A comparison between the planned and actual external loads experienced during training in a professional, male basketball team

Introduction: Comparisons between the training loads encountered by players to those planned by coaches using external load metrics are largely absent in the team sport literature. Consequently, this exploratory, observational study compared the planned and actual external loads during training sessions in a professional, male basketball team, overall and separately according to key factors.Methods: The planned load was determined by an experienced head coach, while the actual load was measured in 23 players during 138 training sessions across two seasons using microsensor technology. Planned and actual load data were determined using key variables including accumulated PlayerLoadTM (PL) in arbitrary units (AU), relative PL (AU·min−1), and duration (min). Sessions were categorized according to key factors including season (2022–2023 and 2023–2024), intended difficulty (low: PL = < 375 AU; medium: PL = 375–475 AU; and high: PL = >475 AU), number of days before a game that training was conducted (1 day before games, 2 days before games, and three or more days before games), season phase (pre-season and in-season), and venue of the upcoming game (home and away). Paired t-tests, Cohen's dz effect sizes, and Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare planned and actual external loads overall across all sessions combined and for each category within each factor.Results: A lower accumulated PL was encountered in sessions compared to that planned (401 ± 81 AU vs. 422 ± 72 AU, p < 0.001, small effect). This effect was predominantly attributed to a reduced session intensity being encountered compared to that planned (5.97 ± 0.91 AU·min−1 vs. 6.13 ± 0.84 AU·min−1, p = 0.02, small effect) given session duration was relatively consistent (67.7 ± 11.4 min vs. 69.2 ± 9.5 min, p > 0.05, trivial effect). Considering key factors, a reduced accumulated PL encountered in training compared to that planned was most strongly apparent in the second season monitored, in sessions planned to elicit high loads, and in sessions conducted on the day before games (p < 0.001, moderate effects).Discussion: Our findings highlight the extent of misalignment between planned and actual external training loads within different contexts for a specific approach adopted in the monitored team. Accordingly, end-users can interpret this level of agreement in line with their own standards, and utilize the recommendations we provide to strengthen this agreement further.