The application of differential ratings of perceived exertion to Australian Football League matches

Weston, Matthew; Siegler, Jason; Bahnert, Andrew; McBrien, James; Lovell, Ric

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.001

Cited by 116 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, the differences between RPE-B and RPE-L at the end of exercise and 30-minutes post-exercise were large. These data support previous notions that RPE-B and RPE-L represent dissimilar dimensions of effort, 6 where RPE-B appear reflective of central factors (e.g. uptake and transport of oxygen, central nervous system etc.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…6 In our investigation, the between-protocol differences in sRPE0 and sRPE30 were moderate and small, respectively, yet the differences in the majority of physiological markers were moderate to large. The between-protocol differences in RPE-B…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 43%

“…internal training load, yet differential ratings could enhance the precision of internal load measurement by discriminating between central and peripheral perceived exertion. 6 The main findings of our investigation into the sensitivity of dRPE were that clear between-protocol differences in dRPE scores (moderate-large) were concurrent with clear between-protocol differences in objective measures of physiological load (moderate-large), clear and large differences between RPE-B and RPE-L at all time points indicate that dRPE represent different dimensions of effort, and a moderate to large latency effect is apparent on dRPE scores following maximal graded exercise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Using the centiMax scale (CR100 ® ), 10 players provided sRPE as well as dRPE for breathlessness (RPE-B) and leg muscle exertion (RPE-L). 6 Scores were provided in a counterbalanced manner at the point of exercise termination (sRPE0, RPE-B0, RPE-L0)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Sensitivity of Differential Ratings of Perceived Exertion as Measures of Internal Load

McLaren¹,

Graham²,

Spears³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and leg exertion (RPE-L) immediately upon exercise termination (RPE-B0, RPE-L0) and 30-minutes post-exercise (RPE-B30, RPE-L30). Data were analysed using magnitude-based inferences. Results: There were clear between-protocol differences for V O2max (Cycle 46.5 ± 6.3 vs Treadmill 51.0 ± 5.1 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 , mean difference -9.2%; ±90% confidence limits 3.7%), HRmax (185 ± 13 vs 197 ± 8 b·min -1 , -6.0%; ±1.7%), B[La]peak (9.7 ± 2.1 vs 8.5 ± 2.0 mmol·L -1 , 15%; ±10%) and ΔCMJH (-7.1 ± 4.2 vs 0.6 ± 3.6 cm, -23.2%; ±5.4%). Clear between-protocol differences were recorded for RPE-B0 (78 ± 12 vs 94.7 ± 9.5 AU, -18.1%; ±4.5%), RPE-L0 (92.6 ± 9.7 vs 81 ± 14 AU, 15.3%; ±7.6%), RPE-B30 (70 ± 11 vs 82 ± 13 AU, -13.8%; ±7.3%) and RPE-L30 (86 ± 12 vs 65 ± 19 AU, 37%; ±17%). A substantial timing effect was observed for dRPE, with moderate to large reductions in all scores 30-minutes post-exercise when compared to scores collected upon exercise termination.Conclusion: dRPE enhance the precision of internal load measurement and therefore represent a worthwhile addition to training load monitoring procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 43%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Sensitivity of Differential Ratings of Perceived Exertion as Measures of Internal Load

McLaren¹,

Graham²,

Spears³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be termed the smallest worthwhile change, and this value will vary between different monitoring strategies and populations [33]. In addition, recent work has developed a framework for the interpretation of meaningful change in physical performance for team sport athletes using progressive statistical approaches (including mixed linear modelling and magnitude-based inferences) [52,53]. While a comprehensive review of the statistical processes related to quantifying changes in performance is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important that appropriate methods are employed to manage monitoring data and to determine when alterations in these data could indicate maladaptation.…”

Section: An Integrative Approach To Monitoring Resistance Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points• To quantify resistance exercise, it is important to understand the numerous factors contributing to the overall intensity of training, rather than simply the relative load being lifted.• Methods to monitor the external volume load, perceptual training intensity, subjective wellness, and physical performance during resistance exercise all appear useful methods for monitoring resistance training.• Strength coaches should identify which monitoring tools are applicable and viable for their athletes, and should take an integrative approach to resistance training monitoring to help inform their practice.3 AbstractResistance exercise is difficult to quantify due to its inherent complexity with numerous training variables contributing to the training dose (type of exercise, load lifted, training volume, inter-set rest periods and repetition velocity). In addition, the intensity of resistance training is often inadequately determined as the relative load lifted (% 1-repetition maximum), which does not account for the effects of inter-set recovery periods, repetition velocity, or the number of repetitions performed in each set at a given load. Methods to calculate the volume load associated with resistance training, as well as the perceived intensity of individual sets and entire training sessions have been shown to provide useful information regarding the actual training stimulus. In addition, questionnaires to subjectively assess how athletes are coping with the stressors of training and portable technologies to quantify performance variables such as concentric velocity may also be valuable. However, while several methods have been proposed to quantify resistance training, there is not yet consensus regarding how these methods can be best implemented and integrated to complement each other. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide practical information for strength coaches to highlight effective methods to assess resistance training, and how they can be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring program.4

show abstract

Decision‐making accuracy of soccer referees in relation to markers of internal and external load

McEwan,

Unnithan,

Easton

et al. 2024

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the relationships between the decision‐making performances of soccer referees and markers of physiological load. Following baseline measurements and habituation procedures, 13 national‐level male referees completed a novel Soccer Referee Simulation whilst simultaneously adjudicating on a series of video‐based decision‐making clips. The correctness of each decision was assessed in relation to the mean heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), minute ventilation (VE), perceptions of breathlessness (RPE‐B) and local muscular (RPE‐M) exertion and running speeds recorded in the 10‐s and 60‐s preceding decisions. There was a significant association between decision‐making accuracy and the mean HR (p = 0.042; VC = 0.272) and RR (p = 0.024, VC = 0.239) in the 10‐s preceding decisions, with significantly more errors observed when HR ≥ 90% of HRmax (OR, 5.39) and RR ≥ 80% of RRpeak (OR, 3.34). Decision‐making accuracy was also significantly associated with the mean running speeds performed in the 10‐s (p = 0.003; VC = 0.320) and 60‐s (p = 0.016; VC = 0.253) preceding decisions, with workloads of ≥250 m·min−1 associated with an increased occurrence of decisional errors (OR, 3.84). Finally, there was a significant association between decision‐making accuracy and RPE‐B (p = 0.021; VC = 0.287), with a disproportionate number of errors occurring when RPE‐B was rated as “very strong” to “maximal” (OR, 7.19). Collectively, the current data offer novel insights into the detrimental effects that high workloads may have upon the decision‐making performances of soccer referees. Such information may be useful in designing combined physical and decision‐making training programmes that prepare soccer referees for the periods of match play that prove most problematic to their decision‐making.

show abstract

The application of differential ratings of perceived exertion to Australian Football League matches

Cited by 116 publications

References 28 publications

The Sensitivity of Differential Ratings of Perceived Exertion as Measures of Internal Load

The Sensitivity of Differential Ratings of Perceived Exertion as Measures of Internal Load

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Decision‐making accuracy of soccer referees in relation to markers of internal and external load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About