## 3 Results
### Weekly Average Load
MPW5 was 289.47 \(\pm\) 56.69, 340.73 \(\pm\) 74.82, 371.35 \(\pm\) 75.44 and, 389.19 \(\pm\) 111.94 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 7.451, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.383) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.006), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.007). MPW6 was 64.63 \(\pm\) 18.84, 81.44 \(\pm\) 29.73, 95.61 \(\pm\) 25.09 and 107.70 \(\pm\) 43.64 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 12.589, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.512) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.018), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.002) and between MIC6 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.013) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.005). The results are presented in Figure 3.  
The values for speed efforts (SPEF) were 8.17 \(\pm\) 3.52, 9.94 \(\pm\) 4.39, 11.76 \(\pm\) 3.80 and 12.85 \(\pm\) 5.52 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 9.156, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.433) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.021), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.007) and between MIC6 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.021) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.02). MPWEF was 54.21 \(\pm\) 16.13, 62.95 \(\pm\) 19.60, 70.48 \(\pm\) 19.32 and 78.94 \(\pm\) 34.42 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 11.755, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.495) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.006), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.002) and between MIC6 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.01) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.012). SLEEP was 2.82 \(\pm\) 1.11, 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.90, 2.49 \(\pm\) 0.82 and 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.81 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. For MIC5, the value was higher, but there was no significant difference from the other weeks. SORENESS was 2.77 \(\pm\) 0.79, 2.28 \(\pm\) 0.35, 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.45 and 2.11 \(\pm\) 0.61 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 1.038, \(p\) = 0.019, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.238) between MIC5 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.037) and MIC9  
Figure 2: Weekly average values for DIS4, DIS5 and DIS6. DIS4 = distance covered at a speed of 14.4–19.8 km/h, DIS4 = distance covered at a speed of 19.8–25.2 km/h, DIS4 = distance covered at a speed \(>\)25.2 km/h; MIC5 = five-day microcycle, MIC6 = six-day microcycle, MIC7 = seven-day microcycle, MIC9 = nine-day microcycle; * difference from MIC5, \(p\) < 0.05; ** difference from MIC5, \(p\) < 0.001; # difference from MIC6, \(p\) < 0.05. # difference from MIC6, \(p\) < 0.001. Error bars are 95% confidence limits. (\(p\) = 0.025). FATIGUE was 2.90 \(\pm\) 0.76, 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.38, 2.64 \(\pm\) 0.54 and 2.47 \(\pm\) 0.41 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 2.915, \(p\) = 0.047, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.195) between MIC5 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.037). STRESS was 2.01 \(\pm\) 1.05, 1.54 \(\pm\) 0.60, 1.59 \(\pm\) 0.63 and 1.29 \(\pm\) 0.36 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 4.241, \(p\) = 0.012, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.261) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.048) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.037). Marginally, there was no difference between MIC5 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.058). The results are presented in Figure 4.  
Figure 4: Wellness score average values. SLEEP = sleep responses, SORENESS = muscle soreness responses, FATIGUE = fatigue responses, STRESS = stress responses; MIC5 = five-day microcycle, MIC6 = six-day microcycle, MIC7 = seven-day microcycle, MIC9 = nine-day microcycle; * difference from MIC5, \(p\) < 0.05. Error bars are 95% confidence limits. Figure 3: Weekly average values for MPW4, MPW5 and MPW6.