ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Differences in perceptions of training by coaches
and athletes
Carl Foster (PhD)
Kara M Heimann (MS)
Phillip L Esten (PhD)
Glen Brice (PhD)
John P Porcari (PhD)
Departm ent o f Exercise and Sport Science, University o f W isconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, W isconsin, USA
Abstract
Objective. Despite careful planning by professionally
educated coaches, overtraining syndrome remains a
common problem among competitive athletes. In this
study we compare the training plan designed by coach­
es with that executed by athletes to test the hypothesis
that a potential cause of overtraining syndrome may be
unrecognised errors in the execution of the training pro­
gramme by athletes.
Design. Volunteer competitive runners (N = 15) record­
ed their training over a 5-week period using the session
rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method of training
monitoring, which multiplies a global rating of exercise
intensity using the category ratio RPE scale by the dura­
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
tion of training to create a calculated training load.
Independently, their coaches also recorded what they
intended the athletes to do in training.
Setting. University-based athletics team.
Main outcome measure. Correspondence between
coaches’ and athletes’ rating of the coaches’ training
programme.
Results. The correlation between coaches’ and ath­
letes’ training LOAD (r = 0.72), training intensity (r = 0.75),
and training duration (r= 0.65) was modestly strong. For
training sessions intended by the coaches to be low
intensity, the athletes trained at a significantly (P < 0.05)
higher RPE than intended (mean ± standard deviation)
(1.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.4 ± 1.4) and had a significantly higher
CORRESPONDENCE:
Dr Carl Foster
Department of Exercise and Sport Science
132 Mitchell Hall
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
La Crosse, Wl 54601
Tel: 091-608 785 8687
Fax: 091-608 785 8172
E-mail: foster.carl@uwlax.edu
SPORTS MEDICINE JUNE 2001
training LOAD (91 ± 43 vs 128 ± 92), despite similar
training duration (50 ± 16. vs 49 ± 21 min). For training
sessions intended by the coaches to be of intermediate
intensity, there were no differences between the coach­
es’ and athletes’ training RPE (3.4 ± 0.7 vs 3.4 ± 1.4),
training LOAD (196 ± 66 vs 210 ± 149), or training dura­
tion (58 ± 16 vs 59 ± 22 minutes). For training sessions
intended by the coaches to be of high intensity, the ath­
letes trained at a significantly lower RPE (7.1 ± 1.2 vs
6.2 ± 2.5) and training LOAD (486 ± 194 vs 422 ± 256),
despite no differences in training duration (67 ± 20 vs
66 ± 26 minutes).
Conclusions. We conclude that there are significant
differences between the training plan as designed by the
coaches and executed by the athletes. These differ­
ences are of a configuration and magnitude such that
they may be a reasonable cause of the high incidence of
maladaptations to training in athletes.
Introduction
The ability of athletes to adapt to training and improve per­
formance is one of the cornerstones of contemporary sports
medicine. We469 10 and others23514 171820 have demonstrated a
quantitative relationship between the magnitude of the train­
ing load and subsequent performance. However, despite
this adaptability, there is a relatively high incidence of unde­
sired outcomes from heavy athletic training. These unde­
sired outcomes are often summarised under the broad
category of overtraining syndrome (OTS).8151621 However, a
failure to train with sufficient intensity or duration to provoke
maximal adaptive responses might be just as likely to lead to
a less than desired response to training.259 "-14-17-1820 Despite
the generally good educational level of contemporary coach­
es and the effort they invest in designing training pro­
grammes, the incidence of OTS remains quite high.81516
Similarly, one only has to listen to the comments of coaches
and athletes following unsuccessful competitions to recog­
nise that inadequate training is frequently believed to be
responsible for many competitive failures. We have previ­
ously suggested, on the basis of empirical observations, that
one potential cause of this high incidence of negative train­
3
 ing outcomes may be a lack of correspondence between the
training programme as designed by coaches and as execut­
ed by athletes." The purpose of this study is to test this
hypothesis.
Methods
The subjects for this study were competitive runners from a
club level university athletics team, a relatively modest com­
petitive level within the university athletics structure in the
USA. There were six male and nine female subjects. All
were middle- and long-distance runners, and their seasonal
best performance time in their own best distance was (mean
± standard deviation (SD)) 112.6 ± 3.5% relative to the dis­
tance and gender-specific world record time. All subjects
were volunteers and provided informed consent prior to par­
ticipation. The protocol had been approved by the University
Human Subjects Committee. The group of athletes was
coached by three different coaches, although each athlete
had only one coach.
Training was monitored over a 5-week period, from the
middle of the spring athletics season through preparation for
the early conference championships. The training prescrip­
tion was presented to the athlete in conventional terms (e.g.
distance to be run and/or number and distance of intervals to
be completed). Descriptive modifiers, usually presented as
a percentage of racing pace, were often added, particularly
during high-intensity training sessions. Training was quanti­
tated using the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE)
technique.fMM0-13
This method is a modification of the training impulse
(TRIMPS) method developed by Banister et al.,s'7 which is a
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
numeric term representing the product of training intensity
and training duration, and which is used in various forms by
a number of investigators.2318 Our method modifies the use
of the RPE scale, by asking the athlete to rate the global per­
ceived intensity of the entire training session, rather than rat­
ing the momentary perception of effort. We have previously
validated the session RPE method by demonstrating that it
provides reasonable estimates of the intensity of an entire
training session compared with methods which monitor train­
ing by means of heart rate and blood lactate67 and that it
behaves reliably and consistently under a variety of types of
training.13 Approximately 30 minutes after the conclusion of
each training bout, athletes were asked to rate the overall
intensity of the training session using the category ratio (0-
10) RPE scale, and to record the duration of training. As in
previous studies, we modified the verbal anchors of the RPE
scale slightly (Table I). As in our other studies6-810'13 the
instructions given to the athletes and coaches were quite
simple: ‘if a friend who did not understand the specific train­
ing expressions of athletics were to ask you how hard your
training session was, how would you reply?' th e duration of
the training session included all training activities from the
beginning of the warm-up period to the end of the cool down.
The rationale for rating the intensity (RPE) of the training
session 30 minutes after the conclusion of training was to
prevent particularly hard or easy elements late in the training
session from dominating the athletes’ perception of the train­
ing session. Multiplication of the session RPE by the dura­
tion yielded a dimensionless term which we refer to as
4 SPORTS MEDICINE
LOAD, and which is conceptually (although not numerically)
equivalent to the TRIMP score derived from heart rate mon­
itoring.13 Independently, prior to the training session each
coach rated his/her intention for the intensity (session RPE)
and duration of each training session using the same
approach. Not all athletes had exactly the same training pre­
scription as the needs for different event specialties and the
training plans among the three coaches varied somewhat.
However, analysis was based on the responses of a given
athlete to the training programme designed for that athlete
by his/her coach. We did not investigate whether the coach­
es modified their intentions for subsequent training sessions
based on observations made within any particular training
session. However, on the basis of each coach having to
supervise a large number of athletes and their general pat­
tern of not being present during recovery training sessions,
we have made the assumption that the coaches’ plans were
relatively constant.
TABLE I. Session rating of perceived exertion
Rating Verbal anchor
0 Rest
1 Very easy
2 Easy
3 Moderate
4 Sort of hard
5 Hard
6
7 Very hard
8 Very, very hard
9 Nearly maximal
10 Maximal
Statistical comparisons of the coaches’ and athletes’
training were made using correlation statistics. Additionally,
the training sessions were divided into those intended by the
coaches to be fairly easy (RPE < 3), intermediate (RPE 3-5),
and fairly hard (RPE > 5) and the coaches' and athletes’ per­
ceptions of intensity (e.g. session RPE), duration, and train­
ing LOAD (RPE x duration) were compared using two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) (coaches vs athletes by inten­
sity level). Alpha was set at 0.05.
Results
In general, the serial variations in training LOAD were com­
parable between coaches and athletes (Fig. 1). As the
observation period progressed, the training LOAD
decreased secondary to resting for the more important late
season competitions. There was a moderately strong corre­
lation between coaches’ and athletes’ estimates of training
intensity (r - 0.75), training duration (r = 0.65) and training
LOAD (r = 0.74) (Fig. 2).When the various categories of the
training session were compared, there were significant
(P < 0.05) and relevant differences between the coaches’ and
athletes’ ratings (Figs 3-5). For sessions intended by the
coaches to be relatively easy, the session RPE experienced
JUNE 2001
 10
□ Coaches
9
□ Athletes

?ff) 8

l ii

C
.2 3

Coaches’ LOAD 0
Easy

Fig. 1. R elationship betw een individual training sessions as

Fig. 3. Com parison o f the session R PE (e.g. training intensity)
designed b y the coaches and as experienced by the athletes.
experienced b y the athletes in relation to the m ean coach es’
Note particularly, the large num ber o f significant training ses­
intentions for easy (R PE < 3), m oderate (R PE 3-5) and hard
sions perfo rm ed b y the athletes on days intended b y the
(RPE > 5) training sessions. There w ere significant differences
coaches to be com plete rest days (e.g. LOAD = 0), and the
between the coach es’ intentions an d a th le te s ’ experiences dur­
occasional lo w training loads accom plished b y athletes on
ing both easy and h ard training sessions.
days intended b y the coach to be relatively hard.

□ Coaches
□ Athletes
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)

Easy

Fig. 4. Com parison o f training session duration experienced

by the athletes in relation to the c o a c h es ’ intentions. There
w ere no sign ificant differences.
Fig. 2. Serial changes in average training LOAD as designed by
the coaches a n d as experienced b y the athletes. Notice the
o verall parallelism betw een the training LOADs, and the ten­
dency fo r the athletes to have greater training LOADs during a
p erio d o f progressive reduction in training b y the coaches. □ Coaches
O 600 □ Athletes

by the athletes was significantly greater (mean + SD) (1.8 ± 0.5

vs 2.4 ± 1.4), and the training LOAD was significantly greater
(91 ± 13 vs 128 ± 72) than intended by the coaches. There
Q
were no significant differences in training duration (50 ± 16 <
O
vs 49 ± 21 minutes) between coaches and athletes. For ses­
sions intended by the coaches to be of intermediate intensi­
2 100
ty, there were no significant differences between coaches h-
and athletes for training intensity (3.4 ± 0.7 vs 3.4 ± 1.7),
Easy Moderate
training duration (58 ± 16 vs 59 ± 22 minutes), or training
LOAD (196 ± 66 vs 210 ± 149). For sessions intended by the
coaches to be relatively hard, the session RPE experienced Fig. 5. Com parison o f the com puted training LOA D (session
R PE * duration) experienced b y the athletes in relation to the
by the athletes (7.1 ± 1.2 vs 6.2 ± 2.5) and training LOAD c oach es’ intentions fo r easy, m oderate and h ard training ses­
(486 ± 194 vs 422 + 256) were significantly less than intend­ sions. There were significant differences betw een the coach­
ed by the coaches, although there were no significant differ­ e s ’ intentions and ath letes’ experiences during both easy and
ences in training duration (67 ± 20 vs 66 ± 26 minutes). hard training sessions.

SPORTS MEDICINE JUNE 2001 5

 Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that there are signifi­
cant differences in the training programme as designed by
professional coaches and as executed by collegiate athletes.
While no athlete in this study developed OTS, the results
demonstrate the presence of a plausible scenario whereby
athletes might develop OTS. It is well accepted, based on
both human781216 and animal1 models that the development
of OTS is primarily linked to failure of recovery periods,
which may be related to a persistent inflammatory response
linked to too brief recovery periods between periods of
stress.21 Beyond the numerically greater intensity experi­
enced by the athletes on days designed to be easy, it was
noted that several athletes ran significant training sessions
even on days intended by the coaches to contain little or no
training. One athlete routinely completed 90-minute training
sessions on days that the coach intended for complete rest
(Fig. 1). The data also demonstrate a plausible scenario
whereby the training pattern observed in this study might
contribute to suboptimal performance. It is likely that the per­
formance of athletes is enhanced primarily as a response to
severe (e.g. high-intensity or long-duration) training ses­
sions.51117 That the athletes tended to undertrain on days
that the coach intended to be quite difficult may be equally
important as a potential cause of suboptimal performance.
They are consistent with the concept that a common training
mistake is the tendency for training load to regress to the
mean, rather than remaining strongly polar (hard days and
easy days). Whether this represents a failure of the coach­
es to communicate with their athletes or some other factor
remains to be determined. Certainly the way the training
sessions were communicated was not in the jargon used in
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
our monitoring method, but in terms of distance to be run and
the pace desired. The larger implication within the present
results is that when the highly detailed training plans of ath­
letes are translated into a simpler method of expression,
then athletes apparently do not experience what the coach
intended.
To our knowledge, these are the first results systemati­
cally and quantitatively comparing the training programmes
of coaches and athletes. Other studies have described the
training undertaken by athletes,37910” 171820 have compared
the interplay between fitness and fatigue with variations in
training,25121718 and have attempted to relate the details of
training to the incidence of OTS.78 However, no study has
yet compared how well athletes execute the training plans
designed by coaches. Given the nature of our results, the
present study needs replication in higher level athletes and
in athletes who subsequently develop OTS. The subjects in
this study were relatively low level athletes, who were stud­
ied relatively late in the training year during a period of time
during which the overall training load was being decreased
as a normal part of the seasonal plan. Both of these factors
could potentially have reduced the likelihood of maladapta-
tions to training. Further, although we have made the
assumption that the training programmes designed by the
coaches were correct, the fact remains that despite serious
efforts to develop quantitative models of coaching,19 this
activity remains as much art as science. At the least, the
results of the present study demonstrate a viable technique
6 SPORTS MEDICINE
for testing the effectiveness and efficacy of systematically
designed training programmes.
There are alternative ways to interpret our observations.
It may be that the observed differences between coaches
and athletes are not meaningful. Certainly the absolute
intensity experienced by the athletes on the coach-designat­
ed recovery (e.g. low-intensity and short-duration) days was
still quite low (session RPE = 2.4 ± 1.4). One might argue,
particularly in light of the observation that no athlete in the
present study demonstrated any suggestion of OTS, that the
differences between coaches and athletes are moot.
Regardless, we interpret our results as suggesting a plausi­
ble and highly likely scenario whereby athletes could unwit­
tingly create conditions favourable for the development of
OTS. Certainly, the experience of coaches, athletes and the
support personnel associated with them is that undesired
training outcomes usually occur when recovery days are
missed, for whatever reason. Further, the too hard training
on recovery days is paired with too easy training on days that
the coach designated as high-intensity training. That this
pairing is consistent with a commonly recognised training
error (too hard on the easy days, too easy on the hard days)11
provides a further commonsense confirmation of the mean­
ingfulness of the present results.
Conclusions
In summary, our study results suggest that although the
training programme as designed by professional coaches is
generally well executed by competitive athletes, there was
evidence of meaningful differences in the direction of the ath­
letes training harder than intended on coach-designated
recovery days and easier than intended on coach-designa-
ted hard days. Although in the present results there was no
evidence of OTS within a short observational period, we
believe that these results demonstrate a plausible and likely
scenario that can account for the high incidence of OTS in
competitive athletes training under the supervision of profes­
sionally trained coaches.
R eferences
1. Bruin G, Kuipers H, Keizer HA, van der Vusse GJ. Adaptation and over­
training in horses subjected to increasing training loads. J Appl Physiol
1994; 76: 1908-13.
2. Busso T, Chandau R, Lacour J. Fatigue and fitness modeled from the
effects of training on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 1994; 69: 50-4.
3. Busso T, Denis C, Bonnefoy R, Geyssant A, Lacour J. Modeling of the
adaptations to physical training by using a recursive least squares algo­
rithm. J Appl Physiol 1997; 82: 1685-93.
4. Daniels JT, Yarbrough RA, Foster C. Changes in V 0 2max and running per­
formance with training. Eur J Appl Physiol 1991; 39: 249-54.
5. Fitz-Clarke JR, Morton RH, Banister EW. Optimizing athletic performance
by influence curves. J Appl Physiol 1991; 71:1151-8.
6. Foster C, Hector L, Welsh R, Schrager M, Green MA, Snyder AC. Effects
of specific versus cross training on running performance. Eur J Appl
Physiol 1995, 70: 367-72.
7. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining
syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 30:1164-8.
8. Foster C, Lehmann M. Overtraining syndrome. In: Guten GN, ed.
Running Injuries. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1997; 173-88.
9. Foster C, Daniels JT, Yarbrough RA. Physiological correlates of marathon
running performance. Aust J Sports Med 1977; 9:58-61.
10. Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder AC, Welsh R. Athletic performance
in relation to training load. Wis Med J 1996; 95: 370-4.
JUNE 2001
 11. Foster C, Daniels JT, Seiler S. Perspectives on correct approaches to
training. In: Lehmann M, Foster C, Gastmann U, Keizer H, Steinacker J,
eds. Overload, Performance Incompetence and Regeneration in Sport.
New York: Plenum Press, 1999: 27-41.
12. Foster C, Snyder AC, Welsh R. Monitoring of training, warm up and per- •
formance in athletes. In: Lehmann M, Foster C, Gastmann U, Keizer H,
Steinacker J, eds. Overload, Performance Incompetence and
Regeneration in Sport. New York: Plenum Press, 1999: 43-51.
13. Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, Gottschall L, Hrovatin LA, Parker S,
Doleshal P, Dodge C. A new approach to monitoring exercise training.
Journal o f Strength and Conditioning Research (in press).
14. Hagan RD, Smith MG, Gettman LR. Marathon performance in relation to
maximal aerobic power and training indices. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1981;
13: 185-9.
15. Kuipers H, Keizer HA. Overtraining in elite athletes. Sports Med 1988,
6: 79-92.
Sports Medicine in
Primary Care
Rob Johnson
Sports Medicine in Primary Care provides an easy-to-read refer­
ence for the primary care physician who treats common musculo­
skeletal and sports medicine problems. Written by expert clinicians
that practice both primary care and sports medicine, this resource
contains invaluable information for the non-sports medicine trained
physician.
Features
■ Includes only those topics that are most commonly encoun­
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
tered in the primary care office.
■ The format for musculoskeletal and medical problems is the
same from chapter to chapter, helping readers to easily find a
specific topic or answer a specific question.
■ Summary sites, illustrations, and decision protocols make criti­
cal information easy-to-find.
■ Excellent chapter on preparticipation evaluation is included.
■ Presents return to activity guidelines.
Contents: 1. The Essential Points of the Musculoskeletal Exam:
The Focused Injury History, the Focused Musculoskeletal Exam 2.
Preparticipation Evaluation, Youth and Adolescent: History, Youth
and Adolescent: Physical Exam, Adult, 3. The Exercise Prescrip­
tion: Youth and Adolescent, Adult, 4. Principles of Training 5. Ad­
vising the Athlete on Nutrition, 6. Office Based Rehabilitation, 7.
Return to Play, 8. The Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs
and Analgesics, 9. Office Evaluation of Minimal Brain Injury, 10.
Neck and Cervical Spine Injury, 11. The Upper Extremity, 12. Sports
Injuries to the Lower Extremity, 13. Back Injuries in Athletes, 14.
Chest Injury, 15. Gastrointestinal Problems and Abdominal Trauma
in Sports, 16. Genitourinary Problems, 17. Special Issues of the
Young and Adolescent Athlete 18. Special Issues of the Woman
Athlete, 19. The Mature Athlete 20. Risk of Exercise, 21. The Ath­
lete with Medical Problems, The Hypersensitive Athlete, The Asth­
matic/Allergic Athlete, Caring for the Diabetic Athlete, The Athlete
with Heart Disease, The Athlete with Chronic Obstructive Pulmo­
nary Disease, Seizure Disorders and Athletes, The Role of Exer­
cise and Athletes in Anxiety and Depression, The Athlete with
Infectious Disease, 22. Injection Techniques.
Sept 2000, hardback, 384 pp, 108 illus., WBS, R550
SPORTS MEDICINE JUNE 2001
16. Lehmann M, Foster C, Keul J. Overtraining in endurance sports: a brief
review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: 854-62.
17. Morton RH, Fitz-Clarke JR, Banister EW. Modeling human performance
in running. J Appl Physiol 1990; 69:1171-7.
18. Mujika I, Busso T, Lacoste L, Barale F, Geyssant A, Chatard JC. Modeled
response to training and taper in competitive swimmers. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 1996; 28: 251-8.
19. Rowbottom D Periodization of training. In: Garret WE, Kirkendall DT, eds.
Exercise and S poil Science. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins,
2000: 499-512.
20. Slovic P. Empirical study of training and performance in the marathon.
Res Quart 1977; 48: 769-77.
21. Smith LL. Cytokine hypothesis of overtraining: a physiological adaptation
to excessive stress? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 317-24.
Clinical Decision Making
in Sports Medicine
Dinesh Kumbhare and John Basmajian
As more therapies and technologies have developed in the area of
sports medicine, the need has grown for scientific evidence and
critical appraisal of the effectiveness of specific treatment meth­
ods. This informative text fills this gap by offering discussions on
evidence-based sports rehabilitation through a comprehensive and
contemporary examination of the subject. It is divided into the fol­
lowing sections:
Basic Considerations which includes cardiovascular considera­
tions, nutritional strategies, dehydration, inflammation, and psy­
chological, sociological and physiological factors in sport
Therapeutics which covers physiotherapy, chiropractic and al­
ternative treatment approaches
Special Considerations which covers pregnancy, the mature ath­
lete and the paediatric athlete
Neuromuscular Considerations which includes epilepsy, concus­
sion, neuropsychology and neuromuscular conditions
Regional Considerations which covers the shoulder, hand and
wrist, lower back, hip and knee, and the ankle.
Features
■ The focus on evidence-based practice gives practitioners a
firm basis for decision making.
■ Comprehensively examines clinical decision making in all fac­
ets of sports medicine
■ Covers special topics such as Neurological Issues, Arthritis,
Pregnancy and Paediatrics, which are not typically addressed by
sports medicine texts
■ The chapter on the aging athlete reflects the current trend
toward athletic activity throughout the lifespan
■ Applies many of the authors’ principles on decision making in
rehabilitation to sports medicine.
July 2000, hardback, 432 pp, 55 illus., CL, R499
ORDERS
The South African Medical Association, Private Bag X1,
Pinelands 7430. Tel Felicity on (021) 530-6527, Fax (021)
531-4126. E-mail: fpalm@samedical.org Prepayment
required but not actioned until order despatched.
Please allow 3-4 weeks for delivery if no local stock.
7