LAUSR

Monitoring training and recovery are essential for exercise programming. Athletes can validly assess training load (TL) via the session rating of perceived exertion (SRPE) technique. However, it is unclear if coaches can successfully use this model. PURPOSE This study compared coach and athlete perceptions of effort and recovery and evaluated the efficacy of perceptually-based TL monitoring. METHODS Participants included 56 athletes (Women's volleyball, soccer, and basketball and Men's basketball) and their coaches (n = 4). Perceived recovery was estimated via the Perceived Recovery Status scale. TL scores were calculated using the Edward's HR method and by multiplying SRPE by duration. Coaches provided an intended SRPE (SRPE-CI) before practice. SRPE was independently estimated by coaches (SRPE-CO) and athletes (SRPE-A) ∼15-20 minutes post-practice. Paired t-tests and Pearson correlations were applied to make comparisons (α ≤ 0.05). RESULTS SRPE-CI, SRPE-CO, SRPE-A TLs were strongly correlated with Edwards' HR-based TLs (R = 0.74, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively). SRPE-CI (5.5 ± 1.9) and SRPE-CO (5.0 ± 1.9) was higher than SRPE-A (4.5 ± 1.9). Coaches estimated recovery (RPR-C) higher than athletes (RPR-A) (7.1 ± 1.3 vs 5.8 ± 1.6). CONCLUSIONS TL estimates were strongly correlated with Edwards' TL regardless of information source (coach or athlete) or time point (SRPE-CI TL or SRPE-CO TL). Results suggest coaches' perceptions validly indicated TL. Coaches' perceptions provide parallel information (correlated strongly with Edwards TL), but not identical information (demonstrated by differences in SRPE) as athlete perceptions. Differences in perceived recovery indicate coaches overestimate recovery when compared to athletes' perceptions.