Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Missouri Western State University, Saint Joseph, Missouri.
Department of Kinesiology, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas; and.
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 May;34(5):1383-1391. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002538.
Kraft, JA, Laurent, ML, Green, JM, Helm, J, Roberts, C, and Holt, S. Examination of coach and player perceptions of recovery and exertion. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1383-1391, 2020-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. This study compared coach and athlete perceptions of effort and recovery, and it evaluated the efficacy of perceptually based TL monitoring. 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. Scores of TL were calculated using the Edward's heart rate (HR) method and by multiplying SRPE by duration. Coaches provided an intended SRPE (SRPE-CI) before practice. Also, SRPE was independently estimated by coaches (SRPE-CO) and athletes (SRPE-A) ∼15-20 minutes after practice. Paired t-tests and Pearson's correlations were applied to make comparisons (α ≤ 0.05). Values of SRPE-CI, SRPE-CO, SRPE-A TLs were strongly correlated with Edwards' HR-based TLs (R = 0.74, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively). However, 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 higher than athletes (7.1 ± 1.3 vs. 5.8 ± 1.6). Estimates of TL strongly correlated with Edwards' TL regardless of information source (coach or athlete) or time point (SRPE-CI TL or SRPE-CO TL). Results suggest that 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 that coaches overestimate recovery when compared with athletes' perceptions.
卡夫特、J.A.、劳伦特、M.L.、格林、J.M.、赫尔姆、J.、罗伯茨、C.和霍尔特、S. 教练员和运动员对恢复和用力感知的检查。《力量与条件研究杂志》34(5):1383-1391，2020-监测训练和恢复对于运动计划至关重要。运动员可以通过会话感知用力评估（SRPE）技术来有效地评估训练负荷（TL）。但是，尚不清楚教练是否可以成功使用该模型。本研究比较了教练和运动员对努力和恢复的感知，并评估了基于感知的 TL 监测的效果。参与者包括 56 名运动员（女子排球、足球和篮球，男子篮球）及其教练（n = 4）。通过感知恢复状态量表评估感知恢复。使用爱德华心率（HR）法和将 SRPE 乘以持续时间计算 TL 得分。教练在练习前提供了预期的 SRPE（SRPE-CI）。此外，教练（SRPE-CO）和运动员（SRPE-A）在练习后约 15-20 分钟独立估计了 SRPE。应用配对 t 检验和 Pearson 相关性进行比较（α ≤ 0.05）。SRPE-CI、SRPE-CO 和 SRPE-A TL 值与爱德华 HR 为基础的 TL 值密切相关（R = 0.74、0.73 和 0.76）。然而，SRPE-CI（5.5 ± 1.9）和 SRPE-CO（5.0 ± 1.9）高于 SRPE-A（4.5 ± 1.9）。教练员对恢复的估计高于运动员（7.1 ± 1.3 对 5.8 ± 1.6）。无论信息来源（教练或运动员）或时间点（SRPE-CI TL 或 SRPE-CO TL）如何，TL 的估计值均与爱德华 TL 强烈相关。结果表明，教练的感知可有效地指示 TL。教练的感知提供了与爱德华 TL 平行的信息（强烈相关），但不是与运动员感知相同的信息（通过 SRPE 的差异表明）。感知恢复方面的差异表明，与运动员的感知相比，教练员对恢复的估计过高。
