# Quantifying Sub-Elite Youth Football Weekly Training Load and Recovery Variation
## 3 Results  
### Age Group Analysis  
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for mean weekly training load and recovery status for each age group examined. The age groups presented significant differences in all external training load measures, except DSL. The internal training load measures presented a significant difference between age group comparison for RPE and sRPE. The TQR score presented significant differences within age groups.  
Age group differences were found for TD (\(p<0.001\), \(\Delta\) = 705.27-1271.02 m, \(d\) = 0.46-0.78), AvS (\(p=0.002\), \(\Delta\) = 11.01 m\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\), \(d\) = 0.41), MSR (\(p<0.001\), \(\Delta\) = 0.86-1.36 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\), \(d\) = 0.60), rHSR (\(p<0.05\), \(\Delta\) = 93.65-112.83 m, \(d\) = 0.29-0.35), HMLD (\(p<0.001\), \(\Delta\) = 93.65-241.45 m, \(d\) = 0.29), average sprint distance (\(p<0.05\), \(\Delta\) = 90.26-102.30 m, \(d\) = 0.31), number of sprints (\(p<0.05\), \(\Delta\) = 1.72-2.97, \(d\) = 0.29-0.43), ACC (\(p<0.001\), \(\Delta\) = 16.29-20.14 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-2}\), \(d\) = 0.86-1.02) and DEC (\(p<0.001\), \(\Delta\) = 13.74-19.50 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-2}\), \(d\) = 0.29).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Variables**} & **U15 (\(\mu\) = 102)** & **U17 (\(\mu\) = 99)** & **U19 (\(\mu\) = 120)** & \(F\) & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}\) & **Post-Hoc** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**External load**} & TD (m) & 5316.18 \(\pm\) 1354.45 & 6021.45 \(\pm\) 1675.64 & 4750.43 \(\pm\) 1593.46 & 18.465 & 0.000 & 0.103 & a,b,c \\ \cline{2-8}  & AvS (m\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\)) & 49.96 \(\pm\) 16.35 & 56.84 \(\pm\) 34.51 & 45.83 \(\pm\) 15.60 & 6.192 & 0.002 & 0.037 & a \\ \cline{2-8}  & MRS (m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\)) & 6.58 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 7.94 \(\pm\) 3.12 & 7.43 \(\pm\) 1.15 & 13.014 & 0.000 & 0.075 & a,b \\ \cline{2-8}  & rHSR (m) & 53.23 \(\pm\) 58.34 & 166.06 \(\pm\) 458.95 & 72.41 \(\pm\) 65.95 & 5.525 & 0.004 & 0.033 & a,c \\ \cline{2-8}  & HMLD (m) & 489.11 \(\pm\) 228.44 & 730.56 \(\pm\) 483.38 & 524.90 \(\pm\) 291.37 & 14.395 & 0.000 & 0.082 & a,c \\ \cline{2-8}  & Average sprint (m) & 28.13 \(\pm\) 41.66 & 130.42 \(\pm\) 462.56 & 40.16 \(\pm\) 50.43 & 4.773 & 0.009 & 0.029 & a,c \\ \cline{2-8}  & Number of sprints & 1.85 \(\pm\) 2.46 & 4.83 \(\pm\) 4.81 & 3.12 \(\pm\) 2.92 & 18.363 & 0.000 & 0.103 & a,b,c \\ \cline{2-8}  & DSL (a.u.) & 247.21 \(\pm\) 1358.66 & 261.28 \(\pm\) 121.73 & 245.19 \(\pm\) 144.87 & 0.439 & 0.645 & 0.003 & - \\ \cline{2-8}  & ACC (m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-2}\)) & 33.62 \(\pm\) 18.80 & 53.76 \(\pm\) 20.62 & 49.90 \(\pm\) 20.19 & 26.636 & 0.000 & 0.156 & a,b \\ \cline{2-8}  & DEC (m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-2}\)) & 30.27 \(\pm\) 19.77 & 49.77 \(\pm\) 25.08 & 44.01 \(\pm\) 22.53 & 20.103 & 0.000 & 0.111 & a,b \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Internal load**} & RPE (a.u.) & 13.73 \(\pm\) 1.91 & 13.51 \(\pm\) 1.76 & 12.45 \(\pm\) 2.50 & 11.964 & 0.000 & 0.069 & a,c \\ \cline{2-8}  & sRPE (a.u.) & 1235.29 \(\pm\) 171.87 & 1215.46 \(\pm\) 158.71 & 1120.24 \(\pm\) 224.69 & 11.964 & 0.000 & 0.069 & a,c \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Recovery status**} & \multirow{2}{*}{TQR (a.u.)} & \multirow{2}{*}{16.38 \(\pm\) 1.92} & \multirow{2}{*}{16.24 \(\pm\) 1.81} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.21 \(\pm\) 2.16} & \multirow{2}{*}{11.923} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.000} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.103} & \multirow{2}{*}{a,c} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Mean training load and recovery status per session for each age group examined.  
The RPE and sRPE were statistically significant between age groups (\(p\) < 0.001, \(\Delta\) = 1.28-1.58 a.u., \(d\) = 0.12-0.58). The IQR score presented significant differences within age groups (\(p\) = 0.000, \(F\) = 11.2, \(d\) = 0.52-0.58). Figure 1 presents the mean differences (%) between each age group examined for external load, sRPE, RPE and IQR.