Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Combined With Training Volume for Estimating Training Responses in Runners

Abstract

Context Historically, methods of monitoring training loads in runners have used simple and convenient metrics, including the duration or distance run. Changes in these values are assessed on a week-to-week basis to induce training adaptations and manage injury risk. To date, whether different measures of external loads, including biomechanical measures, provide better information regarding week-to-week changes in external loads experienced by a runner is unclear. In addition, the importance of combining internal-load measures, such as session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), with different external-load measures to monitor week-to-week changes in training load in runners is unknown. Objective To compare week-to-week changes in the training loads of recreational runners using different quantification methods. Design Case series. Setting Community based. Patients or Other Participants Recreational runners in Vancouver, British Columbia. Main Outcome Measure(s) Week-to-week changes in running time, steps, and cumulative shock, in addition to the product of each of these variables and the corresponding sRPE scores for each run. Results Sixty-eight participants were included in the final analysis. Differences were present in week-to-week changes for running time compared with timeRPE (d = 0.24), stepsRPE (d = 0.24), and shockRPE (d = 0.31). The differences between week-to-week changes in running time and cumulative shock were also significant at the overall group level (d = 0.10). Conclusions We found that the use of an internal training-load measure (sRPE) in combination with external load (training duration) provided a more individualized estimate of week-to-week changes in overall training stress. A better estimation of training stress has significant implications for monitoring training adaptations, resulting performance, and possibly injury risk reduction. We therefore recommend the regular use of sRPE and training duration to monitor training load in runners. The use of cumulative shock as a measure of external load in some runners may also be more valid than duration alone.

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

“…Our current results are in agreement with recent findings that training load measures, combining various external load metrics and sRPE, yield different week-to-week %Δ in training compared to using training duration alone. 26 These findings are explained by the fact that quantification of running training by duration alone does not account for the physiological response to training and only provides general information regarding the external training load of an athlete. 7,26,35,36 Thus, if a coach only quantifies external load metrics such as training duration or distance, they may be vastly misrepresenting the training stress experienced by runners.…”

“…26 These findings are explained by the fact that quantification of running training by duration alone does not account for the physiological response to training and only provides general information regarding the external training load of an athlete. 7,26,35,36 Thus, if a coach only quantifies external load metrics such as training duration or distance, they may be vastly misrepresenting the training stress experienced by runners. For example, a runner’s training volume could remain constant during two consecutive training days or weeks despite increases in intensity and resulting physiological response.…”

“…In fact, recent evidence on a large population of recreational runners suggests that despite reductions in week-to-week %Δ in training volume (i.e., duration), increases in training stress—quantified with the training load of training duration and sRPE—can occur. 26 The pre-competition taper is heavily influenced by preceding training stress experienced by runners 38 as RPE might remain elevated during subsequent training sessions and thus, inappropriate quantification of training stress could greatly influence the effectiveness of a pre-competition taper. Future work on the use of different training load measures to quantify “tapering” or “recovery” periods would be highly valuable for coaches and sport scientists.…”

“…In fact, the combination of sRPE with external load measures provides a more individualized measure of average week-to-week changes in training stress in a broad population of runners following a self-directed program. 26 Training-intensity distribution (i.e., time spent within specific intensity zones) is another approach used to quantify running training but input intensity metrics (e.g., HR, speed, and RPE) greatly influence the resulting training-intensity distribution in middle-distance runners. 4 Similarly, the use of biomechanically-specific external load measures could yield different week-to-week changes in training load in a homogenous group of runners who have been prescribed the same training program.…”

The Effect of Footwear, Running Speed, and Location on the Validity of Two Commercially Available Inertial Measurement Units During Running

“…Wearable technology allows the collection of both biomechanical and training load data longitudinally in the runner's natural environment (Napier et al, 2017 ; Willy, 2018 ; Moore and Willy, 2019 ). Advances in technology have made it possible to fuse biomechanical and training load measures to better quantify the cumulative stress (i.e., the additive stress of repeated steps during a run or repeated running bouts over the course of a training block) on the body, with much recent work utilizing segmental accelerations as a quantification of biomechanical training loads (Napier et al, 2020 ; Paquette et al, 2020 ).…”