The current state of subjective training load monitoring—A practical perspective and call to action

Coyne, JOC; Gregory Haff, G; Coutts, AJ; Newton, RU; Nimphius, S

The current state of subjective training load monitoring—A practical perspective and call to action

Coyne, JOC Gregory Haff, G Coutts, AJ

Newton, RU Nimphius, S

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Sports Medicine - Open, 2018, 4 (1)
Issue Date:: 2018-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (987.81 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Coyne, JOC	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Gregory Haff, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Coutts, AJ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1782-7691	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Newton, RU	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Nimphius, S	en_US
dc.date.available	2018-11-30	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Sports Medicine - Open, 2018, 4 (1)	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	2199-1170	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129839
dc.description.abstract	© The Author(s). 2018 International License. This commentary delivers a practical perspective on the current state of subjective training load (TL) monitoring, and in particular sessional ratings of perceived exertion, for performance enhancement and injury prevention. Subjective measures may be able to reflect mental fatigue, effort, stress, and motivation. These factors appear to be important moderators of the relationship TL has with performance and injury, and they also seem to differ between open and closed skill sports. As such, mental factors may affect the interaction between TL, performance, and injury in different sports. Further, modeling these interactions may be limited due to the assumption that an independent signal can adequately account for the performance or injury outcomes. An independent signal model does not accurately reflect training environments where multiple stressors (e.g., mechanical, emotional, nutritional) impact adaptations. Common issues with using subjective TL monitoring, including a lack of differentiation between biomechanical, physiological, and cognitive load, may be overcome by considering psychometric measurement best practices, finer graded scales, and differential ratings of perceived exertion. Methods of calculating TL, including different acute and chronic time periods, may also need to be individualized to different sports and potentially different individuals within the same sport. As TL monitoring is predominately a “chronic” decisionmaking tool, “acute” decision-making tools, e.g., subjective wellness and autonomic nervous system measures, should be combined in a bespoke multivariate model to aid sports coaches. A call to action is presented for future research on key issues associated with TL monitoring that will have relevance for practitioners in an applied setting.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Sports Medicine - Open	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1186/s40798-018-0172-x	en_US
dc.title	The current state of subjective training load monitoring—A practical perspective and call to action	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Sports and Exercise Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHT - Health Technologies
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	4	en_US

Abstract:

© The Author(s). 2018 International License. This commentary delivers a practical perspective on the current state of subjective training load (TL) monitoring, and in particular sessional ratings of perceived exertion, for performance enhancement and injury prevention. Subjective measures may be able to reflect mental fatigue, effort, stress, and motivation. These factors appear to be important moderators of the relationship TL has with performance and injury, and they also seem to differ between open and closed skill sports. As such, mental factors may affect the interaction between TL, performance, and injury in different sports. Further, modeling these interactions may be limited due to the assumption that an independent signal can adequately account for the performance or injury outcomes. An independent signal model does not accurately reflect training environments where multiple stressors (e.g., mechanical, emotional, nutritional) impact adaptations. Common issues with using subjective TL monitoring, including a lack of differentiation between biomechanical, physiological, and cognitive load, may be overcome by considering psychometric measurement best practices, finer graded scales, and differential ratings of perceived exertion. Methods of calculating TL, including different acute and chronic time periods, may also need to be individualized to different sports and potentially different individuals within the same sport. As TL monitoring is predominately a “chronic” decisionmaking tool, “acute” decision-making tools, e.g., subjective wellness and autonomic nervous system measures, should be combined in a bespoke multivariate model to aid sports coaches. A call to action is presented for future research on key issues associated with TL monitoring that will have relevance for practitioners in an applied setting.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129839