Managing Training Load Year-Round: Through Off-Seasons, Breaks & Beyond

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).

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:

• What should training look like in the off-season vs in-season?
• National team windows and summer training camps
• Improving training for suspended players
• Tracking “private workouts”
• How to decide when a player needs a top-up training session?

What should training look like in off-season vs in-season?

Every off-season, I used to ask myself the same question: How does our off-season basketball training compare to the demands of the regular season? Are we preparing our players well enough over the summer to ensure their bodies are in the best possible condition when pre-season begins? Is it even possible to mimic the demands of the regular season with off-season training? Do we even have to match these demands?

By using a monitoring system, we may not be able to answer all the questions above, but we can better connect off-season training to in-season demands. Ideally, this requires annual data for each player, as every athlete has a unique physiological fingerprint. However, even without prior individual data, historical data collection and experience with the system allow for more accurate program estimations.

Based on my experience, an athlete’s Acute Training Load (ATL) during the regular season typically ranges from 700 to 1000, depending on the player. Last summer, two players spent their entire off-season in Vechta, completing five individual workouts and four lifting sessions per week for four weeks.

For them, the acute training load hovered around 300 to 600, well below what they would experience during the competitive season. Images 1 and image 2 illustrate the difference in demands between the off-season and in-season periods for one player.

Off season

In season

In my experience, we can consider it a success if a player manages to complete five individual workouts and four lifting sessions per week consistently over several weeks during the off-season. The fact that we are still far from in-season demands raises two questions: Should we aim to reach in-season levels during this period? And even if we tried, would it be realistically achievable?

Attempting to answer these questions goes beyond the scope of this article. However, I appreciate that applying the system during the off-season provides a much clearer understanding of overall workload. It also allows us to effectively communicate with the player about their current training load and the demands they can expect moving forward once the pre-season starts.

National team windows and summer training camps

National team breaks occur at least twice per season. During these periods, players spend six to eight days away from their club teams, training and competing for their respective national squads. This often involves long travel, jet lag, unfamiliar practice routines, and different playing conditions.

In the past, tracking a player’s training load during these stints was challenging for us as an organization. While we maintained communication with both the player and the national team staff, I always felt that much of our understanding was based on assumptions rather than concrete data.

Over the past two seasons, whenever a player joined their national team, we provided them with a sensor and heart rate strap, requesting they wear the system during every practice—granted the federation permitted it. This allowed us to collect more precise data on their workload and better support their return to club competition. This also gave us insight into the training load a player accumulated during national team practices. While it wouldn’t be meaningful to compare this data directly with our own team sessions, it was still valuable to understand the overall workload. Most importantly, it allowed us to continue monitoring our player’s training, even in the absence of our staff.

The same applies to our young prospects invited to summer training camps outside Vechta. It’s the same scenario as described above—without our staff present, we can still gain valuable insight into how our players are doing and whether their workload remains within expected limits.

Another example is when our team extends the contract of an import player. During the summer, these players return home, and we provide them with an offseason training program. However, we have no way to monitor their basketball workouts and must rely entirely on their commitment to staying prepared before they return to Vechta for the start of preseason. Equipping them with a system to track their basketball workouts would not only allow us to monitor their training load but also provide valuable feedback to help them fine-tune their weekly workload.

Equipping players with the monitoring system during these phases isn’t groundbreaking, but it gives us a clearer understanding of their workload and helps ensure a smoother transition back into team practice—ultimately enhancing our ability to manage risk.

Improving training for suspended players

A player suspension hasn’t been a common occurrence during my first nine years as a performance coach in professional basketball. Still, I’ve faced this situation three times—each time with the same request: Keep the player in shape and, if possible, help him improve his physical condition. Interestingly, in all three cases, the players were set to miss just one week of team practice.

In this context, a monitoring tool—especially when historical practice data is available—becomes incredibly valuable, not just for planning but even more so for executing individual training sessions that are designed to compensate for the practices missed due to the suspension.

It allows you to plan the week—and each individual session—in greater detail, using historical practice data to quantify the makeup sessions in a way that ensures the player experiences identical ML values.

Internal training load is typically higher during these sessions due to increased training density and fewer breaks for the player. In other words, not only does the player reach ML targets in a shorter time compared to regular team practices, but metrics like TRIMP and EPOC PEAK also tend to accumulate much faster. Naturally, this always depends on the type of practice selected.

Another great side effect is the feedback you can provide—not just to the player, but also to the head coach. In my opinion, it’s highly beneficial to communicate the goal of an upcoming session to the player in advance, especially when it’s directly linked to his individual training demands.

I’d say it creates clarity for the player and can also help build trust, as it shows that the training has a clear goal and isn’t randomly put together. In addition, I can provide the head coach with valuable feedback by sending a screenshot of the specific demands of each session. This gives him a clear and concrete impression—far more precise than simply saying we spent 60 minutes on the court.

Tracking “private workouts”

At our club, players have access to the arena until 10 PM, allowing them to come in individually or with teammates to get extra shots up. Whenever they step on the court for any basketball activity, they are required to wear their sensor and heart rate strap. This ensures that we can accurately track the workload of each private training session, contributing to more precise monitoring of both ATL and CTL. This allows us to intervene if a player is overtraining, helping to prevent excessive workload. By relating each private workout to regular team practice demands, we can provide valuable feedback, enabling players to fine-tune their extra sessions effectively.

If I know a player regularly comes in for extra shots and notice a significantly higher ATL, I would speak with him and suggest that taking the evening off might be the better option. Another detail that could help better balance performance and recovery. One of my former coaches, whom I worked for, always emphasized that success in professional sports comes down to the smallest details—and I couldn’t agree more.

How to decide when a player needs a top up training session?

One of my key responsibilities is ensuring our low-minute players stay ready for when their number is called. When the team is fully healthy, some players naturally get less practice exposure. Over time, this leads to a reduction in both Acute and Chronic Training Loads (CTL), which can result in decreased fitness. If a key player goes down, a low-minute guy has to step in immediately—often facing a sudden spike in workload. If they’re underprepared, that increased demand can significantly raise their risk of injury.

A load-monitoring tool can be invaluable in managing low-minute players and ensuring they stay ready. There’s no question that players with less practice exposure need additional training after official team sessions. However, determining the right amount of top-up work has always been a challenge for me, as practices vary in intensity and demands for each player.

With Firstbeat—specifically the Movement Load (ML) parameter—I no longer have to rely solely on my eye test or gut feeling. The data consistently reveals the mechanical load gap between a low-minute player and a main rotation player. To determine the appropriate amount of top-up training, I compare an athlete’s Movement Load to the team average. For example, if the team’s average Movement Load is 240, but a reserve player registers only 140, I would prescribe an additional 120 in training. Since individual workouts are rarely as intense as full team practices, I typically aim slightly above the exact gap to ensure adequate stimulus. Historical data also influences my prescription of top-up training volume. If a player generally accumulates ML at a slower rate, I would likely prescribe less than 120, as shown in the example above. This highlights the importance of understanding each athlete’s unique digital fingerprint to optimize individualized training.

Is this a bulletproof method to keep low-minute players game-ready? Probably not. But is it practical and effective enough to make an impact? I firmly believe that.

We don’t just use the data to determine whether a player needs a top-up session; the system also helps us decide if they can participate in a second practice on the same day. Our A team typically trains in the morning, and two young prospects regularly join these sessions, even though most of their playing time comes with our B team.

If their training exposure in the morning is high, we avoid having them practice again in the evening with the B team. However, if their morning load is considered low to moderate, we may allow them to train again at night in a modified capacity. Rarely do they participate fully; sometimes, they join one or two contact drills or complete an individual workout paired with a lift. After the morning session, I usually sit down with the B team’s head coach to make these decisions collaboratively.

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.