A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO MONITORING

RECOVERY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PERCEIVED

RECOVERY STATUS SCALE
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

C. MATTHEW LAURENT,1 J. MATT GREEN,2 PHILLIP A. BISHOP,3 JESPER SJÖKVIST,4

CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

RANDALL E. SCHUMACKER,5 MARK T. RICHARDSON,3 AND MATT CURTNER-SMITH3

1
Department of Kinesiology, St. Ambrose University, Davenport, Iowa; 2Department of Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation, University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama; 3Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama; 4Winter Research Sports Center, Mid Sweden University, O¨stersund, Sweden; and 5Department of Educational
Research, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

ABSTRACT were no differences (p . 0.05) among ratings of perceived

Laurent, CM, Green, JM, Bishop, PA, Sjökvist, J, Schumacker, exertion (RPE), heart rate, blood lactate concentration, or
RE, Richardson, MT, and Curtner-Smith, M. A practical session RPE values among any of the performance trials.
approach to monitoring recovery: development of a perceived Although further study is needed, current results indicate
recovery status scale. J Strength Cond Res 25(3): 620–628, a subjective approach may be an effective means for assessing
2011—The aim of this study was to develop and test the recovery from day to day, at least under similar conditions.
practical utility of a perceived recovery status (PRS) scale. KEY WORDS recovery, performance, psychobiology, measure-
Sixteen volunteers (8 men, 8 women) performed 4 bouts of ment
high-intensity intermittent sprint exercise. After completion of
the baseline trial, in a repeated-measures design, subjects were INTRODUCTION
given variable counterbalanced recovery periods of 24, 48, and

O
ne universally accepted component of an effec-
72 hours whereupon they repeated an identical intermittent
tive strength training program or exercise pre-
exercise protocol. After a warm-up period, but before beginning scription is the overload principle. In essence, an
each subsequent bout of intermittent sprinting, each individual individual must be exposed to increasingly more
provided their perceived level of recovery with a newly rigorous metabolic, physiologic, and psychological stimuli to
developed PRS scale. Similar to perceived exertion during manifest desired adaptations (12). However, a primary
exercise, PRS was based on subjective feelings. The utility of though often neglected component necessary for successful
the PRS scale was assessed by measuring the level of training is the level of recovery attained before initiating
agreement of an individual’s perceived recovery relative to their subsequent bouts of training (1,13). Despite the potential
performance during the exercise bout. Perceived recovery value and importance of monitoring an athlete’s recovery
status and change (both positive and negative) in sprint status, there are few options that are adequate or convenient
for monitoring day-to-day recovery (1). Further, there exist
performance during multiple bouts of repeated sprint exercise
few (if any) valid and expeditious assessment instruments
were moderately negative correlated (r = 20.63). Additionally,
designed to evaluate an individual’s level of recovery before
subjects were able to accurately assess level of recovery using
initiating subsequent bouts of physical training (1,23). This is
the PRS scale indicated by correspondence with negative and problematic in that insufficient recovery can precipitate
positive changes in total sprint time relative to their previous detrimental side effects leading to suboptimal performance
session. The ability to detect changes in performance using and, ultimately, chronic overtraining (11,12,14,16).
a noninvasive psychobiological tool to identify differences in Although identifying the amount of time needed to ensure
performance was independent of other psychological and optimal recovery has received some attention (4,10,13,15,22),
physiological markers measured during testing, because there studies have used lengthy and exhaustive measures poten-
tially viewed as impractical for utility in daily training. There
exist laboratory-based physiological measures (e.g. V_ O2max,
Address correspondence to Matt Laurent, laurentmatt@sau.edu. running economy, lactate threshold, etc.) used for identifying
25(3)/620–628 overtraining; however, these tests are also impractical for
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research monitoring day-to-day recovery status. Limited attention has
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association been given to the derivation of valid field-based tests
the TM

620 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

designed to quickly and accurately assess an individual’s considers these important components is highly attractive.
recovery status. Coutts et al. (2) have identified a number of Rating of perceived exertion has consistently been shown to
field-based tests designed to assess an individual’s level of be a useful tool for gauging individual exercise tolerance and
recovery such as the maximal 3-km time trial run, sub- has been linked to a myriad of physiological mediators such
maximal heart rate (HR) test, and 5-bound tests. However, as: ventilation, oxygen uptake, blood lactate concentration,
these particular tests are intended to identify markers of and HR (5–8,17,21), rather than being linked to any single
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

overtraining and not, necessarily, to assess the day-to-day mediator. Because RPE has demonstrated exceptional utility
recovery status of the athlete because they are physically for assessing psychobiological status during exercise (5–8), it
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

taxing and time consuming to perform. Ramifications of tests is plausible that a parallel measurement tool used to assess
involving high levels of exertion on an athlete’s training recovery status would prove to be a functional and practical
program include gross disruption of effective training on the instrument. Further, a perceptually based tool can be used
day the such tests are administered to determine recovery daily to noninvasively monitor an athlete’s recovery status
status. without disrupting that day’s training schedule. With
In 1998, Kentta and Hassmen (11) attempted to create perceptual measures representing a gestalt attributable to
a practical, noninvasive method of monitoring recovery a myriad of factors, a potential advantage of this paradigm for
status by creating the total quality recovery (TQR) scale. A assessing recovery is that the likelihood of detecting
detailed review of the procedures associated with the TQR is overtraining is considerably greater (vs. reliance on a single
presented in Kentta and Hassmen (11). The TQR is indicator such as resting HR). Therefore, the purpose of this
analogous to Borg’s 6–20 ratings of perceived exertion study was to create and assess the efficacy of a perceived
(RPEs) scale and is comprised of 2 components: perceived recovery status (PRS) scale to assess the level of recovery
recovery and action recovery. The perceived component after exhaustive exercise after varying recovery durations.
requires the athlete to record their perceived level of recovery The primary goal of the study was to examine the utility of
immediately before going to sleep at night, whereas the a PRS scale in allowing an individual to subjectively estimate
action component is more detailed and consists of the athlete their level of recovery relative to a subsequent exercise
awarding themselves points in various categories such as performance. It was hypothesized that an individual’s self-
nutrition and hydration, sleep and rest, relaxation and selected level of perceived recovery using a newly developed
emotional support, and stretching and active rest (11,12). PRS scale would share a significant correlation with
Ultimately, points accrued from each respective scale (i.e., subsequent exercise performance.
perceived and action) are subjected to calculations (outlined
in an accompanying TQR manual) to determine their METHODS
respective level of recovery. Although innovative, this system Experimental Approach to the Problem
is untested in the published literature and more importantly, To create a simple and valid field assessment of an individual’s
tedious to a level which would likely elicit low compliance recovery status, a PRS scale was created (Figure 1). The PRS
(and therefore questionable application) among athletes. scale is a 0–10, scalar representation of varying levels of an
That notwithstanding, Kentta and Hassmen (11) have individual’s level of PRS, similar to that of an RPE scale. We
documented that the potential for monitoring a subjective chose this form of representation because RPE is a commonly
estimation of recovery between training sessions may be as used and easily understood measure of an individual’s
applicable as monitoring sense of effort using RPE during perception of effort during exercise; thus, the perceived
training bouts. To that end, the scientific rationale guiding the feeling of recovery should transfer well using a similar scale.
TQR scale is novel, but perhaps
the exacting and meticulous
procedures (i.e., point assign-
ment and calculation of scores)
associated with its use mitigates
the convenience typically asso-
ciated with subjective measures.
Lack of convenience apparently
deterred its adoption by the
sport and exercise community
over the last 10 years.
Recovery is most assuredly
an integration of physiological,
psychological and emotional
responses (2,11,18). Develop- Figure 1. The Perceived Recovery Status Scale.
ment of a tool that concurrently

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2011 | 621

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Perceived Recovery Scale

The subjects were read and given standardized instructions

explaining how to interpret the PRS scale and the numerical
and verbal anchors contained within it. Also, subjects were TABLE 1. Descriptive characteristics of the subjects
presented a continuous 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) (n = 16).
with numerical markers ranging from 0 to 10 marked at each Variable Men (n = 8) Women (n = 8)
10-mm interval. Verbal descriptors were presented of ‘‘not at
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

all recovered’’ at 0, ‘‘moderately recovered’’ at the 50-mm Age (y) 23.4 6 2.5 21.8 6 1.0
Height (cm) 176.2 6 4.5 169.1 6 5.6
mark, and ‘‘very well recovered’’ at the 100-mm mark. The
Body mass (kg) 89.1 6 26.5 60.7 6 7.1
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

subjects were asked to draw a vertical line that intersected the Body fat (%) 14.0 6 4.7 16.6 6 1.9
horizontal descriptor scale at the appropriate position that
best describes their perceived level of recovery. Thereafter,
each subject completed exercise sessions consisting of 3
cycles of 8, 30-m maximal sprints after either 24, 48, or 72
hours of recovery. Before data collection, all individuals were assessed for
Subjects were always asked to estimate their perceived level height (cm) and total body mass (kg) using a calibrated
of recovery before and after a standardized warm-up, before stadiometer and beam scale, with body fat percentage
performing a subsequent bout of intermittent work. The level estimated using the 3-site method (men: chest, abdomen,
of perceived recovery was then compared with the change in and thigh; women: tricep, iliac, and thigh) (20) by skinfold
performance during each bout of exercise relative to their calipers (Lange, Cambridge, MD) (Table 1). All subjects
previous trial. The exercise protocol with the varying arrived at the university recreational fields at least 3 hours
recovery periods (i.e., 24, 48, and 72 hours) was designed to postabsorptive and were instructed to be adequately
expose subjects to exercise sessions in which they were not hydrated, to abstain from caffeine for at least 4 hours,
fully recovered or able to optimally perform 24 hours after the and alcohol 24 hours, before each testing session. Also,
baseline trial but also afford them enough recovery time (i.e., subjects were instructed to eliminate any structured
48 or 72 hours) to achieve a higher recovery status and exercise bouts (except for the experimental trials)
perform optimally in subsequent trials (10,15). Thus, each throughout the data collection period, which lasted a total
individual was asked to perform an identical exercise session of 6 days. Subjects were also asked to get adequate sleep
under conditions in which only the recovery duration from and to replicate dietary intake on days before exercise
the previous bout was manipulated. Ultimately, it was testing. Before beginning each trial, subjects were queried
hypothesized that this would allow for greater inference regarding the adherence to the guidelines about dietary
regarding the utility of the PRS under conditions when issues, sleep, and physical activity. Also, each individual
subjects were perhaps ‘‘underrecovered’’ and when they were was asked to report any previously existing illness, injury,
progressively more recovered. or any other physical or emotional issue that would hinder
their performance. Criteria for exclusion from the study
Subjects involved the acknowledgment or observed evidence of any
Sixteen (8 men, 8 women)
subjects provided written, in-
formed consent before testing
in accordance with the local
institutional review board (IRB).
All individuals were at least
moderately active (assessed via
questionnaire) and participated
in intermittent high-intensity
work at least once a week. An
individual was considered mod-
erately active if they participated
in at least 30 minutes of exercise
at least 4 days per week, whereas
intermittent high-intensity work
was defined as any activity that
incorporated undulating periods
of maximal, or near maximal,
work integrated with episodes Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the 30-m intermittent sprints.
of low-to-moderate exercise.
the TM

622 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

medical or orthopedic problem severe enough to disrupt passive (Figure 2). After each 45-second rest period, subjects
the subject’s performance or endanger his or her health or were prompted to immediately perform another sprint.
a self-reported fitness classification below moderately Subjects were instructed to approach the line 10 seconds
active. before initiating each sprint and were given a 5-second
countdown to signal the start. The infrared timing system
Experimental Procedures was set at an appropriate lower-leg height, as per the
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

To determine the utility of a PRS scale as a convenient, manufacturer’s instructions, and was used to record the
noninvasive marker of recovery relative to subsequent duration to the nearest hundredth of a second of each 30-m
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

training, each subject completed 4 separate trials of repeated maximal-effort sprint. Additionally, each segment of the
maximal sprinting on 4 separate days using different recovery sprint protocol was marked by cones set at the appropriate
periods each trial. Each subject completed a familiarization distance.
session that consisted of 3 cycles of 8 repetitions of Subjects were given a 5-minute rest period after completing
30-m sprints (Figure 2) at least 1 week before beginning each set of 8 sprints. Before initiating each sprint, RPEs using
experimental trials. No perceptual, performance, or physio- the omnibus (OMNI) scale were recorded. Heart rate was
logical data were collected. Each subject’s foot position, as an recorded before and immediately after each sprint using an
individual preference, was recorded during the familiariza- HR monitor (Polar Inc, Port Washington, NY). After the
tion session and replicated throughout the trials. completion of each cycle of 8 sprints, each individual’s blood
After familiarization, subjects completed a baseline and 3 lactate concentration was assessed using capillary blood
subsequent trials of repeated maximal sprint exercise. All samples taken from the fingertip and analyzed using an
testing took place outdoors on a level grass playing surface enzymatic portable lactate system (Lactate Pro, Arkray Inc,
during fall months in the southeastern United States. Before Kyoto, Japan). The system was calibrated in accordance
each exercise trial, the environmental conditions were with manufacturer’s instructions before each trial, and each
assessed and there were no significant differences between blood draw was analyzed in duplicate to ensure reliability
trials for air temperature, humidity, or wind speed (data not (61 mmol). Also, subjects were asked to provide a session
shown). The intermittent exercise protocol consisted of 3 RPE (S-RPE) using the OMNI scale to rate the global
cycles of 8 (total of 24 sprints) 30-m maximal-effort sprints difficulty of the exercise bout (3) approximately 20 minutes
and was conducted on 4 separate days with each trial being after each trial.
separated by 24, 48, or 72 hours after each previous bout. The
recovery periods were assigned in a counterbalanced order after Statistical Analyses
completion of the baseline trial. This protocol of assessing Each recovery trial yielded 3 markers of recovery. The first
recovery after fatiguing exercise has been used in previous marker of recovery was an individual’s level of perceived
studies investigating recovery and exercise performance (10,15). recovery obtained from the PRS value before beginning each
The protocol of the repeated 30-m intermittent sprints is trial. The second marker was the perceived level of recovery
detailed in Figure 2. On each testing day, subjects arrived at as assessed by the 100-mm VAS, whereas the third marker of
the same time of day and
performed a warm-up that
consisted of ;300 m of light
running, 5 minutes of dynamic
stretching exercises (e.g., high-
knee, carioca) followed by 2
practice repetitions of the 30-m
intermittent sprint. After the
warm-up, subjects performed
3 cycles of intermittent sprint-
ing. Each cycle consisted of 8
electronically timed (Speed
trap II wireless timing system,
Power-Systems Inc., Knoxville,
TN) 30-m maximal sprints
followed by a 45-second re-
covery period that incorpo-
rated a 10-m ‘‘easy’’ jog (i.e.,
deceleration) followed by a Figure 3. Scatter plot of each recorded perceived recovery status and the difference in total sprint time (Dtime)
10-m walk with the remainder compared with their prior trial (n = 16).
of the recovery period being

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2011 | 623

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Perceived Recovery Scale

recovery was a computed variable of change in sprint time.

After each recovery trial, individuals having achieved an
identical, faster, or slower total time sprinting relative to their TABLE 2. Total sprint time during the baseline trial
previous performance was calculated to evaluate the level of and the difference in total sprint time (DT) and PRS
scores during each subsequent trial after variable
recovery. Specifically, the second trial (a recovery trial) was recovery periods for each individual (n = 16).*
compared with the first (baseline trial), whereas the third trial
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

was compared with the second and the fourth trial to the DT2 DT3 DT4
third. Thus, there would be an expected change in sprint time T1 (s) PRST2 (s) PRST3 (s) PRST4 (s)
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

for each subsequent recovery bout. 123.85 3 0.49† 7 1.83 8† 21.38

To determine the relationship between the PRS scale and 132.99 5 23.18 4 22.42 4† 0.79
the 100-mm recovery scale (both pre– and post–warm-up) 131.67 6 3.85 3† 2.14 6† 20.77
and their respective utility for assessing recovery relative to 139.69 7† 21.55 3† 6.30 7† 24.75
subsequent performance was analyzed using a Pearson 118.72 1† 2.87 6† 20.27 8† 23.35
120.43 5 21.15 9† 23.10 3† 3.87
product moment correlation coefficient (r). That is, a corre- 138.19 4† 2.00 4† 1.93 6† 20.87
lation was performed to identify the relationship between 109.36 4† 1.47 5 0.60 8† 22.02
each individual’s PRS scale value given before each recovery 124.12 4† 0.81 7† 22.41 2† 4.18
trial and the subsequent change in sprint time during the 115.93 3† 0.67 7 1.93 8† 23.92
recovery trials. The a priori level of practical significance of 128.01 4† 0.23 5 21.30 5 2.13
115.36 8† 21.03 4 21.12 4† 1.90
the r was set at 20.70 or better. To evaluate any significant 129.43 5 22.82 3† 3.19 5 21.84
difference between the expected and observed outcomes of 132.44 5 0.41 6† 20.36 3† 1.67
PRS score and change in performance, a chi-square analysis 115.36 4† 0.64 5 20.59 5 0.67
was also performed. 116.19 4† 1.50 6 0.88 4 20.06
Rating of perceived exertion, HR, and [La] response were *T1, total sprint during the first trial; DT2, change in
analyzed using a series of 4 (trial) 3 3 (cycle of 8 sprints) total time sprint time between the first trial and second
repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Session RPE trial; PRST2, perceived recovery scale score recorded
before the second trial; DT3, change in total time sprint
and total sprint time for each trial were analyzed using a 1-way time between the second trial and third trial; PRST3,
repeated measure ANOVA. When appropriate, Fisher’s least perceived recovery scale score recorded before the third
significant differences (LSD) post hoc analyses were performed trial; DT4, change in total time sprint time between the
third trial and fourth trial; PRST4, perceived recovery scale
to identify any significant differences. The statistical power score recorded before the fourth trial.
(N – B) and effect sizes (h2) were also calculated and are †Indicates an accurate assessment of recovery relative
reported. All data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 16.0) statistical to change in (either improved or declined) sprint
performance relative to the previous bout.
platform and reported as the mean 6 SD. Statistical signifi-
cance was determined a priori at the 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS sprint performance and PRS when using other scales, only
results concerning the PRS taken post warm-up are reported.
The PRS value recorded post warm-up demonstrated the Individual data and the overall accuracy of the PRS scale to
strongest (albeit moderate), significant (p , 0.01) correlation identify exercise sessions yielding improved or declined sprint
(r = 20.63) between PRS and change in performance
(Figure 3). This correlation coefficient failed to meet our
a priori level of practical significance (r = 20.70). The
correlation analyses revealed that the PRS scale measure-
ment taken pre–warm-up produced a weak-to-moderate TABLE 3. The predictive accuracy of PRS values
correlation coefficient of r = 20.41 between recovery status given by individuals relative to their change in total
sprint time across all trials (n = 16).*
and sprint performance. An intraclass correlation analysis
between pre– and post–warm-up PRS scores revealed an r n Improved Declined
value of 0.37, suggesting only weak-to-moderate agreement
between the 2 measurements. Additionally, correlation PRS . 5 17 13† 4
% 76.5 23.5
analyses revealed that change in sprint time and the VAS PRS , 5 21 3 18†
(both pre– and post–warm-up) yielded considerably weaker % 14.3 85.7
correlation coefficients of r = 20.13 and 20.02, respectively,
when compared with the change in sprint performance and *PRS = perceived recovery status.
†Considered an accurate estimate of recovery status
the PRS scale given either before or after a warm-up. Because relative to change in total time sprinting.
of not only the strength of the PRS measurement taken post–
warm-up, but also the weak relationship between change in
the TM

624 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

performance is shown in Tables

2 and 3. Using the presented
data, both sensitivity and spec- TABLE 4. The mean, SD, lowest and highest values observed and 95% CIs (in
ificity of the PRS scale were seconds) for change in total sprint time for a PRS value above, equal to, and below 5
during repeated bouts of intermittent sprinting (n = 16).
calculated. Sensitivity refers to
the percent of individuals report- Mean SD Low–high 95% CI
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

ing an expectancy of declined

PRS . 5 (n = 17) 21.0 2.2 24.7 to 1.9 22.2 to 0.1
sprint performance before a trial
PRS = 5 (n = 10) 20.7 1.7 23.2 to 2.1 21.9 to 0.5
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

relative to the total number PRS , 5 (n = 21) 1.6 1.9 22.4 to 6.3 0.7 to 2.4
of individuals demonstrating
declined sprint performance, PRS = perceived recovery status; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval.
whereas specificity is the per-
centage of individuals reporting
PRS scores indicating an expec-
tancy to produce improved sprint performance relative to the RPE values recorded during cycle 2 were significantly lower
number of people producing improved sprint performance. (p , 0.01) than RPEs during cycle 3 for all trials.
The resulting sensitivity and specificity scores derived were 82 Similarly, there was no significant main effect among trials
and 81%, respectively. Results from the chi-square analysis for HR (p = 0.66) but a significant main effect among cycles
revealed that there was a significant difference between the (p = 0.01; h2 = 0.45; N 2 B = 0.95). Post hoc tests revealed
expected (because of chance) and observed outcomes between that, similar to RPE, cycle one HR (169 6 10 b
min21) was
change in sprint performance relative to level of perceived significantly lower (p , 0.01) than cycle 2 (172 6 9 b
min21)
recovery (x 2 = 15.7; p , 0.01). and cycle 3 (174 6 10 b
min21). Subsequently, cycle 2 HR
The average, SD, range and 95% confidence limits values were significantly lower (p = 0.01) than the HR values
associated with the PRS is shown in Table 4. In general, observed during cycle 3 for all trials.
a PRS greater than 5 seemed to yield (largely) an improved Additionally, there was no significant main effect across
performance, whereas a PRS equal to 5 tended to yield either trials for blood lactate concentration (p = 0.80) but a
improved or diminished performance. A PRS value lower significant main effect among cycles (p , 0.01; h2 = 0.50; N 2
than 5 generally predicted that an individual did not perform B = 0.99). Post hoc measures revealed that cycle 1 (8.7 6
as well as the previous bout of exercise. 2.9 mmol) values were significantly lower (p , 0.01) than
The results from the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed cycle 2 (9.6 6 2.8 mmol) and cycle 3 (10.1 6 3.2 mmol) and
no significant main effect between trials for sprint time (p = cycle 2 values also significantly lower (p = 0.05) than cycle 3
0.61). A significant main effect was found between cycles of for all trials.
sprints for sprint time (p , 0.01; h2 = 0.62; N 2 B = 1.0). A 1-way repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant
There was a significant difference (p , 0.05) in total sprint main effect of trial on s-RPE (p = 0.02; h2 = 0.22; N 2 B = 0.74)
time observed between cycles,
with cycle 3 producing signifi-
cantly slower sprint times
(42.0 6 0.13 seconds) than both
cycle 2 (41.7 6 0.10 seconds)
and cycle 1 (41.2 6 0.27 sec-
onds), with cycle 2 significantly
slower than cycle 1.
Results from a series of
repeated-measures ANOVA re-
vealed no significant main effect
among trials for RPE (p = 0.71)
but a significant main effect
among the 3 cycles of 8 sprints
(p , 0.01; h2 = 0.79; N 2 B =
1.0). Univariate post hoc anal-
yses showed that cycle 1 RPEs
(2.8 6 1.2) were significantly
lower (p , 0.01) than both Figure 4. Average session RPE (S-RPE) and perceived recover status scale scores across all trials of repeated
cycle 2 (4.6 6 1.2) and cycle sprint work. (n = 16). *S-RPE for T1 is significantly different (p , 0.05) from T2 and T3.
3 (5.9 6 1.2) for all 4 trials. Also,

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2011 | 625

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Perceived Recovery Scale

and is shown in Figure 4. Post hoc measures showed that trial The novel nature of the PRS scale is that it is a tool
1 was significantly lower than trial 2 (p , 0.01) and trial 3 (p = analogous to the often used and widely accepted RPE scale
0.05) but not trial 4 (p = 0.13). There were no significant (24). Ratings of perceived exertion, by design, are integrative
differences found among S-RPE values among any of the in nature as they are psychobiological manifestations that
other trials (i.e., T2 2 T4). allow coaches, athletes, and researchers to monitor the
amount of physiological strain and psychological discomfort
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

DISCUSSION experienced throughout a bout of exercise or training session

Ensuring optimal recovery between exercise or training (5–8). Similarly, the use of a S-RPE is also attractive in that it
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

sessions should be considered an integral component for does not require multiple assessments of RPE during a bout,
optimizing adaptations because of any training regimen rather, one global rating of difficulty regarding the entire
(1,2,10,12,13–15). Recently, Bishop et al. (1) have acknowl- exercise session (3,8). However, the use of S-RPE seems
edged the limited knowledge regarding specific measures, impractical to monitor for signs of overtraining because of
modalities, and durations yielding optimal recovery in day- the measure being assessed after a bout of exercise. Thus, the
to-day training regimens. Further extending this problem is potential utility of the PRS scale aiding in the prevention and
the lack of a dependable, noninvasive method of assessing identification of the overtraining syndrome seems promising
individual recovery between sessions. Therefore, the primary when examined in the context of the current study.
aim of this study was to develop and test the efficacy of a PRS In the current study, the PRS demonstrated exceptional
scale, an instrument designed to permit an individual to value toward identifying trials in which subjects felt they were
subjectively estimate their level of recovery relative to how underrecovered (i.e., PRS , 5) and, subsequently, demon-
well they feel they would perform subsequent training strated diminished sprint performance as well as when they
sessions after variable recovery periods. The major finding of felt they had reached an adequate level of recovery insofar as
the investigation was that the PRS failed to meet the a priori their ability to successfully perform the testing session.
level of significance; however, individuals were fundamen- Although the correlation coefficient examining the relation-
tally able to identify testing sessions yielding improved or ship between change in performance and PRS scores reached
declined repeated sprint performance (relative to the only moderate strength (20.63) and failed to meet the a priori
previous bout) using the PRS scale with reasonable accuracy. 20.70 level of significance, there was an obvious trend
To assess the utility of the PRS scale as an indicator of an demonstrating associated increases and decreases in perfor-
individual’s recovery status after a bout of repeated maximal mance with PRS scores the majority of the time (;80% of all
sprint exercise, a practical statistical and interpretative trials). Moreover, individuals were best able to identify trials in
approach was taken. Consequently, the primary goal of which they felt underrecovered or fatigued and, subsequently,
conducting the study and the specific statistical analyses was diminished performance relative to their prior bout was
identifying PRS values that would allow individuals involved observed. Of major importance is that underrecovered
with training to approximate performance relative to their athletes are aware they are not fully recovered and accurately
PRS before an identical training session. An approach that reflect their inadequate recovery based on subjective feelings
considered each individual’s sprint performance throughout that can be effectively reported using the PRS scale.
the entire testing protocol coinciding with their self-reported This finding supports the notion that recovery is an
recovery status (i.e., PRS estimation) allowed for the greatest integrative sensation that considers not only psychological
amount of inquiry and interpretation. Results from a chi- state (i.e., feeling fatigued, lack of energy, etc.) but also
square analysis and the data shown in Figure 4 and Table 4 considers the current metabolic and physiologic state before
suggest that the PRS appears to be a useful, noninvasive tool beginning the training session (2,11,18). In fact, the
that individuals are able to use to identify testing or training observation that PRS ratings effectively predicted individu-
sessions in which they will perform better (PRS . 5) 76% of alized performance suggests that physiological feedback may
time or cases in which the individuals feel they will perform mediate perceptually based recovery estimations. Indeed, the
worse (PRS , 5) than their previous session about 86% of the average performance decrement (i.e., change in sprint time)
time. That is, individual PRS ratings permitted subjects the when individuals reported a PRS value less than 5 was
ability to effectively determine before initiating exercise 1.6 seconds with a maximum decline of sprint time by
whether their recovery would permit improved performance 6.3 seconds (;4.5% of that individual’s total sprint time).
or decreased performance. Based on these observations, it is The benefits associated with knowledge of day-to-day
likely that meaningful information regarding an athlete’s recovery status of athletes are obvious. As previously stated,
recovery status can be gleaned from using a simple ratings a primary tenet to the exercise prescription process is the
scale. It is appropriate to note that this study investigated principle of overload. Although this principle is universally
only a singular paradigm of performance (i.e., high-intensity accepted, there exists a paucity of knowledge regarding the
intermittent exercise). Thus, the application of the PRS time course for optimal recovery (1). Moreover, the
scale should be verified in other modes of exercise (e.g., imbalance between planned overloading (i.e., functional
endurance based). overreaching) in the absence of an optimal recovery period
the TM

626 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

can lead to potentially harmful overload and, ultimately, the for [La] or HR after a bout of constant vs. interval cycling in
overtraining syndrome (9,16). Although there are certainly a thermoneutral temperature (there was a difference during
multiple (and most likely synergistic) factors that are a hot environment) despite a significantly different S-RPE
implicated in the development of overtraining, incomplete value. Although the Green et al. study (8) compared S-RPE
recovery periods after periods of overreaching is most likely during 2 different modes (i.e., constant vs. interval), it is
the dominant influence. The diagnosis of overtraining is interesting that S-RPE was variable despite no change in total
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

primarily a tedious process of excluding other maladies (16) work completed and without significant changes in physi-
typically confirmed only after the athlete has reached ologic detriment (i.e., similar [La] and HR) as seen in the
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

a critical level of dysfunction. Also important, recovery current investigation. It is important to note, however, that
may show great interindividual variability. This PRS scale only S-RPE values after the first trial (i.e., baseline) resulted in
may prove attractive particularly for monitoring multiple significant differences between the recovery trials. Moreover,
athletes who may undergo similar training. With variation in values obtained using the PRS scale before beginning an
recovery from 1 session to the next, the individualized nature exercise bout mirrored the perceived level of global difficulty
of the PRS may permit coaches the ability to identify athletes experienced during the trial. Indeed, the average reported
who have or have not fully recovered. value of an individual’s PRS decreased (indicating lower level
Morgan et al. (19) reported increases in mood disruption of perceived recovery), whereas there was a concomitant
with concomitant increases in training loads in competitive increase in S-RPE after the bout of sprints. This relationship
swimmers over a 10-year period and ultimately concluded remained consistent across all 3 recovery trials.
psychological indices of training stressors provided better
identification of signs leading to overtraining rather than PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
monitoring physiological markers alone. Accordingly, it is This study examined the potential efficacy of a newly
generally agreed that individuals will present psychological developed PRS scale and its utility in monitoring day-to-
disruption and performance decrement as early markers day changes in individuals’ level of perceived recovery relative
associated with overtraining (9,11,12,16,23). Effective assess- to performance changes in subsequent exercise sessions of
ment of inadequate recovery through use of the PRS scale repeated intermittent sprint work. Overall, the PRS demon-
would permit alteration of the pending exercise bout and in strated a moderate negative correlation between level of
theory allow the athlete to avoid overtraining. perceived recovery and change in sprint time. Although the
It is important to note that the current study included strength of the correlation failed to meet the a priori level of
a series of 4 trials that were performed over a span of 6 days significance (r = 20.70), a detailed examination of trends
and was not necessarily designed to investigate the PRS as within the individual data revealed that PRS ratings
tool to monitor or prevent overtraining. Additionally, the permitted athletes to effectively determine changes in
mode of exercise performed in this initial study does not performance relative to perceived state of recovery about
ensure that results reported here will transfer to other modes 80% of the time with greater consistency shown for more
of exercise. However, the present investigation offers promise extreme values (i.e., PRS score further from 5). More
for effective monitoring of day-to-day recovery status related importantly, the scale demonstrated useful accuracy in
to performance potential during repeated sprint work using identifying individuals showing decreased performance when
the PRS scale. Future work regarding the utility of the PRS reporting a feeling of being underrecovered when compared
scale in the prevention or diagnosis of overtraining is with individuals feeling at least moderately recovered and
certainly needed for a variety of exercise situations. producing improved performance (86 and 77%, respectively).
Because the PRS scale was developed analogously to the Perceived recovery status estimations are advantageous in
S-RPE scale, it could be expected that values obtained from that ratings are attainable before a daily training session that
the PRS scale share a similar relationship with physiologic consequently allows appropriate adjustments in training
response variables typically reported with respective changes intensity or volume to adjust for recovery status.
of S-RPE. That is, a perceptual response, whether S-RPE or The ability of the PRS scale to identify changes in perfor-
PRS, should respond parallel to the degree of internal mance between trials of repeated sprint work in the absence of
disruption (i.e., increased [La], HR, etc.) as a result of significant differences among other perceptual, physiological,
increased intensity or workload and may also reflect level of and performance markers suggests that the PRS may be useful
recovery (8). Results from this study revealed no significant in identifying early signs of overtraining before the pre-
difference in either HR or [La] despite changes in PRS values sentation of other established symptoms of the syndrome.
and significantly different S-RPE in day-to-day sprint The potential utility of the PRS scale as a tool to identify early
performance. Although the lack of differences between trials marker of overtraining should be attractive to strength and
for [La] and HR was not surprising because of the conditioning professionals and other exercise science pro-
counterbalanced design of the recovery trials, the significant fessionals as a noninvasive, expeditious method to accurately
differences among S-RPEs among trials was somewhat monitor an individual’s recovery status. The ability to ascertain
unexpected. Recently, Green et al. (8) found no main effect an individuals’ level of recovery before performing

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2011 | 627

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Perceived Recovery Scale

a subsequent bout of training is potentially useful because this 10. Jones, EJ, Bishop, PA, Richardson, MT, and Smith, JF. Stability of
a practical measure of recovery from resistance training. J Strength
would allow individual’s to adjust training loads and volumes
Cond Res 20: 756–759, 2006.
to create an optimal level of overload, thus ensuring positive
11. Kentta, G and Hassmen, P. Overtraining and recovery: A conceptual
training adaptations while concomitantly limiting the chance model. Sports Med 1998: 1–16, 1998.
of overtraining or nonfunctional overreaching. 12. Lambert, M and Borresen, J. A theoretical basis of monitoring
Certainly, more work assessing the PRS during alternative fatigue: a practical approach for coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

modes of exercise (i.e., aerobic training, resistance training, 1: 371–388, 2006.

etc.) and more longitudinal studies examining the utility of the 13. Lane, KN and Wenger, HA. Effect of selected recovery conditions
on performance of repeated bouts of intermittent cycling separated
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 06/18/2023

PRS as a tool to titrate day-to-day workloads during training by 24 hours. J Strength Cond Res 18: 855–860, 2004.
or as a tool to monitor onset of overtraining are warranted. 14. Laursen, PB and Jenkins, DG. The scientific basis for high-intensity
interval training: optimising training programmes and maximising
performance in highly trained endurance athletes. Sports Med
REFERENCES 32: 53–73, 2002.

1. Bishop, PA, Jones, E, and Woods, AK. Recovery from training: a brief 15. McLester, JR, Bishop, PA, Smith, J, Wyers, L, Dale, B, and
review. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1015–1024, 2008. Kozusko, J. A series of studies—A practical protocol for testing
muscular endurance recovery. J Strength Cond Res 17: 259–273,
2. Coutts, AJ, Slattery, KM, and Wallace, LK. Practical tests for 2003.
monitoring performance, fatigue, and recovery in triathletes. J Sci
Med Sport 10: 372–381, 2007. 16. Meeusen, R, Duclso, M, Gleeson, M, Rietjens, G, Steinacker, J, and
Urhasuen, A. Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the overtraining
3. Foster, C, Florhaug, JA, Franklin, J, Gottschall, L, Hrovativn, LA, syndrome: ECSS position statement ’task force’. Eur J Sports Sci
Parker, S, Doleshal, P, and Dodge, C. A new approach to monitoring 6: 1–14, 2006.
exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001.
17. Mihevic, PM. Sensory cues for perceived exertion: A review. Med Sci
4. Gomez, AL, Radzwich, RJ, Denengar, CR, Volek, JS, Rubin, MR, and Sports Exerc 12: 150–163, 1981.
Bush, JA. The effects of a 10-kilometer run on muscle strength and
power. J Strength Cond Res 16: 184–191, 2002. 18. Morgan, WP. Psychological components of effort sense. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 26: 1071–1077, 1994.
5. Green, JM, Crews, TR, Bosak, AM, and Peveler, WW. Overall and
differentiated ratings of perceived exertion at the respiratory 19. Morgan, WP, Brown, DR, Raglin, JS, O’Connor, PJ, and
compensation threshold: effects of gender and mode. Eur J Appl Ellickson, KA. Psychological monitoring of overtraining and
Physiol 89: 445–450, 2003. staleness. Br J Sports Med 21: 107–114, 1987.

6. Green, JM, McLester, JR, Crews, TR, Wickwire, PJ, Pritchett, RC, 20. Pollock, ML, Schmidt, DH, and Jackson, AS. Measurement of
and Lomax, RG. RPE association with lactate and heart rate cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition in the clinical
during high-intensity interval cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 167–172, setting. Clin Ther 6: 12–27, 1980.
2006. 21. Robertson, RJ and Noble, BJ. Perceptions of physical exertion;
7. Green, JM, McLester, JR, Crews, TR, Wickwire, PJ, Pritchett, RC, methods, mediators, and applications. Ex Sport Sci Rev 25: 407–452,
and Redden, A. RPE-lactate dissociation during extended cycling. 1997.
Eur J Appl Physiol 94: 145–150, 2005. 22. Sayers, SP and Clarkson, PM. Force recovery after eccentric exercise
8. Green, JM, Yang, Z, Laurent, CM, Davis, JK, Kerr, K, Pritchett, RC, in males and females. Eur J Appl Physiol 84: 122–126, 2001.
and Bishop, PA. Session RPE following interval and constant- 23. Urhausen, A and Kindermann, W. Diagnosis of overtraining: What
resistance cycling in hot and cool environments. Med Sci Sports Exerc tools do we have? Sports Med 32: 95–102, 2002.
39: 2051–2057, 2007. 24. Utter, AC, Robertson, RJ, Green, JM, Suminski, RR, McAnulty, SR,
9. Halson, SL and Jeukendrup, AE. Does overtraining exist? An and Nieman, DC. Validation of the adult OMNI scale of perceived
analysis of overreaching and overtraining research. Sports Med 34: exertion for walking/running exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:
967–981, 2004. 416–420, 2004.

the TM

628 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.