Menu

HomeHow it worksContact UsContact Us

An updated conceptual framework on physical performance and training in soccer: a narrative review.

Pillitteri G, Clemente FM, Beato M, Rossi A, Sarmento H, Petrucci M et al. · Sports medicine - open · 2026

This review clarifies how soccer practitioners should interpret monitoring data like external load, internal load, and fitness measures by organizing them into a framework that separates three key questions: what physical output did the player produce, what physiological response occurred, and what does the relationship between output and response reveal about their capacity to perform. The framework doesn't replace existing measurement concepts but rather helps practitioners choose the right metrics and align training based on whether they're targeting physiological adaptation or match-specific performance demands.
Takeaway: Use a structured framework when monitoring soccer players that separates what they did (external output), how their body responded (internal load), and what this reveals about their fitness capacity, rather than treating all monitoring variables as interchangeable measures.
Abstract (source)

Soccer practitioners routinely use external load (EL), internal load (IL) and fitness measures to monitor players; however, the same monitoring variable may be interpreted as training load (TL), performance, or athlete capacity depending on its

Purpose: and reference. The conceptual problem addressed in this review is therefore not the absence of definitions for EL, IL, or fitness status, but rather the lack of an integrated interpretative structure explaining how these established constructs should be differentiated when evaluating soccer physical performance. This conceptually focused narrative review therefore

Aims: to clarify the distinction between TL, physical performance output, physiological response, and athlete fitness capacity, and to integrate these established concepts within an interpretative framework for soccer training and monitoring. The framework does not propose match demands, physiological responses, or fitness status as replacements for the established concepts of EL, IL, and fitness. Rather, it organizes their interpretation according to three related questions: what external output did the athlete produce, what physiological response accompanied that output, and what does the relationship between output and response indicate about the athlete's capacity to perform?. By separating the

purpose for which monitoring variables are interpreted, the framework

purpose for which monitoring variables are interpreted, the framework aims to support practitioners in selecting appropriate measures and aligning training prescription with either physiological adaptation targets or the external performance demands that players are required to reproduce in competition.

Read the original →