Abstract: |
Introduction. Elite endurance sports require careful balancing of training load and recovery, where even minor disruptions may interfere with performance, development, health, and well-being. The monitoring regimen of load and recovery-related parameters is, therefore, a crucial component of daily life for elite endurance athletes. The increasing use of wearable technology provides continuous data streams on various physiological parameters, which can offer valuable insights for both athletes and coaches. However, easy access to objective data may lead to de-prioritization of subjective experience, potentially overlooking signs of imbalance, fatigue, or psychological stress. Even though exercise training is possible to objectively quantify, the perception of how burdensome sessions are experienced may differ, leading us to explore the ratio between subjectively rated and objectively calculated training load as a measure. Therefore, this study aimed to explore possible discrepancies between subjective and objective training load in elite endurance athletes, and to identify predictors that may influence the subjective-objective ratio.
Method. We conducted an observational study with 10 male and 8 female elite endurance athletes, all competing for their respective national teams. During a full year of regular training and competitions, daily data collections were made to gain subjective and objective data with individual variance. Objective data were recorded using GPS watches and HR chest straps during training sessions and competitions, while subjective ratings (training load, muscle soreness, mental stress, sleep, food intake, mood, and energy level) were gathered via the Readiness Advisor (RA) app, with scores ranging from 0-10. First, we calculated the annual averages for RA and objective training load, followed by a Spearman correlation analysis of these. We then computed the ratio between subjective and objective load and created a multiple linear regression with the ratio as the dependent variable and the subjective RA ratings as predictors, both for individual athletes and at the group level. For each athlete, the RA parameter with the highest absolute coefficient was identified, and at the group level, the most frequently identified.
Results. The initial correlation analysis revealed a non-significant negative association between perceived and objective load. Although not statistically significant, RA Mental stress was the strongest predictor of load ratio at the group level, with a coefficient of 0.06. This suggests that exercise training may be perceived as more burdensome than the objective training load indicates if mental stress is increased. At the individual level, RA Food was the most frequent predictor, with five athletes identified, while RA Mood followed with four athletes. However, which direction the prediction indicated varied for both RA Food and Mood between individuals.
Conclusion. These findings underscore the importance of personalized monitoring, as group-level trends may not accurately capture individual athlete responses. A tailored approach is necessary to properly manage training load and recovery, reducing the risk of imbalance. |