Examination of Coach and Player Perceptions of Recovery and Exertion.

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.

Recovery from high-intensity training sessions in female soccer players.

This study quantified the performance recovery time requirements after training sessions using high-intensity soccer drills with and without the ball in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I female soccer players. Recovery time periods (24, 48, 72 hours of rest) from high-intensity soccer training sessions using drills with and without the ball were evaluated. Markers of recovery were each individual's performance relative to baseline performance in countermovement jump (CMJ) height, 5 bound jumps for distance (5BT), 20-m sprint (20SP), session rating of perceived effort (S-RPE), and heart rate (HR). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in CMJ performance (p < 0.04) and S-RPE (p < 0.02) after 24 hours of rest but not at 48 or 72 hours compared to baseline. There were no significant differences in 20SP, 5BT, or HR after 24, 48, or 72-hour recovery (p > 0.05). Therefore, high-intensity training drills produced a sufficient conditioning stimulus with little chance of underrecovery for the performance measures we tested. Countermovement jump and S-RPE may be more sensitive performance recovery indicators.