Download PDF
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 
1   Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil
2   Graduate Program in Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Gustavo R Mota 
1   Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil
,
Luke Haile
3   Exercise Science, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, United States
,
Moacir Marocolo 
4   Institute of Biological Sciences, Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil
,
Jeffer Eidi Sasaki 
1   Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding Information This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 01 June 2022

Accepted: 02 March 2023

Article published online:
06 June 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Eston R. Use of ratings of perceived exertion in sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2012; 7: 175-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics;; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J. et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15: 109-115
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014; 44: 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Borresen J, Lambert MI. Quantifying training load: A comparison of subjective and objective methods. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2008; 3: 16-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lambert MI, Borresen J. Measuring training load in sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 406-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sawilowsky SS. New effect size rules of thumb. J Mod App Stat Methods 2009; 8: 597-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ. Internal and external training load: 15 years on. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; 14: 270-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ide BN, Silvatti AP, Mota GR. Comment on “Training load and injury: Causal pathways and future directions”. Sports Med 2021; 51: 2449-2450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Haile L, Gallagher M. et al. Perceived Exertion Laboratory Manual: From Standard Practice to Contemporary Application. New York, NY: Springer; 2015
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar