Validity of Weekly and Monthly Perceived Exertion in Runners

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

Publication History

Received: 01 June 2022

Accepted: 02 March 2023

Article published online:
06 June 2023

• 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