Crossmark

Divergent Responses to Training Load in Professional Australian Football: Are Insights Obtained from Generic and Running-based Assessments Complementary or Redundant?

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00946-2

Published Online: 2025-11-21

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Arguedas-Soley, Adriano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1356-1283
Shushan, Tzlil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0544-1986
Murphy, Andrew

Poulos, Nicholas

Lovell, Ric https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5859-0267
Norris, Dean https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7744-6233
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2025-11-21

Version of Record valid from 2025-11-21
More Information

Article History

Received: 31 March 2025

Accepted: 4 November 2025

First Online: 21 November 2025

Declarations

:

: The study received approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Western Sydney University (HREC number: H15643). All athletes were aware that the scientific investigation and analysis may occur under their contractual agreements, with no experimental manipulation. Informed consent for analysis of anonymised data was therefore not deemed necessary [ ]. Nonetheless, all data collection and handling conformed to recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki.

: The authors confirm that they have obtained the necessary consent for the publication of any data and findings within the present manuscript. An official letter from the reference club is attached to this submission titled “Data Approval Letter - Divergent Responses to Training” as a supplementary file.

: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this study.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below