Back

External and Internal Load Profiles of Male and Female Participants during a Walking Football Practice

da Costa, J. A. H. C.; Pereira, C.; Barbosa, A.; Seabra, A.; Brito, J.; Pinto, A.; Martins, C.; Moreira, R.; Goncalves, B.

2025-01-21 physiology
10.1101/2025.01.15.633234 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDHigh levels of sedentary behavior among older adults highlight the importance of walking football (WF) in promoting physical activity for healthy aging. This study examines the external and internal load profiles of male and female participants during a WF tournament, addressing a gap in research on game demands and induced load. METHODSThe study involved 176 players aged 50+ participating in a 40-min, 5v5 WF tournament with unlimited substitutions. External load (total and categorized distances) was measured using Global Positioning System (GPS), while heart rate (HR) monitors assessed internal load, including absolute HR and intensity zones based on %HRmax. RESULTSThe proportion of male participants (n=123; 70.3%) was higher than females (n=52; 29.7%), p<.001. They were similar in age (61.6{+/-}8.6 and 60.8{+/-}6.9, respectively). Males covered a higher distance per minute than females, with sex showing a moderate effect (63.3{+/-}10.7 m/min vs. 54.7{+/-}15.8 m/min; p < .001; Cohens dunbiased = 0.69 [0.36; 1.03]), especially in fast walking (41.7{+/-}12.2 m/min vs. 32.6{+/-}16.7 m/min; p < .001; Cohens dunbiased = 0.66 [0.33; 1.00]). Males played more time than females (22:26{+/-}09:47 min:ss vs. 15:41{+/-}07:46 min:ss; p<.001), with moderate effect (Cohens dunbiased = 0.73 [0.40; 1.06]). However, no differences between sexes were identified in the internal load variables, such that the female average %HRmax was 80{+/-}11% and the male was 82{+/-}8% during the practice. CONCLUSIONSOverall, while males generally exhibit higher external loads in WF, both sexes experience similar internal load demands, highlighting WFs potential as a scalable, health-promoting intervention for aging populations.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.