The session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) method was developed 25 years ago as a modification of the Borg concept of rating of perceived exertion (RPE), designed to estimate the intensity of an entire training session. It appears to be well accepted as a marker of the internal training load. Early studies demonstrated that sRPE correlated well with objective measures of internal training load, such as the percentage of heart rate reserve and blood lactate concentration. It has been shown to be useful in a wide variety of exercise activities ranging from aerobic to resistance to games. It has also been shown to be useful in populations ranging from patients to elite athletes. The sRPE is a reasonable measure of the average RPE acquired across an exercise session. Originally designed to be acquired ∼30 minutes after a training bout to prevent the terminal elements of an exercise session from unduly influencing the rating, sRPE has been shown to be temporally robust across periods ranging from 1 minute to 14 days following an exercise session. Within the training impulse concept, sRPE, or other indices derived from sRPE, has been shown to be able to account for both positive and negative training outcomes and has contributed to our understanding of how training is periodized to optimize training outcomes and to understand maladaptations such as overtraining syndrome. The sRPE as a method of monitoring training has the advantage of extreme simplicity. While it is not ideal for the precise recording of the details of the external training load, it has large advantages relative to evaluating the internal training load.

Purpose: The session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is a well-accepted method of monitoring training load in athletes in many different sports. It is based on the category-ratio (0–10) RPE scale (BORG-CR10) developed by Borg. There is no evidence how substitution of the Borg 6–20 RPE scale (BORG-RPE) might influence the sRPE in athletes. Methods: Systematically training, recreational-level athletes from a number of sport disciplines performed 6 randomly ordered, 30-min interval-training sessions, at intensities based on peak power output (PPO) and designed to be easy (50% PPO), moderate (75% PPO), or hard (85% PPO). Ratings of sRPE were obtained 30 min postexercise using either the BORG-CR10 or BORG-RPE and compared for matched exercise conditions. Results: The average percentage of heart-rate reserve was well correlated with sRPE from both BORG-CR10 (r = .76) and BORG-RPE (r = .69). The sRPE ratings from BORG-CR10 and BORG-RPE were very strongly correlated (r = .90) at matched times. Conclusions: Although producing different absolute numbers, sRPE derived from either the BORG-CR10 or BORG-RPE provides essentially interchangeable estimates of perceived exercise training intensity.

Purpose: To describe the training intensity and load characteristics of professional cyclists using a 4-year retrospective analysis. Particularly, this study aimed to describe the differences in training characteristics between men and women professional cyclists. Method: For 4 consecutive years, training data were collected from 20 male and 10 female professional cyclists. From those training sessions, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and power output (PO) were analyzed. Training intensity distribution as time spent in different heart rate and PO zones was quantified. Training load was calculated using different metrics such as Training Stress Score, training impulse, and session rating of perceived exertion. Standardized effect size is reported as Cohen’s d. Results: Small to large higher values were observed for distance, duration, kilojoules spent, and (relative) mean PO in men’s training (d = 0.44–1.98). Furthermore, men spent more time in low-intensity zones (ie, zones 1 and 2) compared with women. Trivial differences in training load (ie, Training Stress Score and training impulse) were observed between men’s and women’s training (d = 0.07–0.12). However, load values expressed per kilometer were moderately (d = 0.67–0.76) higher in women compared with men’s training. Conclusions: Substantial differences in training characteristics exist between male and female professional cyclists. Particularly, it seems that female professional cyclists compensate their lower training volume, with a higher training intensity, in comparison with male professional cyclists.

Volume and absolute load are higher in men's races whilst intensity and time spent at high intensity zones is higher in women's races. Coaches and practitioners should consider these differences in demands in the preparation of professional road cyclists.

This study analyses the influence of race category and result on the demands of professional cycling races. In total, 2920 race files were collected from 20 male professional cyclists, within a variety of race categories: Single-day (1.WT) and multi-day (2.WT) World Tour races, single-day (1.HC) and multi-day (2.HC) Hors Catégorie races and single-day (1.1) and multi-day (2.1) category 1 races. Additionally, the five cycling "monuments" were analysed separately. Maximal mean power outputs (MMP) were measured across a broad range of durations. Volume and load were large to very largely (d = 1.30-4.80) higher in monuments compared to other single-day race categories. Trivial to small differences were observed for most intensity measures between different single-day race categories, with only RPE and sRPE•km −1 being moderately (d = 0.70-1.50) higher in the monuments. Distance and duration were small to moderately (d = 0.20-0.80) higher in 2.WT races compared to 2.HC and 2.1 multi-day race categories with only small differences in terms of load and intensity. Generally, higher ranked races (i.e. Monuments, 2.WT and GT) tend to present with lower shorter-duration MMPs (e.g. 5-120 sec) compared to races of "lower rank" (with less differences and/or mixed results being present over longer durations), potentially caused by a "blunting" effect of the higher race duration and load of higher ranked races on short duration MMPs. MMP were small to largely higher over shorter durations (<5 min) for a top-10 result compared to no top-10, within the same category.

Purpose: The relationship between various training-load (TL) measures in professional cycling is not well explored. This study investigated the relationship between mechanical energy spent (in kilojoules), session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), Lucia training impulse (LuTRIMP), and training stress score (TSS) in training, races, and time trials (TT). Methods: For 4 consecutive years, field data were collected from 21 professional cyclists and categorized as being collected in training, racing, or TTs. Kilojoules (kJ) spent, sRPE, LuTRIMP, and TSS were calculated, and the correlations between the various TLs were made. Results: 11,655 sessions were collected, from which 7596 sessions had heart-rate data and 5445 sessions had an RPE score available. The r between the various TLs during training was almost perfect. The r between the various TLs during racing was almost perfect or very large. The r between the various TLs during TTs was almost perfect or very large. For all relationships between TSS and 1 of the other measurements of TL (kJ spent, sRPE, and LuTRIMP), a significant different slope was found. Conclusion: kJ spent, sRPE, LuTRIMP, and TSS all have a large or almost perfect relationship with each other during training, racing, and TTs, but during racing, both sRPE and LuTRIMP have a weaker relationship with kJ spent and TSS. Furthermore, the significant different slope of TSS vs the other measurements of TL during training and racing has the effect that TSS collected in training and road races differs by 120%, whereas the other measurements of TL (kJ spent, sRPE, and LuTRIMP) differ by only 73%, 67%, and 68%, respectively.

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate if performance measures are related to success in professional cycling and to highlight the influence of prior work done on these performance measures and success. Methods: Power output data from 26 professional cyclists, in a total of 85 seasons, collected between 2012 and 2019, were analyzed. The cyclists were classified as "climber" or "sprinter" and into category 1 (CAT.1; ≥400 PCS points (successful)) and CAT.2 (<400 PCS points (less successful)), based on the number of procyclingstats-points (PCS points ) collected for that particular season. Maximal mean power outputs (MMP) for 20 min, 5 min, 1 min, and 10 s relative to body weight for every season were determined. To investigate the influence of prior work done on these MMP values, six different levels of completed work done were determined, which are based on the amount of completed kilojoules per kilogram (0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 kJ•kg −1 ). Subsequently, the decline in MMP for each duration (if any) after each level of completed work done was evaluated. Results: Mixed model revealed that prior work done affects the performance of climbers and sprinters negatively. However, CAT.1 climbers have a smaller decline in 20-and 5-min MMP after high amounts of work done compared with CAT.2 climbers. Similarly, CAT.1 sprinters have a smaller decline in 10-s and 1-min MMP after high amounts of work done compared with CAT.2 sprinters. Conclusions: It seems that the ability to maintain high MMP (corresponding with the specialization of a cyclist) after high amounts of work done (i.e., fatigue) is an important parameter for success in professional cyclists. These findings suggest that assessing changes in MMP after different workloads might be highly relevant in professional cycling.

and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.