Managing Load After Off Days and Sickness – Expert Insights from Pro Basketball

This article is written by Domenik Theodorou, a Firstbeat Sports client and Performance Coach at RASTA Vechta, a professional basketball team competing in the Basketball Bundesliga (BBL) and FIBA Basketball Champions League (BCL). In this article, Domenik demonstrates how Firstbeat can be leveraged for much more than just monitoring training load.

A monitoring system like Firstbeat does more than simply track training data. Through years of daily use, I’ve come across a number of subtle but valuable insights—small details that go beyond what you might notice at first. In this post, I’ll share some of these secrets with you, including:

• Increased internal training load after off days
• Training load after sickness

Increased internal training load after off days

In my early years as a performance coach, when I worked without a monitoring system, I consistently noticed that the first day of contact practice after one or two off-days tended to feel rusty and sloppy. On these days, the coaches and I often observed more technical mistakes, decreased shooting percentages, early signs of fatigue, and an overall drop in practice quality. Back then, I didn’t realize it, but looking back now, I can confidently say we were onto something.

I can now confirm that our perceptions weren’t misleading. After analyzing the data for three years, a clear trend has emerged: the first day of practice after an off-day comes at a significantly higher internal cost.

Players consistently show elevated TRIMP scores, higher EPOC PEAK values, and more minutes spent in HIGH-INTENSITY TRAINING (HIT) compared to other practice days. Of course, the impact always depends on the type of training. However, when comparing two similarly intense sessions—one on day one and the other on day two of the week—we would observe significantly higher internal loads on day one. This raises the question of why this happens and what it means for our practice planning.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find a definitive answer for my observations in the literature. However, based on my collected training data, it appears that we should taper the first session when returning to a practice week. This approach allows the body to gradually restart its engine and maybe decreasing the risk of injury after one or two days off.

I refer to this practice as “Introduction Day,” where the emphasis is on half-court live drills, with a significantly lower volume of full-court live drills. On the second day of the week, we reverse this approach. This applies only when we have a full week between games, with day one considered Gameday -4 (GD-4) and day two GD-3.

If we have only six days between games (e.g., playing on Sunday and Saturday), we prefer to schedule our off day immediately after the game. In this case, GD-4 includes lifting and individual work, allowing the body to ease into the week while hopefully minimizing spikes in internal load the next day. This also illustrates that the practices on GD-3 are not created equal.

I prefer a GD-4 with team practice rather than one focused on weights and individual work. When GD-4 includes a full team session, the overall workload on GD-3 is naturally higher compared to when the previous day consists only of weights and individual work. This approach allows for a smoother transition between practices and a more gradual increase in training load. I’d always favor easing into the week when time allows. But in the end, it’s not about my preference—it’s about the league’s schedule, and we have to adapt accordingly.

In addition to the league’s schedule, we must also consider the current phase of the season when planning our practices. If we’re coming off a weekend with two games and have six days before the next one, GD-3 will once again be adjusted accordingly.

Another example of increased internal training load after off-days, which I observed only last year, is a reduction in Heart Rate Recovery (HRR) within 30 seconds throughout practice. While there are always interindividual differences among players, I’ve noticed a clear trend toward lower HRR. I still believe this example requires caution, as the lower HRR could also be influenced by the intentionally reduced practice intensity on these days. If the intensity isn’t as high for players who handle practices better after off-days, their HRR might naturally be lower as well. Once again, this is another great example of why it’s essential to know each athlete’s historical data.

The findings above have led us to rethink our approach to practices following off-days. It’s easy—and seemingly intuitive—to assume that players will be fully refreshed after one or two days of recovery. One might expect them to handle a high-intensity session right away. However, our observations suggest otherwise. Our perspective on these days has evolved, which is why we now refer to them as “introduction days.” When it comes to the first day of the practice week, we believe that less is more—a philosophy that guides our approach.

Training load after sickness

Having access to historical data is extremely valuable when comparing a player’s training data before and after an illness. While I’ve consistently observed elevated internal training loads following sickness—something we would generally expect—what surprised me was how long it takes players to return to their previous practice values.

Let’s assume an athlete was sick for one week, missing four team practices and one game. In contrast to the earlier example, where a spike might only last a day, I’ve found that elevated training loads often persist for the same duration as the time missed. I would even go a step further and say that, in most cases, the return to previous values takes even longer than the time missed. Of course, this also depends on the individual player and the severity of the illness.

From what I’ve observed, TRIMP scores and time spent in HIT are particularly elevated post-illness, which in turn leads to decreased Movement Efficiency (ME). ME is simply ML divided by TRIMP. HRR is also significantly decreased.

Whenever possible, we aim to gradually rebuild training intensity. If the schedule allows, we start with a low-intensity individual session before reintegrating the player into team practice. This approach helps reduce the shock to the body and allows for a smoother re-acclimation to the demands of regular basketball training.

Especially in the initial phase, we also make a point of giving the player more breaks during practice. In some cases, we even choose to gradually increase the amount of contact drills per session to ensure a controlled and safe return to full intensity.

These findings can be observed not only after illness but also following a minor injury (lasting no longer than two weeks). However, the extent of elevated training data tends to be greater following an illness compared to a minor injury.

This is one of the key reasons why we always aim to resume training activities as early as possible during the Return to Competition (RTC) process. By doing so, we not only minimize the drop in CTL, but also help reduce the physical shock of returning to on-court basketball activities.

RTC scenarios are also a great opportunity to make full use of the Firstbeat system. In one of my previous blog posts, I outlined our RTC framework, which is divided into three phases: off-court plus on-court rehabilitation, and a stepwise reintroduction to team practice. In this article, you’ll find additional insights on how to use a monitoring tool to progressively bring your athletes back from injury.

I am always happy to connect and chat about S&C work. Please send me a message on Instagram @domceps if you would like to connect.