Monitoring the athlete training response: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic review.
Level 2 - randomized trial
Systematic review of observational and monitoring studies
PubMed 26423706 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094758
What was done
The authors systematically searched five databases (Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed) through May 2014 for original studies comparing concurrent subjective measures (e.g., mood, perceived stress) and objective measures (e.g., blood markers, resting and exercise heart rate, oxygen consumption) of athlete well-being in response to acute and chronic training loads.
What was found
Across 56 included studies, subjective and objective measures of athlete well-being generally did not correlate. Subjective measures reflected acute and chronic training loads with superior sensitivity and consistency compared with objective measures. Subjective well-being consistently worsened with acute increases in training load and chronic training, and improved with acute load reductions. The abstract reports no numerical statistics, correlation coefficients, or effect sizes.
Why it matters
Subjective self-report questionnaires provide a sensitive, practical method for monitoring training response and recovery that can stand alone or complement objective testing in athletic settings.
Limits
The abstract reports no numerical data or quantitative meta-analytic pooling. Specific athlete characteristics, competitive levels, sports, individual study sample sizes, and heterogeneity across the 56 included studies are not detailed in the abstract.
Cited by
- supports An athlete's subjective feeling is a better predictor of athletic performance than heart rate variability (HRV) or blood tests.