No. 11, pp. 27–29

Received: 03.09.2026 | Published: 23.10.2026

CC BY 4.0

Abstract

Objective of the study is to study the interrelations between the subjective assessments of stress/recovery and the objective indicators of the functional working capacity of athletes. Methods and structure of the study. 67 male athletes (19.5 ± 1.1 years) engaged in football, ice hockey and cross-country skiing were examined. The subjective indicators of stress and recovery were assessed with the help of the RESTQ-Sport questionnaire. Heart rate variability (HRV) was registered at rest during a 5-minute ECG, and anaerobic working capacity was measured on a bicycle ergometer. A comparative analysis of the indicators between the kinds of sport and a correlation analysis between the subjective and objective indicators were conducted. Results and discussion. Football players have the most favourable balance of recovery and stress with statistically significant high indicators of recovery, self-regulation and the subjective assessment of sporting form. Ice hockey players show a high level of general and sports-specific stress. The maximum anaerobic power positively correlated with general (r = 0.60; p < 0.001), emotional (r = 0.30; p = 0.006) and social (r = 0.50; p < 0.001) stress. These correlations are more pronounced in ice hockey players (peak power strongly correlates with general stress: r = 0.88; p < 0.001). Statistically significant associations were also revealed between a number of HRV indicators and the subjective assessments of stress and recovery. An increased level of subjective stress should not be unambiguously interpreted as a sign of maladaptation. In the period of intense competitions, high stress may reflect functional mobilisation and successful activity rather than insufficient recovery.

1. Bell L., Ruddock A., Maden-Wilkinson T., Hembrough D., Rogerson D. 'Is It Overtraining or Just Work Ethic?': Coaches' Perceptions of Overtraining in High-Performance Strength Sports. Sports. 2021. V. 9. No. 6. DOI: 10.3390/sports9060085.
2. Budgett R. Fatigue and Underperformance in Athletes: The Overtraining Syndrome. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 1998. V. 32. No. 2. Pp. 107-110. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.32.2.107.
3. Halson S.L. Monitoring Fatigue and Recovery. Sports Science Exchange. 2014. V. 27. No. 122. Pp. 1-6.
4. Kellmann M., Kallus K.W. (eds.). The Recovery-Stress Questionnaires: A User Manual. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2024. 272 p.
5. Kreider R.B., Fry A.C., O'Toole M.L. Overtraining in Sport: Terms, Definitions, and Prevalence. In: Kreider R.B., Fry A.C., O'Toole M.L. (eds.). Overtraining in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998. 403 p.
6. 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. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2013. V. 45. No. 1. Pp. 186-205. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318279a10a.
7. Plews D.J., Laursen P.B., Stanley J., Kilding A.E., Buchheit M. Training Adaptation and Heart Rate Variability in Elite Endurance Athletes: Opening the Door to Effective Monitoring. Sports Medicine. 2013. V. 43. No. 9. Pp. 773-781. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-013-0071-8.
8. Saw A.E., Main L.C., Gastin P.B. Monitoring the Athlete Training Response: Subjective Self-Reported Measures Trump Commonly Used Objective Measures: A Systematic Review. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016. V. 50. No. 5. Pp. 281-291. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094758.