## 3 Results
### Comparisons between Starters and Reserves  
There was a statistical difference between the internal TL in the SPP (\(p\) = 0.03; ES = \(-\)1.60; \(\Delta\)% = \(-\)22.4) and PCP (\(p\) = 0.02; ES = \(-\)1.71; \(\Delta\)% = \(-\)33.9) periods between starters and reserves, with starters displaying higher internal TL. Starters displayed a significant in  
Figure 1: Mean values and standard deviations of internal weekly training loads (**A**), training strain (**B**), training monotony (**C**), perception of weekly effort (**D**), and duration of weekly training (**E**) for 25 weeks. Note. (AU = arbitrary units; GPP = General preparatory period; SPP = Specific preparatory period; PCP = Pre-competitive period).  
Figure 2: Mean values and standard deviation of the general well-being of all athletes for 25 weeks. Note. (GPP = General preparatory period; SPP = Specific preparatory period; PCP = Pre-competitive period).  
crease in internal TL during the SPP (\(p\) = 0.01; ES = 1.69; \(\Delta\%\) = 23.6) and in the PCP (\(p\) = 0.02; ES = 1.79; \(\Delta\%\) = 45.4) compared with the GPP (Figure 3A).  
Figure 3: Comparisons between starter and reserve athletes during periods of internal weekly training load (**A**), training monotony (**B**), training strain (**C**), perception of weekly effort (**D**), and duration of weekly training (**E**). Notes: a, Statistically significant difference between starters and reserves; b, Significant difference between GPP vs. SPP; c, Significant difference between GPP vs. PCP, d, Significant difference between SPP vs. PCP (AU = Arbitrary Units, GPP = General preparatory period, SPP = Specific preparatory period, PCP = Pre-competitive period).  
Regarding monotony and training duration during the three periods, no statistical differences were found between the groups [F(1,2;10) = 0.2; \(p\) = 0.7 and F(1;1;8.9) = 0.1; \(p\) = 0.7, respectively]. However, the starters had higher values for strain during the SPP and PCP than the reserves (\(p\) = 0.04; ES = \(-\)1.52; \(\Delta\%=-23.3\) and \(p\) = 0.05; ES = \(-\)1.45; \(\Delta\%=-29.1\)) (Figure 3C). When comparing periods, the starter athletes had a lower value of monotony during the GPP compared with the PCP (\(p\) = 0.04; ES = 2.21; \(\Delta\%=14.1\)) and reserves in the SPP period compared with the PCP (\(p\) = 0.04; ES = 1.76, \(\Delta\%=20.9\)). The training duration for reserve athletes was longer in GPP compared with SPP (\(p\) = 0.04; ES = \(-\)1.85; \(\Delta\%=-6.1\)) (Figure 3B,E). Regarding strain, the GPP of the starter group showed lower values compared with SPP (\(p\) = 0.01; ES = 1.54; \(\Delta\%=26.7\)) and PCP (\(p\) < 0.01; ES = 2.20; \(\Delta\%=68.7\)).  
Regarding the RPE, during the GPP, the starters obtained lower values compared with the SPP (\(p\) < 0.05; ES = 2.43, \(\Delta\%=26.3\)) and PCP (\(p\) = 0.01; ES = 1.91; \(\Delta\%=47.4\)). Differences were found in the comparisons between groups (\(p\) = 0.03), with higher values for the starter athletes only in the PCP (Figure 3D). Finally, there was no difference (intra- or inter-group) in general well-being and their domains in the starter and reserve athletes during the periods (\(p\) > 0.05).