Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio: Conceptual Issues and Fundamental Pitfalls
Impellizzeri, Tenan, Kempton, Novak, Coutts · 2020 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 15(6):907–913
Review · Rang 3 von 9
What this work gives Aellic
Severe methodological criticism of the ACWR: “there are known issues with the use of ratio data”, it is “an inaccurate metric (failing to normalize the numerator by the denominator even when uncoupled)”, “not consistently and unidirectionally related to injury risk”, and “there is no evidence supporting the use of ACWR in training-load-management systems”. This is why Aellic reports the ACWR only with the label “heuristic”.
Correction of 25 July 2026
The entry bundled “Impellizzeri et al.; Griffin et al.” until then. Griffin et al. 2020 (Sports Medicine 50(3):561–580) is NOT a criticism but explicitly endorses the ACWR as “a valuable tool for monitoring training load” — so that paper stood as evidence for the opposite of its own claim and has been removed. The addition “arbitrary thresholds” is not literally supported by the abstract.
The entry on the register was wrong. It was not replaced but kept — with what holds instead standing next to it.
Where this sits in the engine
2 declared sites — constants and thresholds in the code that point at this entry.
- Training Training load — zones, TRIMP, ACWR 2 sites
Register entry impellizzeri2020 · Review