TRAINING LOAD AND RECOVERY IN VOLLEYBALL
DURING A COMPETITIVE SEASON
DIANA MEDEIROS ANDRADE,1 GABRIELA FERNANDES,1 RENATO MIRANDA,1 DANILO REIS COIMBRA,1,2
1
AND MAURÍCIO G. BARA FILHO
1
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil; and 2Department of Physical
Education, Santa Catarina State University, Florianopolis, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Andrade, DM, Fernandes, G, Miranda, R, Reis Coimbra, D,
and Bara Filho, MG. Training load and recovery in volleyball
during a competitive season. J Strength Cond Res XX(X):
000–000, 2018—The objective of this study was to analyze
the training load (TL) and recovery status (RS) of a volleyball
team in different periods of the season. Fifteen male athletes
participated in the study. Training load was quantified through
the rate of perceived exertion of session. The total weekly TL
of the preparatory period (PP), competitive period I (CPI), and
competitive period II (CPII) was calculated. Total quality
recovery was used to evaluate the initial and final RS. Training
load was higher (p , 0.05) in PP than in CPI and CPII. The
final RS was lower (p , 0.05) in PP than in CPI and CPII.
There was a difference (p , 0.05) between the initial and final
RS in the analyzed periods. An inverse correlation (r: 20.62)
was observed between the TL and the initial and final differ-
ence RS in PP. In conclusion, PP in volleyball presented the
highest TL, related to a greater difference between the initial
and final RS.
KEY WORDS team sports, RPE session, athletes,
periodization, TQR
INTRODUCTION
A
sports training process consists of planned, sys-
tematized, and oriented activities for subsequent
gain in athletic performance. During this process,
throughout the season, physiological and meta-
bolic adaptations in the athlete’s body occur (10–12,15).
Thus, coaches and sports researchers are constantly search-
ing for reliable methods and strategies to identify and mon-
itor these adaptive responses to training (16,18).
Address correspondence to Danilo Reis Coimbra, daniloreiscoimbra@
yahoo.com.br.
00(00)/1–7
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
In elite team sports, the season is often long, and this
makes it necessary to plan distinct phases of training with
specific objectives and demands. To achieve optimal perfor-
mance, it is crucial to monitor the adaptive responses of the
athletes during each of these phases (11,12,21).
Therefore, some methods of training load (TL) control
have been proposed to monitor and improve athletic
performance (5) and avoid stagnation or even performance
decline (6). The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method
for a session developed by Foster et al. (8) has proved to be
an important tool in monitoring the TLs in individual and
team sports; it is a precise and simple method (9,19). In
addition, it is also used to monitor the magnitude of the
TL in volleyball (3,9).
However, the effectiveness of training depends on the
balance between the magnitude of TL applied and the
athlete’s recovery state (4,21). It is known that an athlete’s
recovery during a one-season training process is essential to
prevent and minimize the incidence of syndromes that
impair athlete’s performance and general health, such as
nonfunctional overreaching and overtraining (11,13,21).
In team sports, such as volleyball, there is no consensus in
the literature about periodization, better training-load distri-
bution, and appropriate athletic recovery (22). In addition, to
date, we have found no evidence of the relationship between
TL applied during a season in volleyball and the effect on
the athlete’s recovery state. These issues are still challenges
for coaches and technical staff (22).
Thus, the objectives of this study were (a) to describe the
distribution of TL and recovery status (RS); (b) to compare
the TL and RS between the different periods of the season;
and (c) to determine the relationship between TL and RS of
a professional volleyball team.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This was a longitudinal descriptive study. The data were
collected over the course of a regular season for the team,
which participated in 2 major championships, the State
Championship and the Major Volleyball League (Superliga).
At the start of the season, athletes had returned from
vacation, during which exercise was not controlled. The
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 1
Training Load and Recovery in Volleyball
season was composed of a preparatory period (PP) of
8-week duration (week 1 through week 8); a competitive
period of 14 weeks, divided into competitive period I (CPI),
composed of 8 weeks (week 9 through week 16), during
which the team competed at the State Championship and
“Superliga,” and competitive period II (CPII), of 6-week
duration (week 17 through week 22), in which the team
played only in the “Superliga.” During the competitive
period, games were usually held at the end of the training
week. Monitoring of TL occurred daily 30 minutes after
training sessions. Recovery status was assessed before the
sessions. All training was planned by strength and condition-
ing staff and was not influenced by the researchers.
Subjects
Participants were players in a professional volleyball team
that played for the National League, the main volleyball
competition in Brazil. The team participated in a state
competition and a national competition. One athlete was
excluded from the study as he participated in less than 75%
of training sessions during the season, because of injury. This
cutoff point was defined by the researchers because the team
had a reduced squad, and some athletes had less serious
injuries, only missing a few sessions. In total, 15 male athletes
Figure 1. Training program overview during 22 weeks of a season in volleyball.
the TM
2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
(4 outside hitters, 2 opposites, 2 setters, 2 liberos, and 5
middle blockers), physical characteristics (mean 6 SD) (age:
24 6 4 years, body mass: 96.67 6 11.33 kg, height: 194.30 6
6.65 cm, body fat: 13.78 6 5.43%) were analyzed. No sub-
jects were ,18 years of age. The study was approved by the
Federal University of Juiz de Fora University Research Ethics
Committee (protocol no 278/2010), and all subjects signed
a form giving informed consent of their voluntary participa-
tion in the study.
Procedures
Training Description. Training schedule was planned by the
strength and conditioning coach staff and was not influ-
enced by the researchers. The training sessions were
performed in the morning and the afternoon. The sessions
were structured and supervised by the strength and
conditioning coach staff and team’s athletic trainer. The
routine consisted of (a) physical training: (i) resistance train-
ing 4–5 times a week, 50 minutes (hypertrophy, strength, or
power, according the periodization); (ii) two sessions per
week of circuit training, 20 minutes (velocity and agility);
(iii) two sessions were designated for functional training
specific to volleyball, 30 minutes, coordination, core, and
balance exercises; (b) technical training, 5–6 times a week,

60 minutes in the morning period, designated for develop-
ment of technical skills (defense, reception, and service); (c)
technical-tactical training, 4–5 times to week, nearly 120 mi-
nutes, in the afternoon period. All session training consisted
of a period to warm-up, training, and cool down (Figure 1).
Training Load. The TL was measured daily, by the session-
RPE method (8) that had been used with a similar sample of
volleyball players (1,2). Approximately 30 minutes after the
end of each training session, athletes answered the question
“How was your training?” The intensity was measured using
a Borg’s category ratio 10 RPE scale (8), which ranges from
0 (rest) to 10 (maximum). The athletes were familiar with
the scale, and the responses were individually collected. The
session TL was calculated by the product of the intensity
(perceived, based on the scale) and volume (total net session
time in minutes), generating a value in arbitrary units (A.U.).
For each week, the total weekly training load (TWTL),
which is the sum of the loads of all the training sessions of
the week, was calculated. The TWTL was classified accord-
ing to the interquartile ranges presented over the 22 weeks,
and categorized as follows: ,25% = low; 25–50% = low-
moderate; 50–75% = high-moderate and .75% = high (22).
Recovery Status. Before the start of the first training session of
the day, athletes answered the question: “How do you feel
about your recovery?” Measurement was based on the Total
Quality Recovery (TQR) Scale (14,17), which ranges from 6
(no recovery at all) to 20 (maximal recovery) points. The
initial TQR corresponds to the RS at the beginning of the
training week and the final TQR corresponds to the RS at
the end of the training week. To verify the effect of the
Figure 2. Description of total weekly training load (TWTL) during 22 weeks of a season in volleyball. A.U. = arbitrary units. Values presented in mean 6 SD.
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
weekly TL on the recovery state, the delta percentage
(D%) was calculated between the final TQR and the initial
TQR. Between the weeks, as planned by the technical com-
mittee, days of rest varied from 1 to 3 days.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive data were calculated (mean and SD). The
Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify the normality of the
data. Sphericity was tested by the Mauchly test. Based on
the assumptions, the TL and state of recovery between the
periods of the season (PP, PCI, and PCII) were analyzed
using the 1-way analysis of variance test of repeated meas-
ures, with Bonferroni post hoc analysis when necessary. The
F statistic was calculated from the Pillai’s trace. When the
data distribution was not normal, the Friedman test with
Wilcoxon post hoc and Bonferroni correction was used.
The difference between the initial RS and the final RS for
the periods was measured using the Wilcoxon test. The
Spearman correlation test was used to verify the relationship
between the TL and the recovery state. Data were analyzed
using SPSS software (v.20; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
The level of significance was less than 5% (p # 0.05).
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the weekly distribution of the TL during the
22 weeks of the analyzed volleyball season. During the PP,
the players presented high TLs for 4 weeks (weeks 3, 4, 5,
and 6), with a high-moderate TL in Week 2, whereas in the
competitive period (CPI and CPII), players presented with
a low TL for 5 weeks (10, 13, 15, 20, and 22) and low-
moderate for 3 weeks (weeks 9, 14, and 17). The week that
presented the highest TL was week 5 (4,412.00 6 1,344.00
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 3
Training Load and Recovery in Volleyball

Figure 3. Description of volume (min) and intensity (PSE session) weekly during 22 weeks of a season in volleyball. PSE session = subjective perception of
session effort; min = minutes. Values presented on mean. RPE, rate of perceived exertion.

A.U) in the PP, and the week with the lowest value for TL
was the last (week 22 = 1,078.46 6 378.66 A.U) in CPII.
Weekly volume (minutes) and intensity (RPE session)
during the 22 weeks of the analyzed volleyball season
are presented in Figure 2. The highest weekly training
volumes during the PP were from week 2 to week 6.
During the competitive period, week 9 forth, there was
an oscillation in both the volume and the intensity of the
training.
Figure 3 illustrates RS at the beginning of the week (initial
TQR) and at the end of the week (final TQR) during the 22
weeks of the analyzed volleyball season. It was observed that
the final TQR of week 11 in CPI had the lowest value
(TQR = 13.08 6 1.78 points). Furthermore, the average

Figure 4. Description of initial recovery status (initial TQR) and final recovery status (final TQR) during the 22 weeks of the competitive season. Values in mean
6 SD. TQR = total quality recovery.

the TM

4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Training load and recovery status between the periods of the season.*

Preparatory period Competitive period I Competitive period II

TWTL (A.U.)║ 3,512.84 6 876.48†z 2,843.93 6 1,026.14† 2,696.40 6 933.51z

Initial TQR (points) 17.40 6 1.20§ 17.45 6 1.09§ 16.94 6 1.55§
Final TQR (points)¶ 14.27 6 1.50†z§ 15.26 6 1.43†§ 15.06 6 1.47z§
Δ Final TQR 2 Initial TQR (%)¶ 218.0 6 5.91†z 212.63 6 4.21† 210.87 6 6.38z

*TWTL = total weekly training load; A.U. = arbitrary units; D = delta; TQR = total quality recovery (state of recovery)
†Significant difference (p , 0.05) compared with competitive period I.
zSignificant difference (p , 0.02) compared with competitive period II.
§Significant difference (p , 0.05) comparing final TQR (Wilcoxon Test).
║Analysis of variance repeated measures.
¶Friedman test with Wilcoxon post hoc and Bonferroni correction.

initial TQR for the 22 weeks was above 15 points, indicating
good recovery according to the scale (Figure 4).
Table 1 presents the TL and RS between the periods of
the season. Total weekly training load was significantly high-
er (F2,11 = 9.566; p = 0.004; h2 = 0.635) in PP than in CPI
(p = 0.003) and CPII (p = 0.005). In addition, a significant
difference was found in the final TQR (Friedman test: X2 =
14.00; df = 2; p , 0.001). The post hoc Wilcoxon test indi-
cated that the final TQR in PP was significantly lower than
that in CPI (Z = 22.983; p , 0.005) and CPII (Z = 22.826;
p , 0.005). However, there was no difference in the initial
TQR between the periods of the season. A significant differ-
ence was found between the initial TQR and the final TQR
in PP (Z = 23.409; p , 0.05), CPI (Z = 23.066; p , 0.05),
and CPII (Z = 23.238; p , 0.05). In the D% analyses, a sig-
nificant difference was observed (X2 = 8.00; df = 2; p , 0.05).
The D% was higher in PP than in CPI (Z = 22.667; p ,
0.02) and CPII (Z = 22.417; p , 0.02).
In the correlation between the TL and the recovery state,
a significant, inverse correlation (Spearman’s r: 20.62; p ,
0.05) was observed between the TWTL and the delta per-
centage (D%) of the TQR in the PP, with a coefficient of
determination (R2) of 39%. Thus, the higher the TWTL, the
greater the difference between the final TQR and the initial
TQR. No significant correlations were observed between the
TL and the recovery period in the competitive period (PCI
and PCII).
DISCUSSION
The objectives of this study were to describe the distribution
of TL and RS and to compare them between different
periods, verifying the relationship between the 2 at-different
times during the season.
The results showed that the TL was higher in PP than in
the competitive periods (CPI and CPII). Analyzing the load
distribution of the season, we can observe a wave distribu-
tion of the TWTL. This training characteristic is based on
the attempt to adapt the training stimuli to short periods of
preparation and long periods of competition (12). These
results are similar to those of other studies that analyze
a competitive season in younger volleyball players (2).
Usually, team sports apply the higher external TL during
the PP, as well as the CP; there is a need to reduce these
loads because of the various trips made and games played
against teams of different levels, factors that directly influ-
ence the reduction of the number of training sessions (22).
However, to avoid a possible “break” in performance
because of these situations, weeks with higher TLs could
be included during the competitive period, to avoid perfor-
mance decrement, such as during a week in which the team
has a low possibility of winning or losing the game due to
the opponent team (9,10,22).
The results presented showed that initial recovery did
not differ between the periods of the season. However, the
final recovery state was lower in PP, and a larger difference
between the initial and final RS was observed in this period.
To avoid undesirable effects such as excess accumulated
fatigue and a consequent risk of nonfunctional overreach-
ing (6,7), it is essential to balance training with recovery
periods, so that athletes can restore their physical condition
(20,25,26) and to reach the optimal adaptation specific to
a volleyball game day (24,27), according to their impor-
tance (23).
A relationship between TL and RS (delta percentage)
was verified only in the PP of the professional volleyball
team. To monitor the RS, TQR has been considered as
a practical applied tool in determining appropriate TL
(9,17). A value of 13 (reasonably recovered) is the minimum
suggested by Kenttä and Hassmén (14,17) that athletes
should achieve. Thus, in this study, athletes’ RS remained
within adequate levels. However, the significant difference
between the initial recovery state and the final recovery
state during the competitive period was not ideal because
the final RS represents the level at which the athlete is at by
the end of the training week, when most of the team’s
games took place. Thus, it is recommended that this varia-
tion be the smallest possible in weeks with games and even
better if the RS presents better at the end of the week, to

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 5

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Training Load and Recovery in Volleyball
avoid athletes having a drop-in performance caused by
insufficient recovery in moments of competition (22).
Coaches and staff should be aware that when matches are
approaching, athletes must have properly recovered, that is,
there is a necessity for a different weekly periodization
(microcycle) to allow athletes to be in a better recovery
condition during the match days.
In addition, an inverse correlation was observed between
TL and recovery delta percentage only in the PP, indicating
that the higher the TL, the greater the difference between
the initial and final RS. In the competitive period, this
correlation did not occur, suggesting that, although the TL
was reduced, there was no impact of the same magnitude in
the recovery state. These results are in agreement with the
findings by Freitas et al. (9) who observed that after a period
of training-load intensification, RS values returned to
baseline.
However, this study presents some limitations. First, we
investigated only one volleyball team. The results may
differ with other teams. Another limitation was the lack of
performance measures. These measures could verify if TL
and insufficient recovery had negative repercussions on
physical conditioning. In addition, objective measures of
stress and recovery were not evaluated. Despite these
limitations, to our knowledge, this was the first study to
investigate the state of recovery in a professional volleyball
team during a competitive season, a factor that also limits
further comparisons. Therefore, further studies should
assess the TL and RS in volleyball with different training
periods, competition characteristics, and competitive
level.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study showed an inverse relationship
between TL and RS in the PP, where a higher TL correlated
with a lower RS.
These results reinforce the need to monitor TL and RS in
professional volleyball teams during an entire season. The
distribution of the TL was consistent with that recommen-
ded in the literature and in sports practice, where the highest
loads should be applied in the PP. However, we recommend
that this load must be increased progressively, avoiding
negative performance effects such as nonfunctional over-
reaching at the beginning of the season.
Recovery evaluation must be part of the training control
and must be at the optimal level during the matches in the
season for team sports. Training load needs to be lower at
the end of the week, maintaining training intensity and with
reduced volume.
REFERENCES
1. Andrade, F, Nogueira, R, Coimbra, D, Miloski, B, de Freitas, VH,
and Bara Filho, M. Internal training load: Perception of volleyball
coaches and athletes. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 16:
638–647, 2014.
the TM
6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2. Aoki, MS, Arruda, AFS, Freitas, CG, Miloski, B, Marcelino, PR,
Drago, G, et al. Monitoring training loads, mood states, and jump
performance over two periodized training mesocycles in elite young
volleyball players. Int J Sports Sci Coach 12: 130–137, 2017.
3. Bara Filho, MG, Andrade, FC, Nogueira, RA, and Nakamura, FY.
Comparison of different methods of internal load control in
volleyball players. Rev Bras Med Esporte 19: 146–149, 2013.
4. Bishop, PA, Jones, E, and Woods, AK. Recovery from training:
A brief review. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1015–1024, 2008.
5. Coutts, A, Reaburn, P, Piva, TJ, and Murphy, A. Changes in selected
biochemical, muscular strength, power, and endurance measures
during deliberate overreaching and tapering in rugby league players.
Int J Sports Med 28: 116–112, 2007a.
6. Coutts, AJ, Reaburn, P, Piva, TJ, and Rowsell, GJ. Monitoring for
overreaching in rugby league players. Eur J Appl Physiol 99: 313–
324, 2007.
7. Coutts, AJ, Wallace, LK, and Slattery, KM. Monitoring changes in
performance, physiology, biochemistry, and psychology during
overreaching and recovery in triathletes. Int J Sports Med 28: 125–
134, 2007.
8. Foster, C, Florhaug, JA, Franklin, J, Gottschall, L, Hrovatin, LA,
Parker, S, et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001.
9. Freitas, VH, Nakamura, FY, Miloski, B, Samulski, D, Bara-Filho,
MG, et al. Sensitivity of physiological and psychological markers to
training load intensification in volleyball players. J Sports Sci Med 13:
571–579, 2014.
10. Gamble, P. Periodization of training for team sports athletes. Strength
Cond J 28: 56–66, 2006.
11. Halson, SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in
athletes. Sports Med 44: 139–147, 2014.
12. Issurin, VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of
training periodization. Sports Med 40: 189–206, 2010.
13. Kellmann, M. Preventing overtraining in athletes in high-intensity
sports and stress/recovery monitoring. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20:
95–102, 2010.
14. Kenttä, G and Hassmén, P. Overtraining and recovery: A conceptual
model. Sports Med 26: 1–16, 1998.
15. Kiely, J. Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: Evidence-led
or tradition-driven? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 242–250, 2012.
16. Kölling, S, Hitzschke, B, Holst, T, Ferrauti, A, Meyer, T, Pfeiffer, M,
et al. Validity of the acute recovery and stress scale: Training
monitoring of the German junior national field hockey team. Int J
Sports Sci Coach 10: 529–542, 2015.
17. Lambert, M and Borresen, J. A theoretical basis of monitoring
fatigue: A practical approach for coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 4:
371–388, 2006.
18. Lambert, MI and Borresen, JB. Measuring training load in sports. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 5: 406–411, 2010.
19. Manzi, V, D’Ottavio, S, Impellizzeri, FM, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K,
and Castagna, C. Profile of weekly training load in elite male
professional basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1399–1406,
2010.
20. Marques, MC, Van den Tillaar, R, Gabbett, TJ, Reis, VM, and
González-Badillo, JJ. Physical fitness qualities of professional
volleyball players: Determination of positional differences. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 1106–1111, 2009.
21. Meeusen, R, Duclos, M, Foster, C, Fry, A, Gleeson, M, and Nieman,
D. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining
syndrome: Joint consensus statement of the European College of
Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 45: 186–205, 2013.

22. Miloski, B, de Freitas, VH, Nakamura, FY, de A Nogueira, FC,
and Bara-Filho, MG. Seasonal training load distribution of
professional futsal players: Effects on physical fitness, muscle
damage and hormonal status. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1525–1533,
2016.
23. Moreira, A, Freitas, CG, Nakamura, FY, Drago, G, Drago, M, Aoki,
MS, et al. Effect of match importance on salivary cortisol and
immunoglobulin A responses in elite young volleyball players.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 202–207, 2013.
24. Sheppard, JM and Newton, RU. Long-term training adaptations in
elite male volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2180–2184,
2012.
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
25. Sheppard, JM, Cronin, JB, Gabbett, TJ, McGuigan, MR, Etxebarria,
N, and Newton, RU. Relative importance of strength, power, and
anthropometric measures to jump performance of elite volleyball
players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 758–765, 2008.
26. Sheppard, JM, Gabbett, T, Taylor, KL, Dorman, J, Lebedew, AJ, and
Borgeaud, R. Development of a repeated-effort test for elite men’s
volleyball. Int J Sport Physiol Perform 2: 292–304, 2007.
27. Sheppard, JM, Gabbett, TJ, and Stanganelli, LCR. An analysis of
playing positions in elite men’s volleyball: Considerations for
competition demands and physiologic characteristics. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 1858–1866, 2009.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 7