Internal Training Load Perceived by Athletes and Planned by Coaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open Access
- 4 March 2022
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Sports Medicine - Open
- Vol. 8 (1), 1-32
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00420-3
Abstract
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. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate differences between the training/competition load perceived by athletes and prescribed/intended/observed by coaches. 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. 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 65 references indexed in Scilit:
- Monitoring stress and recovery: new insights for the prevention of injuries and illnesses in elite youth soccer playersBritish Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- Profile of Weekly Training Load in Elite Male Professional Basketball PlayersJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2010
- The Quantification of Training Load, the Training Response and the Effect on PerformanceSports Medicine, 2009
- The Ecological Validity and Application of the Session-RPE Method for Quantifying Training Loads in SwimmingJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2009
- What makes coaches tick? The impact of coaches' intrinsic and extrinsic motives on their own satisfaction and that of their athletesScandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2008
- Sex-Related Differences in Ratings of Perceived Exertion and Estimated Time LimitInternational Journal of Sports Medicine, 2005
- The coach–athlete relationship: a motivational modelJournal of Sports Sciences, 2003
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Heart Rate, Blood Lactate Responses and Ratings of Perceived Exertion to 1,000 Punches and 1,000 Kicks in Collegiate Karate Practitioners.Applied Human Science, 1997