Quantifying Training Load: A Comparison of Subjective and Objective Methods

Abstract

Purpose:To establish the relationship between a subjective (session rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) and 2 objective (training impulse [TRIMP]) and summated-heart-rate-zone (SHRZ) methods of quantifying training load and explain characteristics of the variance not accounted for in these relationships.Methods:Thirty-three participants trained ad libitum for 2 wk, and their heart rate (HR) and RPE were recorded to calculate training load. Subjects were divided into groups based on whether the regression equations over- (OVER), under- (UNDER), or accurately predicted (ACCURATE) the relationship between objective and subjective methods.Results:A correlation of r = .76 (95% CI: .56 to .88) occurred between TRIMP and session-RPE training load. OVER spent a greater percentage of training time in zone 4 of SHRZ (ie, 80% to 90% HRmax) than UNDER (46% ± 8% vs 25% ± 10% [mean ± SD], P = .008). UNDER spent a greater percentage of training time in zone 1 of SHRZ (ie, 50% to 60% HRmax) than OVER (15% ± 8% vs 3% ± 3%, P = .005) and ACCURATE (5% ± 3%, P = .020) and more time in zone 2 of SHRZ (ie, 60% to 70%HRmax) than OVER (17% ± 6% vs 7% ± 6%, P = .039). A correlation of r = .84 (.70 to .92) occurred between SHRZ and session-RPE training load. OVER spent proportionally more time in Zone 4 than UNDER (45% ± 8% vs 25% ± 10%, P = .018). UNDER had a lower training HR than ACCURATE (132 ± 10 vs 148 ± 12 beats/min, P = .048) and spent more time in zone 1 than OVER (15% ± 8% vs 4% ± 3%, P = .013) and ACCURATE (5% ± 3%, P = .015).Conclusions:The session-RPE method provides reasonably accurate assessments of training load compared with HR-based methods, but they deviate in accuracy when proportionally more time is spent training at low or high intensity.

Heart rate variability is related to training load variables in interval running exercises

“…Similar to RPE, differences in personal perception of physical effort attenuate the accuracy of RPEs in TL measurement. However, session RPE has been found to correlate well with heart-rate based methods of quantifying TL, although at this time they are not validated (Borresen & Lambert, 2008b).…”

“…Thus, the principle of training may also be thought as a "dose-response" relationship between the physiological stress associated with the load of exercise training (dose) and the training adaptations (response), where the latter one may be measured quite easily as an improvement in performance. So far, there is no single, practical, validated parameter to measure the physiological training load (TL) of exercise (Borresen & Lambert, 2008b). Physical TL can be estimated for example with diaries or calculating the total volume of training; sessions, intensities and durations of exercises.…”

“…In TRIMPi, in addition to heart rate, individual lactate production affects the estimation of TL. The use of standard weighting factor (Y) in TRIMP, based on a fixed lactate-workload relationship, might be inappropriate for quantifying TL for subjects with different training status as the relationship between lactate and work load may change with im-provements in training status but also with overtraining (Borresen & Lambert, 2008b).…”

Aplicação de diferentes métodos de quantificação de cargas durante uma sessão de treinamento de karate

“…In order to quantify the TL, there are many methods which are based on training impulse (TRIMP), measures which integrate exercise volume and intensity and which can be obtained from the heart rate responses (HR) [7][8][9][10] , of the lactate blood concentration (Lac TRIMP ) 11 and rating of perceived exertion (session-RPE) 12 . The methods based on the HR response are widely used in endurance modalities 9,13,14 ; however, they are considered inefficient to quantify the TL in some exercises, such as resistance training (RT), interval training or plyometric exercises [15][16][17] . In addition to that, the method requires the presence of experienced evaluators, besides demanding high cost for acquisition and maintenance of many cardiofrequencimeter 16 .…”

“…However, the Banister TRIMP method is limited to evaluation of high intensity exercises, such as WT, high intensity interval training and plyometric training [15][16][17] . The Banister TRIMP technique uses the mean HR R of the session in its equation for quantification of training load, and its estimation is limited to high intensity intermittent exercises, since the HR R mean for these exercise models does not represent the real intensity performed 17 .…”