Validity of Weekly and Monthly Perceived Exertion in
                    Runners

Gabriel Felipe Arantes Bertochi; Gustavo R Mota; Luke Haile; Moacir Marocolo; Jeffer Eidi Sasaki

doi:10.1055/a-2058-8049

International Journal of Sports Medicine, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Int J Sports Med 2023; 44(11): 763-777
DOI: 10.1055/a-2058-8049

Training & Testing

Validity of Weekly and Monthly Perceived Exertion in Runners

Gabriel Felipe Arantes Bertochi

¹Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil

²Graduate Program in Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

,

Gustavo R Mota

¹Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil

,

Luke Haile

³Exercise Science, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, United States

,

Moacir Marocolo

⁴Institute of Biological Sciences, Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil

,

Jeffer Eidi Sasaki

¹Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

The development of the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) enables the easy assessment of runners’ training strain as well as training load (TL). However, the long-term and retrospective validity of TL assessment using RPE scales still needs further investigation. Therefore, this study examined the validity of weekly and monthly ratings of perceived exertion (W-RPE, M-RPE) in assessing TL in runners. Healthy adult runners (n=53) rated perceived exertion using the modified category-ratio 10 (CR-10) scale for each week of a four-week period, as well as for the month, considering the four-week period. CR-10 for the week and the month were multiplied by the total training time of the week and month, respectively, to assess the W-RPE and M-RPE. Training impulse (TRIMP) was used as the criterion measure. The results indicated that the W-RPE and M-RPE may be used for monitoring TL during prolonged periods, presenting a very large correlations with the criterion measure.

Key words

rating perceived exertion - running - weekly RPE - monthly RPE

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Eston R. Use of ratings of perceived exertion in sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2012; 7: 175-182
2 Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics;; 1998
3 Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J. et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15: 109-115
4 Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014; 44: 139-147
5 Haddad M, Stylianides G, Djaoui L. et al. Session-RPE method for training load monitoring: Validity, ecological usefulness, and influencing factors. Front Neurosci 2017; 11: 612
6 Borresen J, Ian Lambert M. The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med 2009; 39: 779-795
7 Borresen J, Lambert MI. Quantifying training load: A comparison of subjective and objective methods. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2008; 3: 16-30
8 Lambert MI, Borresen J. Measuring training load in sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 406-411
9 Scantlebury S, Till K, Sawczuk T. et al. Validity of retrospective session rating of perceived exertion to quantify training load in youth athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 1975-1980
10 Phibbs PJ, Roe G, Jones B. et al. Validity of daily and weekly self-reported training load measures in adolescent athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 1121-1126
11 Paquette MR, Napier C, Willy RW. et al. Moving beyond weekly “distance”: Optimizing quantification of training load in runners. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020; 50: 564-569
12 Napier C, BSc MR, Menon C. et al. Session rating of perceived exertion combined with training volume for estimating training responses in runners. J Athl Train 2020; 55: 1285-1291
13 Pasadyn SR, Soudan M, Gillinov M. et al. Accuracy of commercially available heart rate monitors in athletes: a prospective study. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2019; 9: 379-385
14 Pope ZC, Lee JE, Zeng N. et al. Validation of four smartwatches in energy expenditure and heart rate assessment during exergaming. Games Health J 2019; 8: 205-212
15 Fuller D, Colwell E, Low J. et al. Reliability and validity of commercially available wearable devices for measuring steps, energy expenditure, and heart rate: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020; 8: e18694
16 Banister EW. Modeling elite athletic performance. In: MacDougall D, Wenger HA, Green HJ (Eds.). Physiological Testing of the High-Performance Athlete. 2nd ed. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Books, 1991; 403-424
17 Sawilowsky SS. New effect size rules of thumb. J Mod App Stat Methods 2009; 8: 597-599
18 Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ. Internal and external training load: 15 years on. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; 14: 270-273
19 Ide BN, Silvatti AP, Mota GR. Comment on “Training load and injury: Causal pathways and future directions”. Sports Med 2021; 51: 2449-2450
20 Boratto L, Carta S, Mulas F. et al. An e-coaching ecosystem: design and effectiveness analysis of the engagement of remote coaching on athletes. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 2017; 21: 689-704
21 Haile L, Gallagher M. et al. Perceived Exertion Laboratory Manual: From Standard Practice to Contemporary Application. New York, NY: Springer; 2015
22 Falk Neto JH, Tibana RA, de Sousa NMF. et al. Session rating of perceived exertion is a superior method to monitor internal training loads of functional fitness training sessions performed at different intensities when compared to training impulse. Front Physiol 2020; 11: 919

Zusatzmaterial

Supplementary Material