Coach versus Athlete Perceptions of Effort in Evaluation of Training Load.

Abstract

Athletes can utilize the session RPE (SRPE) to assess training load (TL). However, the ability of coaches to effectively use this model is unclear. PURPOSE: This study examined coach and athlete SRPE during sport training and evaluated the effectiveness of perceptually-based TL monitoring. METHODS: TL scores were calculated via the Edward’s Heart rate (HR) method (Edward’s TL) and a SRPE-based method for 42 (Men’s and Women’s basketball and Women’s soccer) players. Athletes and their coach reported SRPE ~15 minutes post practice. SRPE was multiplied by exercise duration to calculate the SRPE-based TL score (SRPE-TL coach or SRPE-TL athlete). RESULTS: A significant correlation existed between Edward’s TL score and SRPE-TL coach (r = 0.76, p ≤ 0.05) and SRPE-TL athlete (r = 0.78, p ≤ 0.05). T-tests indicated SRPE estimated by coaches was higher than SRPE estimated by athletes (5.0 ± 2.1 vs 4.6 ± 2.0, p ≤ 0.05). Observations were similar when data were analyzed separately by team. Correlations of varying strength existed between Edwards TL score and the SRPE-TL score of both coaches and athletes (range: r = 0.27-0.79) with all correlations except Edwards TL vs. SRPE-TL athlete for Men’s basketball being stronger than r = 0.5. SRPE coach was higher than SRPE athlete for Men’s (6.4 ± 1.0 vs. 5.3 ± 1.5, p ≤ 0.05) and Women’s basketball (5.6 ± 1.7 vs. 5.2 ± 1.9, p ≤ 0.05) but the difference only approached significance for Women’s soccer (3.1 ± 1.8 vs. 3.3 ± 2.0, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: SRPE-TL for coach and athlete were moderately to strongly correlated with the Edward’s HR-based TL supporting the monitoring of training load with perceptual markers. Although differences in SRPE estimated by coach and athlete existed, there was little practical impact on training load scores. Results indicate that both coaches’ and athletes’ subjective estimations of exertion provided a similar estimate of training load.