LOGIN

BLOG BOOK ABOUT PODCAST

COURSES
FORUM

BLOG BOOK ABOUT

PODCAST COURSES LOGIN

Listen to Your
Body, Not Your
Heart: How to
Optimize
Endurance
Training Results
 with “Self-
Reported Stress
Tolerance”

Written by
Diego
Hilgemberg
Figueiredo

 HIIT |
Physiology |
Psychology |
Recovery |
Research |
Uncategorized

 June 26,
2023

Background
Before I can share a bit about the promising results of our
latest article published in the Journal of Sports Science, I
consider it important to highlight the reasons and
motivations that led me to pursue my PhD on the training
monitoring and individualization topic in the first place. As a
former under-18 soccer player, I was always intrigued about
training adaptation and how it occurs, but more importantly
why the training prescription was continuously developed in
a very rigid way, without considering how I was both
physiologically and especially psychologically fit to perform.
Of course, it was a very naive thought at that time and with
no scientific background but was a starting point that led
me to the fascinating academic world. A few years later, with
more scientific knowledge, and still with the curiosity to
improve training adaptation through a more efficient
training intensity prescription I began my PhD project, from
which I am avid to share the initial results.

Training monitoring and

prescription: Is there any
difference between using
objective and subjective
measures as decision-making
tools?

Athletic preparation has remarkably developed in terms of

scientific approach. The spurious growth of science-led
training in the last decade should be attributed to the vast
research done on athlete monitoring and training
prescription individualization. Scientific training continues to
be one of the hottest topics in sport science. It is already well
established that a well-designed monitoring system can
manage training load and recovery to optimize performance
capacity by providing the right stimuli at the right time and
avoiding deleterious outcomes like overtraining (8,13).

Likewise, it is already known that high-intensity interval

training (HIIT) is a good training stimulus to improve
endurance training adaptations by accumulating higher
amounts of training at or close to VO2max (i.e., > 90% of VO2-
max) (3). As already professed by HIIT Science, at least twelve
variables could be manipulated during different HIIT
sessions, from the number of intervals to between series
recovery (Fig. 1). However, we could also include the timing
of its prescription as a manipulation variable, which has
become a key variable to consider when programming HIIT.
All the HIIT manipulation variables regarding the series (Box
1), sets (Box 2) and physiological response-altering
interventions (Box 3) could be adjusted properly, but
performance would be compromised if the athletes are not
ready to take that amount of effort on that particular day.
Therefore, an athlete’s readiness should also be considered
as another group of variables influencing the physiological
response and adaptations to HIIT (Box 4).

The most common athlete monitoring systems can include

either or both “objective” and “subjective” measures. The
former is more frequently used and typically involves
wearable technology to measure various surrogates, such as
athletic performance, which includes maximal oxygen
uptake, muscle force and power measures, heart rate-related
variables, and submaximal fitness tests (19). The latter
provides insights regarding the psychological and
psychobiological factors related to internal factors such as
mental fatigue, muscle soreness, perceived stress symptoms
and well-being typically measured through questionnaires
(6). Accordingly, an increase in the use of objective measures
such as heart rate variability (HRV), as a tool to individualize
HIIT training has gained popularity, as it demonstrated to be
more effective when compared to more rigid training
programming (10,11).
 Figure 1. Originally, HIIT Science presented that 12 variables can be manipulated to

prescribe different HIIT sessions. These include (1) work bout intensity, (2) duration of

the work bout, (3) recovery period intensity, (4) recovery period duration, (5) number

of intervals or series duration, (6) number of interval bout series, and (7) the

between-series recovery duration and (8) intensity. Variables 1 through 8 account for

the (9) total work performed. Additionally, other factors that play a large role in the

physiological outcome of a HIIT session are the (10) exercise mode and ground

surface for run-based HIIT, (11) environment (heat and altitude), and (12) an athlete’s

nutrition practices. However, based on the emerging findings, athletes’ readiness

should also be considered when planning and scheduling HIIT. Readiness can be
 assessed by (13) objective measures including reactive strength index (RSI), heart

rate variability (HRV), or blood (creatine kinase, IL-6) and salivary (cortisol)

biomarkers. Additionally, (14) self-reported subjective feelings can be used to

determine readiness from a psychobiological perspective.

So is there any difference between

objective and subjective measures?

Interestingly a previous systematic review conducted by Saw

(18) has demonstrated that subjective measures are more
sensible, consistent, and more responsive and trump
commonly objective measures like HRV to report acute and
chronic training loads.

What is the possible mechanism behind

that?

It has been recognized that the stressors associated with

performance are quite varied and originate from outside as
well as within the sports environment (16). Whilst originated
from different aspects, the intricated cascade of events that
occur once the brain detects a disruption in homeostasis
caused by stressors is very similar, which is characterized by
augmented secretion of norepinephrine and epinephrine by
the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) as well as the release
of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis hormones
(corticotropin-releasing hormone, adrenocorticotropic
hormone and cortisol).

Stressors from training play a major role in training

adaptation, but as soon as the athletes leave the track, pool,
or pull over their bike at home, the training stressor ends,
and they switch to the recovery process. However, more
often than not, various life stressors come into place,
influencing the ability of an athlete to recover and perform
well at the next session. Thus, the principal difference
between stressor responses may be the frequency of
exposure. Whether it’s daily life or programmed training
stress, the nervous system discharges the same stress
response cascade. With this thought in mind, chronic
exposure to both types of stressors could lead to one or more
forms of SNS saturation and HPA axis dysregulation, which
may complicate the training response interpretation when
solely using objective measures, leading to training intensity
prescription errors.

This is evidenced by studies showing increased power

output at the same submaximal heart rate (HR) in cyclists
associated with both decreased and increased training
status (4,7). These responses may indicate one of two things:
a) cyclists are adapting to training, as they produce more
power at the same submaximal HR, or b) an increase in the
parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) activity as a
protective effect, limiting the engagement of the
sympathetic system for increasing HR during exercise,
reflected by the need to exercise at a much higher workload
to reach the target heart rate (Fig. 2). Therefore, considering
only common objective measures evaluated in submaximal
tests, without a holistic appreciation of the athlete’s
neuropsychological status, it is not possible to discern
between these two training responses.

More interestingly, subjective measures like rating of

perception of effort (RPE) during the submaximal test, and
the DALDA questionnaire were able to differentiate both
training statuses among cyclists (4,7), giving more context to
training responses, again confirming the higher sensitivity of
these measures. Cyclists when exercising at higher
workloads for the same HR while fatigued will likely report a
higher perception of effort or will be less tolerant to training
and non-training stressors.
Figure 2. Reduced HR for a given mechanical demand does not necessarily suggest

increased metabolic fitness. Studies by Capostagno et al. (4) and Decroix et al. (7)

show that reduced HR recovery, accompanied by increased RPE for a given intensity

can help to identify the state of overreaching in the well-trained and elite cyclists.

Subjective measures including perceived stress tolerance should be evaluated to

determine the character of the observed training response.

Surprisingly, self-reported measures of stress tolerance have

been used only for training monitoring purposes rather than
as an indicator that could help guide decision-making.
Moreover, few studies have attempted to individualize HIIT
prescriptions considering subjective measures (14).

Our recent work (8) sought to investigate the role of self-

reported measures of stress tolerance not only as a tool to
monitor how recreational runners were responding to
training but also as a tool for individually prescribing training
intensities on a daily basis and their effect on improving
endurance performance.

The research

The study aimed to examine the effect of endurance training

individually guided by an objective (HRV) or self-reported
measure of stress (DALDA questionnaire) compared to a
predefined endurance training prescription for increasing
running performance.

After 2-weeks of measurements to determine both HRV and

DALDA baseline values thirty-six male recreational runners
were randomly split into three groups, HRV-guided training
group, DALDA-guided training, and a predefined endurance
training prescription group. Endurance performance was
evaluated before and after a 5-week training intervention.

How training was programmed?

The training sessions for all groups consisted of moderate-

intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity
interval training (HIIT). Training sessions and periodization of
the predefined group were structured in a way that there
were no changes throughout the experimental protocol.
Meanwhile, the periodization for HRV guided group,
especially the HIIT was prescribed based on the 7-day
moving average of lnRMSSD (lnRMSSD7day), which was
compared to the threshold determined during the baseline
period (the smallest worthwhile change- SWC) (15), and
which has been used in the HRV-guided literature (10,11).
Thus, values of lnRMSSD7day above or below the SWC were
regarded as a negative outcome to training and the intensity
changed from HIIT to MICT. For the DALDA training group,
the periodization of HIIT was based on the daily DALDA
values based on the recommendations of Rushall (16).
During the baseline period a “window of appropriate
training response” was calculated for “worse than normal”
scores, in a way that during training, data points higher than
the values included in this “window” indicated an inability to
cope with stressors (i.e., lower stress tolerance), resulting in
the change of the training intensity from HIIT to MICT.
Furthermore, different from previous studies (10,11) all the
participants were blinded for their condition.

Collecting a blood sample from the ear of one of the participants to evaluate a

lactate concentration after a field test at the State University of Maringá running

track.

The results

Confirming our initial hypothesis, training individually

guided by HRV improved peak velocity (6.6%) and 5km time-
trial (-8.3%) to a greater extent when compared to the
predefined prescription group (4.9 and -6.0%). Likewise, the
DALDA-guided training group was also demonstrated to be
more effective for increasing peak velocity (8.4%) and
improving 5km time-trial (-12.8%) when compared to the
predefined prescription group (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. The summary of Figueiredo et al. (8) study design and results.

However, interestingly, the DALDA group demonstrated a

higher magnitude of change in endurance performance
when compared to the HRV group. Moreover, no differences
were found in the number of HIIT sessions between groups
during the experimental protocol, as well as for the
measures of training load, which is very similar to previous
findings (10,11,14). Likewise, there were no differences in the
proportion of training sessions changed from HIIT to MICT
for HRV and DALDA groups (≅ 12%). Altogether, these results
suggest that changes in endurance performance are more
related to better timing of training prescription, being HIIT
performed under less stress response leading to a reduction
in intraindividual variation in training adaptation.

So what could explain the higher

improvement found for the DALDA group
when compared to HRV guided group?

In a nutshell, considering HRV response and prescribing HIIT

only when values were within the SWC might have limited
potential increases in performance, due to changes in
training prescription (HIIT to MICT, when HRV were above
the SWC), when in fact athletes perceived subjectively that
they were more tolerant to stressors.

Therefore, prescribing HIIT guided by individual perceptions

of training and non-training stressors as evaluated by the
DALDA questionnaire could add some context to training by
decreasing the possibilities of either false negative – no
changes in training content when it should (i.e., HRV within
SWC with lower stress tolerance) and false positive changes
in training content when it was not deemed necessary (i.e.,
HRV above SWC with higher training tolerance) errors (2),
leading to better training adaptations.

How to incorporate subjective

self-reported measures of stress
into your training program for an
overall decision-making
framework?

Even though our results are promising regarding the use of a

subjective self-reported measure as a tool to better
individualize endurance training intensities on a daily basis,
careful consideration must be taken before the effective
implementation of this measure in the applied sport setting,
with the purpose to minimize possible sources of error. This
pertains to how these measures are designed, implemented,
and the athlete’s cognitive, and situational factors that
might have some influence to obtain reliable and accurate
data (17). Not considering these points may result in
outcomes that are biased and not truly reflective of self-
response of how athletes are or are not tolerating stressors,
perceiving effort, and so forth, which may result in
misguided management of the training program. All of
these points are related to conscious bias (1,17), often
associated with a more socially desirable manner to respond
to psychological questionnaires, either by over-reporting
favourable responses or under-reporting unfavourable
responses (13,17), in a way to get the desirable training
stimuli.

Therefore, there are some practical actions that can be

implemented to reduce the barriers to using self-reported
measures in the field and get some good data to be used in
a meaningful way, such as:

The use of validated multiple-item questionnaires with

psychometric properties to the detriment of non-
validated customized, single-item questionnaires. These
single items tools are more susceptible to random
measurement errors and to cognitive factors, which
include miscomprehension and unknown biases in
meaning and interpretation (12,17).
Avoid collecting self-reported measures of stress with
multiple athletes at the same time, or in the same locality
to minimize the change of answer comparisons, avoiding
self-presenting bias.
Create an environment of trust, transparency, and open
communication to ensure athletes understand the
rationale for self-reporting subjective measures and the
importance of doing so. The lack of education on the
 reasons for reporting and being unsure of the purpose and
use of the data for training adaptations may impact their
ability to report daily and accurate data (5).
Give constant feedback. Without receiving feedback or
seeing any improvement in training, athletes start to view
the process as burdensome and with no reason to
continue to do so, and therefore reduce interest, being a
barrier to accurate and honest reporting.

Conclusion

Although HRV-guided training demonstrated to be

effective for training adjustments on a daily basis, the self-
reported measures of stress tolerance have shown to be a
promising tool. These provide more context to the HRV
metrics, especially during periods of a significant
increase from baseline. Thus, leading to better timing in
the programming of training intensities.
A multifaceted approach that considers both objective
(HRV) and subjective (DALDA questionnaire) measures
of stress tolerance is crucial for the correct interpretation
of training and non-training stressors that might arise and
their influence on the training process.

It is important to note that self-reported measures of stress

tolerance are one more tool in the coach’s toolbox that could
be used for monitoring and individualization purposes.
However, it is not the only one. Therefore, it needs to be
incorporated alongside with other training, and performance
metrics for a better understanding of the complex
interaction between training and non-training environments.

About the author

My name is Diego Hilgemberg Figueiredo. I am a sport

scientist who recently completed a PhD in human
performance and physical activity at the State University of
Maringá, Brazil with the thesis title: “Comparison between
heart rate variability and DALDA questionnaire as an
instrument of endurance training prescription and their
effect on 5km running performance”. I also worked as a
research visitor at the High Performance and Exercise
Physiology Clinic at the University of South Australia,
Adelaide, under the supervision of Dr Clint Bellenger. I love
science and especially its application in helping athletes to
achieve better performance. You can follow me on Twitter
@diegohilgemberg.

References

01. Baldwin W, Williams JM. Athletic injury, psychological

factors and perceptual changes during stress. J Sports Sci
17(9): 735-741, 1999.
02. Buccheit, Monitoring training status with HR
measures: do all roads lead to Rome? Front Physiol 5:73,
2014.
03. Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval
training, solutions to the programming puzzle: Part I:
cardiopulmonary emphasis. Sports Med 43(5):313-338, 2013.
04. Capostagno B, Lambert MI, Lammberts LP. Analysis of
a submaximal cycle test to monitor adaptations to
training: implications for optimizing training prescription. J
Strength Cond Res 35(4): 924-930, 2021
05. Coventry M, Timler A, Mosler AB, Russell K, Travers M,
Oam LM, Murphy MC. “I lie a little bit.” A qualitative study
exploring the perspectives of elite Australian athletes on
self-reported data. Phys Ther Sport 60:91:97, 2023.
06. Coyne JOC, Coutts AJ, Newton RU, Haff GG. The
current state of subjective training load monitoring: follow-
up and future directions. Sports Med Open 8(1), 2022.
07. Decroix L, Lamberts RP, Meeusen R. Can the Lamberts
submaximal cycle test reflect overreaching in professional
cyclists? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13(1):23-28, 2018.
08. Figueiredo DH, Figueiredo DH, Bellenger C, Machado
FA. Individually guided training prescription by heart rate
variability and self-reported measure of stress tolerance in
recreational runners: effects on endurance performance. J
Sports Sci 40(24):2732-2740, 2022.
09. Halson S. Monitoring training load to understand
fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 44:139-147,2014
10. Javaloyes A, Sarabia JM, Lamberts RP, Moya-Ramon M.
Training prescription guided by heart rate variability in
cycling. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 29: 1-28, 2018
11. Javaloyes A, Sarabia JM, Lamberts RP, Plews DJ, Moya-
Ramon M. Training prescription guided by heart rate
variability vs. block periodization in well-trained cyclists. J
Strength Cond Res 34 (6): 1511-1518, 2020.
12. Jeffries AC, Wallace L, Coutts AJ, McLaren SJ, McCall A,
Impellizzeri FM. Athlete-reported outcome measures for
monitoring training responses: A systematic review of risk
of bias and measurement property quality according to
the COSMIN guidelines. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 15
(9):1203-1215, 2020
13. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, et al. Prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome:
joint consensus statement of the European College of
Sport Science and the American College of Sports
Medicine 45(1):186-205, 2013
14. Nuutila OP, Nummela A, Korhonen E, Hakkinen K,
Kyrolainen H. Individualized endurance training based on
recovery and training status in recreational runners. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 54(10):1690-1701, 2022.
15. Plews DJ, Laursen PB, Stanley J, Kilding A, Buchheit M.
Training Adaptation and Heart Rate variability in Elite
Endurance Athletes: Opening the Doors to Effective
Monitoring. Sports Med 43(9): 773-781, 2013.
16. Rushall B. A toll for measuring stress tolerance in elite
athletes. J App Sports Psychol 2(1):51-66, 1990.
17. Saw AE, Main LC, Gastin PB. Monitoring athletes
through self-report: Factors influencing
implementation. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
14 137-146, 2015
18. Saw AE, Main LC, Gastin PB. Monitoring the athlete
training response: subjective self-reported measures
trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic
review. Br J Sports Med 50(5):281-91,2016
19. Shushan T, McLaren SJ, Buchheit M, Scott TJ, Barrett S,
Lovell R. Submaximal fitness tests in team sports: A
theoretical framework for evaluating physiological state.
Sports Med 52(11):2605-2626, 2022.
← Prev: Next: →

You May Also Like…

The 5 NEW HIIT “In Search of the Medical, Science

INSIGHTS That Perfect Workout: & Hands-on Staff
Could Change Does Decreasing All Matter Now
The Way You High-Intensity More Than Ever –
Train – with Dr. Interval Duration With Dr Ian
Rune Talsnes Hold the Beasley
Answer?”
Sep 11, 2023 May 13, 2023
May 29, 2023
Listen to the Listen to the
Every coin has
episode now or episode now or
two sides -
find us on find us on
what is
Spotify and Spotify and
recovering in
Apple Apple
HIIT? VO2max
Podcasts.Show Podcasts.Show
is defined as
Notes High or the highest Notes Medical
low intensity rate at which staff is all
specific... oxygen can encompassing
be... health...

Featured Courses

LEARN MORE LEARN MORE

SHOP LEAR CONN LEGAL

N ECT

Blog
Podcast
 Courses   Contact Privacy
Policy
Book  About
Cookie
Athletica HIIT Policy
Scholarship
Refund
Policy

Copyright 2023 HIIT Science

SHOP LEARN
CONNECT LEGAL
Courses Blog
Contact Privacy
Book Podcast Policy
About
Athletica   
Cookie
HIIT Policy
Scholarship
Refund
Policy

Copyright 2023 HIIT Science