Why the study?
Does self-reported training duration accurately reflect recorded training duration in physically active participants?
Does self-reported training duration accurately reflect recorded training duration in physically active participants?
Self-reported training duration has a margin of error that may significantly affect training prescription, as a substantial proportion of athletes over- or underestimate their training.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Self-reported training duration shows discrepancies in 41% despite correlation; leaves open reliability for precise prescription without objective validation.
Producing customised training programmes requires the quantification of athletes' training, which may involve athletes self-reporting their exercise The study aim was to determine the relationship between what athletes say they do in training and what they actually do. Physically active participants (n = 29; age = 30 ± 5 years) self reported their average weekly training duration for 3 weeks of ad libitum training. During the following 2 weeks training duration was recorded. There was a significant relationship (r = 0.87) between self-reported and recorded duration with 24% of athletes overestimating, 17% underestimating and 59% accurately estimating their training duration. Maximum heart rate was significantly higher in athletes that overestimated (198 ± 9 b.min −1 , n = 7) compared to those that accurately estimated duration (187 ± 6 b.min −1 , n = 17; p = 0.025) In conclusion, the margin of error in self-reported training duration may significantly affect the prescription of training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borresen et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: