# External Load \"Periodization\" during Pre-Season and In-Season in a High-Level Futusal Team
## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to investigate the periodization of training load in a high-level futsal team by comparing external loads between pre-season and in-season phases, as well as analyzing the variations in training loads across specific training sessions within these periods. The main findings reveal greater week-to-week variation in training loads during the pre-season compared to the in-season. Both pre-season and in-season phases exhibited peak training loads on MD-2, while MD-1 featured a brief tapering period before matches. Notably, external loads on MD-3 and MD-2 were higher during the in-season than during the pre-season. During the 4-week pre-season, there was considerable variation in training loads across the microcyles. This detailed examination of the team's training practices and the variation in external training loads during the pre-season supports previous recommendations suggesting that a fixed sequence system is less suitable for team sports periodization [32]. Instead, a multilateral and variable training approach is preferred. More specifically, PS-M1 presented lower TD, HSR, SPR, ACC, and DEC compared to at least one of the following weeks. For instance, TD was significantly lower in PS-M1 compared to both PS-M2 and PS-M4. This indicates that the first week of the pre-season served as an introductory phase for rebuilding fitness, a common approach following the off-season, typically associated with detraining [33], even if only briefly [34]. The PS-M2 week accumulated the highest training load during the pre-season, followed by a reduction in training load during PS-M3. The training load increased again in the final week of the pre-season, PS-M4. This intensification between PS-M3 and PS-M4 was marked by increases in SPR, ACC, and DEC, indicating a higher training volume, greater exercise intensity, and neuromuscular overload before the in-season. Although this pre-season organization appears effective for (re)gaining fitness, it contrasts with some previous reports. For example, [PERSON] et al. [17] reported a decreasing weekly loading pattern in a professional futsal team over the pre-season. This approach aligns with the need to taper before entering the competitive period in order to avoid the deleterious effect of excessive fatigue hampering physiological adaptation during the competitive period [35]. However, the authors used sRPE rather than external training load markers. Using the same quantification method, it was recently shown that different teams from the same Professional Fuusal League followed different loading patterns during the pre-season [36]. In the referred study, one of the investigated teams followed a progressive reduction in training loads similar to the team reported by [PERSON] et al. [17], while another team presented a loading pattern more similar to the one reported in the current study, with the first weeks having lower loads and the final week featuring  
Figure 2: (**A**) MD+1 = match day plus 1; (**B**) MD-3 = match day minus 3; (**C**) MD-2 = match day minus 2; (**D**) MD-1 = match day minus 1; TD = total distance covered (m); Drel = relative distance covered (m/min); HRS = high-speed running (m > 18.8 km/h); SPR = sprint distances (m > 25.2 km/h); ACC = number of intense accelerations (>2.5 m/s\({}^{2}\)); DEC = number of intense decelerations (>\(-\)2.5 m/s\({}^{2}\)); ES = effect size. *, ** = denote difference between periods (\(p\) < 0.05 and \(p\) < 0.01, respectively). very high loads [36]. On the other hand, using GPS-derived distances covered, a study involving elite soccer players reported very limited variation in training loads across the pre-season weeks [30]. These reports highlight the variable training strategies adopted by different teams during the pre-season.