Differences in execution and perception of training sessions as experienced by (semi-) professional cyclists and their coach

Training Quality-What Is It and How Can We Improve It?

PURPOSE

The concept of training quality reflects that the effect of training is dependent on more than the mere product of training load (eg, duration, intensity, frequency). The aims of this commentary are to (1) propose a practice-oriented framework to describe training quality and its general and context-dependent characteristics and (2) discuss how athletes and coaches can work to improve training quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Training quality can be viewed from different perspectives. The holistic dimension includes the entire training process (goal setting, gap analysis, application of training principles and methods, etc), while a narrower dimension encompasses the specific training sessions and how they are executed in relation to the intended purpose. To capture the varying contexts, we define training quality as the degree of excellence related to how the training process or training sessions are executed to optimize adaptations and, thereby, improve overall performance. Although training quality is challenging to quantify, we argue that identification and assessment of quality indicators will increase our scientific understanding and consequently help coaches and athletes to improve training quality. We propose that the physical, technical, and psychological factors of training quality can be improved through an individualized learning process of systematic planning, execution, and debriefing. However, assessment tools should be identified and scientifically validated across different training sessions and sports. We encourage further interventions to improve training quality.

Internal Training Load Perceived by Athletes and Planned by Coaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and session RPE (sRPE) has been widely used to verify the internal load in athletes. Understanding the agreement between the training load prescribed by coaches and that perceived by athletes is a topic of great interest in sport science.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate differences between the training/competition load perceived by athletes and prescribed/intended/observed by coaches.

Methods

A literature search (September 2020 and updated in November 2021) was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SPORTDiscus databases. The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/wna4x). Studies should include athletes and coaches of any sex, age, or level of experience. The studies should present outcomes related to the RPE or sRPE for any scale considering overall training/competition sessions (physical, strength, tactical, technical, games) and/or classified into three effort categories: easy, moderate, and hard.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found between coaches and athletes for overall RPE (SMD = 0.19, P = 0.10) and overall sRPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.75). There was a difference for easy RPE (SMD = − 0.44, small effect size, P = 0.04) and easy sRPE (SMD = − 0.54, moderate effect size, P = 0.04). No differences were found for moderate RPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.74) and hard RPE (SMD = 0.41, P = 0.18). No difference was found for moderate (SMD = -0.15, P = 0.56) and hard (SMD = 0.20, P = 0.43) sRPE.

Conclusion

There is an agreement between coaches and athletes about overall RPE and sRPE, and RPE and sRPE into two effort categories (moderate and hard). However, there were disagreements in RPE and sRPE for easy effort category. Thus, despite a small disagreement, the use of these tools seems to be adequate for training monitoring.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-022-00420-3.

Perceived Training of Junior Speed Skaters versus the Coach's Intention: Does a Mismatch Relate to Perceived Stress and Recovery?

The aim of this observational study was to examine the differences between training variables as intended by coaches and perceived by junior speed skaters and to explore how these relate to changes in stress and recovery. During a 4-week preparatory period, intended and perceived training intensity (RPE) and duration (min) were monitored for 2 coaches and their 23 speed skaters, respectively. The training load was calculated by multiplying RPE by duration. Changes in perceived stress and recovery were measured using RESTQ-sport questionnaires before and after 4 weeks. Results included 438 intended training sessions and 378 executed sessions of 14 speed skaters. A moderately higher intended (52:37 h) versus perceived duration (45:16 h) was found, as skaters performed fewer training sessions than anticipated (four sessions). Perceived training load was lower than intended for speed skating sessions (-532 ± 545 AU) and strength sessions (-1276 ± 530 AU) due to lower RPE scores for skating (-0.6 ± 0.7) or shorter and fewer training sessions for strength (-04:13 ± 02:06 hh:mm). All training and RESTQ-sport parameters showed large inter-individual variations. Differences between intended-perceived training variables showed large positive correlations with changes in RESTQ-sport, i.e., for the subscale's success (r = 0.568), physical recovery (r = 0.575), self-regulation (r = 0.598), and personal accomplishment (r = 0.589). To conclude, speed skaters that approach or exceed the coach's intended training variables demonstrated an increased perception of success, physical recovery, self-regulation, and personal accomplishment.