Training Load, Aerobic Capacity and Their Relationship With Wellness Status in Recreational Trail Runners

Matos, Sérgio; Clemente, Filipe Manuel; Brandão, Antônio Carlos; Pereira, Joel; Rosemann, Thomas; Nikolaidis, Pantelis Theodoros; Knechtle, Beat

doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.01189

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the major limitations of measuring external training load is that it fails to account for how runners feel during a given training session, which is not only influenced by the external load of the training session but also by the runner's state of recovery and daily stress (eg, sleep, illness, relationships, etc). 30,37 […”

Section: Alternative Approaches To Quantify Training Load In Runnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Beyond Weekly “Distance”: Optimizing Quantification of Training Load in Runners

Paquette¹,

Napier²,

Willy³

et al. 2020

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U BACKGROUND: Quantifying total running distance is valuable, as it comprises some aspects of the mechanical/neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and perceptual/psychological loads that contribute to training stress and is partially predictive of distancerunning success. However, running distance is only one aspect contributing to training stress. U CLINICAL QUESTION: The purpose of this commentary is to highlight (1) problems with only using running distance to quantify running training and training stress, (2) the importance of alternative approaches to quantify and monitor training stress, (3) moderating factors (effect-measure modifiers) of training loads, and (4) the challenges of monitoring training stress to assess injury risks. U KEY RESULTS: Training stress is influenced by external (ie, application of mechanical load) and internal (ie, physiological/psychological effort) training load factors. In running, some commonly used external load factors include volume and pace, while physiological internal load factors include session rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, or blood lactate level. Running distance alone might vastly obscure the cumulative training stress on different training days and, ultimately, misrepresent overall training stress. With emerging and novel wearable technology that quantifies external load metrics beyond volume or pace, the future of training monitoring should have an ever-increasing emphasis on biomechanical external load metrics, coupled with internal (ie, physiological/psychological) load metrics. U CLINICAL APPLICATION: It may be difficult to change the running culture's obsession with weekly distance, but advanced and emerging methods to quantify running training discussed in this commentary will, with research confirmation, improve training monitoring and injury risk stratification.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Approaches To Quantify Training Load In Runnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Beyond Weekly “Distance”: Optimizing Quantification of Training Load in Runners

Paquette¹,

Napier²,

Willy³

et al. 2020

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The best way to adjust stimuli varies from one athlete to the next; therefore, athletes' responses to loads accumulated over the season must be accurately monitored by the team, coach, or athlete using reliable measures, such as the subjective perception of effort [9]. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE), a concept developed by Borg [10], is a valid and reliable measure of the load to which athletes are exposed, and it has been used in several sports [7,[11][12][13][14]. The session-RPE (sRPE) derives from the value from the RPE and the duration of the training session (in minutes) and is calculated as the formula: value of RPE multiplied by the duration of the training session (in minutes) [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of Trail Runner’s Fitness Measures across a Season and Relationships with Workload

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trail running involves off-road running over different surfaces of positive and negative unevenness. Given these particularities and the associated physical demands, it is essential to understand this relationship and how fitness levels influence performance. This study aimed to analyze fitness level variations during different times of the season and establish a relationship between changes in fitness levels and accumulated load. Twenty-five trail running athletes (age: 36.23 ± 8.30 years) were monitored over 52 weeks. Three periods of assessment were implemented, while load between those periods was calculated. Athletes were monitored daily by global positioning systems. The collected data included distance covered, duration, and rate of perceived exertion (RPE), which were used to obtain session-RPE. Additionally, maximal aerobic speed, vertical jump, and dynamic balance were tested periodically. Moderate inverse correlations were found between assessment 1 and 2 for total sRPE and vertical jump: countermovement jump (VJ: CMJ) (r = −0.349), and Y balance test: left posterolateral (YBT: LPL) (r = −0.494). Similar correlations were found between assessment 2 and 3 for total sRPE and VJ: CMJ (r = −0.397), and vertical jump: drop jump (VJ: DJ) (r = −0.395). The results suggest that trail running coaches should monitor and assess dose–response relationships and possible anterior asymmetries of dynamic balance performance.

show abstract

“…7,8 Monitoring training load between training periods or cycles in runners might provide a better quantification of training stress to enable the guidance of necessary training adjustments to ensure optimal performance and minimize risk of over- or under-training. 9 Further, small changes in training load in runners can lead to improvements in running pace in long races 10 and thus, should be considered by running coaches. This is expected since it has been suggested that the internal load is the primary stimulus for adaptation in response to running training.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different measures to monitor week-to-week changes in training load in high school runners

Ryan¹,

Napier

Greenwood³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training load is commonly used to monitor training stress and is the product of external and internal physiological loads experienced by an athlete. With emerging wearable technology, it is possible to evolve existing external load measurement from duration or distance to runner-specific biomechanical data, which when combined with existing measures of internal load such as session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), may improve the quantification of training stress. This study compared week-to-week changes in training duration with different training loads obtained from common and more individualized measures of external load. The training of nine male high school cross-country runners from the same team undertaking the same training program was monitored for two consecutive weeks. This two-week cycle included a “coach-prescribed” low and high training load week. Training loads were calculated with sRPE and external load measures including: duration (minutes), Step Count, “Bone Stimulus” (IMeasureU), and cumulative vertical force. Weekly distances (in miles) were also measured. Between-week percent change (%Δ) was compared among training loads and minutes using paired t-tests and Cohen’s d effect size. Different %Δ were found between sRPExMinutes (%Δ=65 ± 25%; p = 0.002, d = 1.83), sRPExStep Count (%Δ=66 ± 31%; p = 0.006, d = 2.06), sRPExForce (%Δ=66 ± 29%; p = 0.002, d = 1.91), and miles (%Δ=28 ± 13%; p = 0.019, d = 0.71) compared to minutes (%Δ=20 ± 8%). These findings highlight that only using weekly volume can greatly misrepresent changes in training stress in runners. We therefore encourage coaches and practitioners to consider training monitoring approaches beyond just weekly distance or duration. Simple measures of training load that include duration and sRPE might be sufficient.

show abstract

Training Load, Aerobic Capacity and Their Relationship With Wellness Status in Recreational Trail Runners

Cited by 16 publications

References 29 publications

Moving Beyond Weekly “Distance”: Optimizing Quantification of Training Load in Runners

Moving Beyond Weekly “Distance”: Optimizing Quantification of Training Load in Runners

Variations of Trail Runner’s Fitness Measures across a Season and Relationships with Workload

Comparison of different measures to monitor week-to-week changes in training load in high school runners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About