, we sought to explore relationships between SW and objective measures of TL across a competitive season. METHODS: Male Division II college soccer players (n = 24; Defenders, n = 9; Midfielders, n = 9; Forwards, n = 6) completed daily SW questionnaires (Soreness, Fatigue, Stress, Sleep - 0-5 Likert Scale, n = 318 entries) and wore GPS units to track various TL variables (Training Load, Distance, High-Speed Running, Sprinting, Acceleration and Decelerations) over 8 weeks of the competitive season (n = 97 practices and games). Pearson correlation was used to assess relationships between mean weekly SW scores and TL. Additionally, one-way ANOVA was used to investigate differences in SW and TL between position groups RESULTS: A weak correlation was demonstrated between soreness and overall training load (r = 0.16, p = 0.004). Similarly, sleep was associated with overall training load (r = 0.17, p = 0.003) and high-speed running distance (r = 0.14, p = 0.02). In positional analyses, it was determined that defenders covered significantly less total distance than midfielders (5008 vs. 5395 m, p = 0.02) and forwards (5008 vs. 5546 m, p = 0.01), and less high-speed running than those groups (1141 vs. 1416 m, p = <0.001; 1141 vs. 1524 m, p = <0.001). In addition, forwards did more sprinting than midfielders (266 vs. 179 m, p = <0.001) and defenders (266 vs. 172 m, p = <0.001). Despite these workload disparities, no significant differences in SW measures were reported across position groups. CONCLUSIONS: Coaches may want to consider specific variables when assessing player wellness. It may be that the variability in TL across positions does not impact SW as groups are conditioned to their habitual demands. Future studies should analyze SW as they relate to specific days (e.g. training vs. game), or period of the season (e.g. pre-season, post-season).