## 3 Results  
### Weekly Average Load  
ACC2 was 25.35 \(\pm\) 6.49, 29.76 \(\pm\) 5.05, 33.51 \(\pm\) 3.77 and 38.11 \(\pm\) 7.14 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 17.610, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.595) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.016), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) < 0.001), between MIC6 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.005) and MIC9 (\(p\) < 0.001) and between MIC7 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.022). ACC3 was 5.82 \(\pm\) 3.27, 6.93 \(\pm\) 3.94, 7.56 \(\pm\) 3.68 and 9.24 \(\pm\) 6.34 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 5.505, \(p\) = 0.003, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.314) between MIC5 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.43) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.02) and between MIC6 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.28). DEC2 was 19.84 \(\pm\) 4.28, 24.15 \(\pm\) 5.30, 27.44 \(\pm\) 5.85 and 30.35 \(\pm\) 7.83 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 21.109, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.638) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.003), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) < 0.001), between MIC6 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.031) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.001) and between MIC7 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.034). DEC3 was 6.09 \(\pm\) 4.00, 6.93 \(\pm\) 4.31, 7.40 \(\pm\) 4.52 and 8.46 \(\pm\) 6.12 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 3.957, \(p\) = 0.015, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.248) between MIC5 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.32). The results are presented in Figure 1.  
DIST was 3691.78 \(\pm\) 340.73, 4027.17 \(\pm\) 367.58, 4192.63 \(\pm\) 320.21 and 4332.27 \(\pm\) 320.00 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 14.435, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.546) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) < 0.001), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) < 0.001) and between MIC6 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.03). DIS4 was 205.37 \(\pm\) 166.66, 366.79 \(\pm\) 84.01, 334.04 \(\pm\) 120.82 and 309.09 \(\pm\) 69.33 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 11.206, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.483) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.001), MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.023) and between MIC6 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.002). DIS5 was 55.96 \(\pm\) 55.79, 102.77 \(\pm\) 52.92, 99.30 \(\pm\) 39.45 and 93.75 \(\pm\) 36.92 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 5.883, \(p\) = 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.329) between MIC5 and MIC6 (\(p\) = 0.013), MIC7  
Figure 1: Weekly average values for ACC2, ACC3, DEC2 and DEC3. ACC2 = number of accelerations of 2-3 m/s/s, ACC3 = number of accelerations >3 m/s/s, DEC2 = number of decelerations of –2—3 m/s/s, DEC3 = number of decelerations <–3 m/s/s; 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, \(p\) < 0.05; # difference from MIC6, \(p\) < 0.05; & difference from MIC7, \(p\) < 0.05. Error bars are 95% confidence limits. (\(p\) = 0.003) and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.028). DIS6 was 8.24 \(\pm\) 10.49, 11.10 \(\pm\) 6.40, 21.44 \(\pm\) 11.31 and 22.92 \(\pm\) 8.12 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 22.305, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.650) between MIC5 and MIC7 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MIC9 (\(p\) < 0.001) and between MIC6 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.002) and MIC9 (\(p\) < 0.001). The results are presented in Figure 2.  
Metabolic power distance (MPW4) was 486.44 \(\pm\) 72.37, 519.52 \(\pm\) 76.74, 563.48 \(\pm\) 110.35 and 553.05 \(\pm\) 109.75 for MIC5, MIC6, MIC7 and MIC9, respectively. There was a significant difference (F\({}_{(3,36)}\) = 2.924, \(p\) = 0.047, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.196) between MIC5 and MIC7 (\(p\) = 0.009) and a marginal difference between MIC5 and MIC9 (\(p\) = 0.064).