Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct 17;3(1):38.
doi: 10.1186/s40798-017-0105-0.

Comparisons of Perceived Training Doses in Champion Collegiate-Level Male and Female Cross-country Runners and Coaches over the Course of a Competitive Season

Affiliations

Comparisons of Perceived Training Doses in Champion Collegiate-Level Male and Female Cross-country Runners and Coaches over the Course of a Competitive Season

Kyle R Barnes. Sports Med Open. .

Abstract

Background: Session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is a practical tool for coaches to assess internal training load of their athletes. In a sport like cross-country running, that is individual in nature, but has a team training and competition component, information about the association between external and internal load is lacking. Furthermore, there is a need for studies that examine perception of training doses across multiple training cycles including the competitive season as well as between male and female athletes.

Methods: Session RPE, duration, and training load (TLRPE = sRPE × duration) of 25 highly trained male and female cross-country runners and their coaches were recorded for every training session (110 days) throughout a collegiate cross-country season. Intensity (sRPE), duration, and TLRPE were compared between coaches and runners by gender separately. Training sessions were also analyzed by those intended by the coaches to be easy, moderate, and hard as well as by training period.

Results: Data from 3024 training sessions were collected, 62% of which were considered "easy," 18% "moderate," and 20% "hard." Men and women rated coach-intended easy sessions significantly harder during each month of the season (effect size (ES) > 2.9, p < 0.0001). Men rated moderate intensity sessions significantly higher than coaches (ES ≥ 1.0, p ≤ 0.002), whereas females rated hard intensity sessions significantly lower than coaches (ES > 0.5, p < 0.008). There was no difference between males and coach's hard sessions (ES < 0.07, p > 0.05) or females and coach's moderate sessions (ES < 0.18, p > 0.05). Training intensity and TLRPE tended to increase throughout the season (p > 0.05), with a significant increase in moderate and hard intensity sessions in the last training period (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The results indicate the male and female cross-country runners tend to regress to moderate intensity training throughout the cross-country season. Given the success of the athletes in this study, these results show how a simple system for monitoring training such as the sRPE method may improve control of training variables and provide a useful tool for coaches to evaluate training load placed on athletes in a simple, responsive way.

Keywords: Intensity; Periodization; Running; Session RPE; Training load.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The study was approved by the Grand Valley State University Human Research Review Committee (Reference #: 14-206-H), and all participants provided informed written consent to participate.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of average training load (TLRPE) between coaches and male runners (a) and between coaches and female runners (b) for easy, moderate, and hard training sessions throughout the cross-country season. AU arbitrary units; asterisk indicates significantly different, p < 0.001
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of training load (TLRPE) between coaches and male runners (a) and between coaches and female runners (b) for easy, moderate, and hard sessions during each month of the cross-country season (1–5). Month 5 only included one moderate session and one hard session. AU arbitrary units; asterisk indicates significantly different between athlete and coach within respective month, p < 0.01; dagger indicates significantly different than month 4, p < 0.01

References

    1. Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder AC, Welsh R. Athletic performance in relation to training load. Wis Med J. 1996;95:370–374. - PubMed
    1. Foster C, Daniels J, Yarbrough R. Physiological and training correlates of marathon running performance. Aust J Sports Med. 1977;9:58–61.
    1. Foster C, Hector LL, Welsh R, Schrager M, Green MA, Snyder AC. Effects of specific versus cross-training on running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1995;70:367–372. doi: 10.1007/BF00865035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Foster C, Rodrigues-Marroyo J, de Koning J. Monitoring training loads: the past, the present, and the future. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12:2–8. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0095. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Neuhof J. Structure and yearly training build-up in middle and long distance runners. New Stud Athlet. 1990;5:69–81.

LinkOut - more resources