Global Positioning System Watches and Electronic Journals: Are Training-Load Measures Similar in High School Cross-Country Runners?

Abstract

Purpose: Running programs are designed to progress training loads by manipulating the duration, frequency, and/or intensity of running sessions. While some studies use journals to monitor training load, others have used wearable technology. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of self-reported and global positioning system (GPS)–watch-derived measures of external and internal loads in high school cross-country runners. Methods: Twenty-two high school cross-country runners participated in the study during fall 2020. Participants recorded running sessions using a GPS watch and self-reported the running session using an electronic journal. External (distance and duration) and internal loads (session rating of perceived exertion [sRPE], average, and maximum heart rate) were retrieved from the GPS watch and electronic journal. Correlations compared relationships, and Bland–Altman plots compared agreements between GPS-watch-derived and self-reported measures of training loads. Results: We found moderate relationships between self-reported and GPS-watch-derived measures of external loads (distance: r = .76, moving duration: r = .74, and elapsed duration: r = .70) and poor relationships between internal loads (sRPE vs average heart rate: ρ = .11, sRPE vs maximal heart rate: ρ = .13). We found mean differences of −0.8 km (95% = –6.3 to +4.8 km) for distance, −4.5 minutes (95% = −27.8 to +33.2 min) for moving duration, and 2.7 minutes (95% = –27.8 min to +33.2 min) for elapsed duration. Conclusions: High school runners overreported running distance and duration using self-reports, and self-reported and GPS-watch-derived measures of internal loads demonstrated poor agreement. Coaches and clinicians should use caution when comparing results from studies using different methods of monitoring training loads.