## 4 Discussion
This dissociation between internal and external load responses reinforces the practical significance of individualized load management, especially in female athletes, even when statistical interactions are modest (e.g., SpeedMAX interaction effect, d = 1.52 in females, negligible in males). Despite the substantial differences identified in several metrics, not all variables showed significant effects of training condition or sex. Interestingly, some mechanical variables such as AccRel, TakeOffAVG, and LandingAVG did not differ significantly across training formats (MF vs. SMP) or between sexes. These findings suggest that certain movement characteristics may be relatively stable, and MF drills may effectively replicate the mechanical demands of competition in terms of movement quality. Considering that the literature has highlighted these mechanical parameters as key contributors to badminton performance [6], the use of MF drills appears particularly relevant when aiming to reproduce match-specific neuromuscular demands. Although the effect sizes for these variables were small or trivial (d < 0.3), the lack of difference itself is informative--indicating that MF drills can mirror key performance-related mechanics of real match play, offering a training environment that safely replicates sport-specific neuromuscular load. This stability could be attributed to the highly specific and repetitive movement patterns inherent in badminton [11], where jumps and landings are frequent but often standardized in their execution. This stability in mechanical loads may also suggest that neuromuscular demand is modulated more by overall intensity and density of movement (as in MF) than by isolated jump or landing mechanics. From a practical perspective, these results emphasize the importance of carefully designing multi-feeding drills when aiming to replicate or exceed match demands. Coaches should consider interval duration, work-to-rest ratio, and tactical focus depending on the desired physiological adaptation. In this regard, previous research has shown that if the training goal is to emphasize alactic power and explosive output, shorter intervals with limited rest--as implemented in certain MF blocks--may be optimal [7]. Conversely, to improve aerobic or lactate tolerance, coaches may opt for longer work intervals with more sustained movement [11]. Importantly, given the observed sex-related differences in external load and similarity in internal responses, individualized adjustments in volume, intensity, and recovery should be considered to avoid potential overuse or under-stimulation, particularly in female players [13]. Finally, our results suggest that although simulated match play can approximate certain aspects of competitive badminton (e.g., tactical decision-making, psychological pressure), it may underrepresent the highest physiological demands encountered during tournaments. Thus, integrating both MF and SM formats within a periodized training plan appears essential for holistic athlete preparation. This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. The short-term, cross-sectional design limits our ability to infer chronic adaptations or long-term performance effects. Internal load was assessed solely via HR and RPE, omitting additional physiological markers such as blood lactate or hormonal fluctuations. Furthermore, technical execution and tactical decision-making, which may differ considerably between MF and SMP, were not directly measured. Lastly, while our findings are relevant to elite junior badminton, caution should be taken when generalizing results to elite or novice populations. Future research should expand to include longitudinal designs, broader internal load monitoring, and assessments of technical-tactical efficiency. Additionally, the MF-SMP comparison model presented here could be adapted to other racquet or intermittent sports lacking such direct evidence.