Self-reporting is as accurate as blood testing and other objective measurements, new study finds

Researchers determined that you can trust how you feel when it comes to training load, recovery and general well-being.

A study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that athletes’ self-reported info on stress, fatigue and well-being did not line up with information reflected in objectively measured data, such as heart rate response and blood markers; the self-reported data was actually more sensitive and more accurate, not less.

As a regular runner, you may have struggled with conflicting info in your own training: your heart rate is elevated, but you feel great. Should you still go for your run?

Maybe you’ve experienced the opposite, where you feel terrible but there seems to be nothing physiologically wrong with you. It can be hard to determine what information is most important and will help you stay healthy without overtraining.

Researchers reviewed and compared subjective information (self-reporting, including athletes responding to surveys on fatigue or general well-being) and objective data (measurements including heart rate, blood markers, oxygen levels), both to see whether the responses correlated and which type of information was most useful.

Athletes’ self-reporting consistently accurately reflected training load–general well-being was impaired with a large increase in training load and improved with a reduction.

While the study recognizes that it was limited in not being able to take non-training stressors into account (for example, work or family stress that may influence how an athlete feels), the results determine that self-reporting is a useful and reliable tool for both coaches and athletes.

The researchers explain: “given that subjective measures reflect changes in athlete well-being and provide a practical method for athlete monitoring, coaches and support staff may employ self-report measures with confidence.”

The takeaway for regular runners

Blood markers, heart rate variability, and VO2 max measurements can all be useful and informative ways to track how your body is handling your training load, or the amount of physical stress you are putting on it.

Self-reporting, however, is more accurate than physiological measurements and can be relied upon as a reflection of how you are doing. As a regular runner, you may not have access to the objective data that elite athletes do, and you don’t necessarily need it.

Paying attention to how well you feel on a regular basis, and occasionally doing a self-assessment of how rested and energized you are is an accurate way to determine how hard you should run or train.

posted Monday August 22nd
by Keeley Milne