The 'training load' construct: Why it is appropriate and scientific.

ABSTRACT

A recent paper called for the abandonment of the term load (and training load) when used outside its mechanical meaning, claiming it is "unscientific" and "breaches scientific principles." In this article, we explain why its use does not breach any scientific principles and we clarify the process of labelling, conceptualising and operationalising a construct. Training load is simply a label attributed to a higher-order construct overarching other interrelated sub-dimensions. This multi-level structure provides a framework (nomological network) to support the research process and also practical applications. Load is a word, and therefore cannot be "unscientific". The "use" or "misuse" of words and terms entirely depends upon definitions that should be based on current understanding. Misuse occurs when a term is decontextualised or interpreted according to a unilateral perspective. The field of mechanics does not have a monopoly on the term load (or other common terms such as work, stress and fatigue), which are legitimately used in many scientific areas and with various meanings. The 'obligation' to rely on terms abiding by the Système International d'Unités (SI) when describing a construct is inappropriate. The SI relates to how we can measure, not describe training load; i.e., SI is relevant to its operational and not its constitutive (descriptive) definition. Discussions regarding shared and standardised descriptions and definitions are more relevant than discussions about discarding terms in sport and exercise science. Researchers (and practitioners) can continue to use the term training load as it does not breach any scientific principles.