Validity and reliability of the session RPE method for monitoring exercise training intensity

Herman, Lawrence; Foster, Cliffa; Maher, Mohamed; Mikat, RP; Jp, Porcari

doi:10.17159/2078-516x/2006/v18i1a247

Cited by 103 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Focusing on endurance athletes, training dose can be measured in terms of external work executed (distance, power, velocity) [1][2] , or internal physiological responses elicited by that work (heart rate, blood lactate, VO 2 ) [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] . Training dose can also be measured by how the stimulus was perceived (session RPE) 12,[14][15][16][17][18] . Most high-level endurance athletes maintain a training diary where they report their training.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Heart-Rate Data to Training Quantification: A Comparison of 3 Methods of Training-Intensity Analysis

Sylta¹,

Tønnessen²,

Seiler³

2014

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From heart rate data to training quantification: a comparison of three methods of training intensity analysisThe proportion of training in zone 1, zone 2 and zone 3 was quantified using total training time or frequency of sessions, and simple conversion factors across different methods were calculated. Results: Comparing the TIZ and SG/TIZ methods, 96.1 and 95.5 % respectively of total training time was spent in zone 1 (P < .001), with 2.9/3.6 and 1.1/0.8 % in zones 2/3 (P < .001). Using SG, this corresponded to 86.6 % zone 1 and 11.1/2.4 % zone 2/3 sessions. Estimated conversion factors from TIZ or SG/TIZ to SG and vice versa, were 0.9/1.1 respectively in the low intensity training (LIT) range (zone 1), and 3.0/0.33 in the high intensity training (HIT) range (zone 2 & 3). Conclusions: This study provides a direct comparison and practical conversion factors across studies employing different methods of TID quantification associated with the most common HR based analysis methods.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Heart-Rate Data to Training Quantification: A Comparison of 3 Methods of Training-Intensity Analysis

Sylta¹,

Tønnessen²,

Seiler³

2014

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Session RPE has already been shown to be a valid in terms of evaluating exercise intensity and monitoring training load in a number of published literature papers [20][21][22]24]. Session RPE method is not only reliable during repeat challenge by the same exercise stimulus, but is also well related to widely accepted objective measures of exercise training intensity [29]. sRPE is a valid and reliable measure of momentary exercise intensity [8,9] and reliable to calculate/measure training load.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is moderated by i) psychological factors -among which are cognition, memory and understanding of the task; and ii) situational factors -which include knowledge of the duration and temporal characteristics of the task (e.g., continuous, intermittent or spasmodic) and knowledge of the target distance or total amount of work to be completed. Perceptual instruments have been used during and after exercise and it has been shown that the estimation-production paradigm supports the use of in-task RPE for prescribing, regulating, and assessing exercise intensity [29]. However, there are several factors that can affect the accuracy of this rating, like athlete's experience, cognition, and memory [18].…”

Section: Training Impulse the Trimp Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring training load: necessity, methods and applications

Pind

Mäestu

2018

AKUT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regular physical activity and participation in organized sports is important contributor to performance and for overall health and fitness in humans of various age range. In performance related areas, every detail in the training sessions is important for the athlete to be in the best shape the chosen competition day. Sport scientists have been making hard effort to find out how the training has the influence on performance. Thus, training monitoring is important tool to evaluate an athlete's response to training. Banister developed the 'training impulse' (TRIMP) as a method to quantify training load. The TRIMP consists of the exercise intensity calculated by the heart rate (HR) reserve method and the duration of exercise. Foster et al. [23] developed a modification of the rating of the perceived exertion method, which uses Rated Perceived Exertion (RPE) as a marker of training intensity within the TRIMP concept. For quantifying and calculating training load, the athlete's RPE (1-10pt scale) is multiplied by the duration of the session. Ideally, the perceptions of training load should match between athlete and coach to have optimal adaptation. Thus, this brief review article is evaluating training monitoring opportunities without the need of expensive equipment.

show abstract

“…At the end of each training session, participants were asked to report an overall session RPE (Herman et al 2006) using a 10 point RPE scale (Borg 1982) as established by previous studies (Foster et al 2001;Little et al 2011;Hazell et al 2014). This is a separate scale from the Borg 20 point scale that was used during VO 2peak measurement.…”

Section: Session Rpementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of run sprint interval training on healthy, inactive, overweight/obese women: A pilot study

Rowley

Espinoza

Akers

et al. 2017

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effects of a 12 week, treadmill-based, run sprint interval training (SIT) protocol compared with that of a moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) protocol in healthy, inactive, overweight/obese women, on cardiovascular disease risk factors. After random assignment, the SIT group completed 4-10 × 30 s maximal sprints, with a 4 min active recovery between sprints, and the MICT group completed 30-60 min at moderate intensity (45-55% heart rate reserve (HRR)). The rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded for each session, and perceived enjoyment was quantified every 3 weeks. Clinical and fitness testing were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Twelve female participants (age: 34.1 ± 6.1; body mass index (BMI): 31.3 ± 6.8; VO 2peak : 27.0 ± 6.2) completed the intervention. There were significant main effects for time for VO 2peak (p = 0.001), body fat percentage (p = 0.001), and session RPE (p = 0.006). VO 2peak improved 20.7% in the SIT group (n = 5) and 24.4% in the MICT group (n = 7). Body fat percentage reduced by 1.7% in the SIT group and 2.6% in the MICT group. Perceived enjoyment was similarly high between the groups despite higher session RPE in the SIT group (p = 0.441). SIT training on a motor-driven treadmill elicits similar improvements in oxygen utilization and body composition as moderate-intensity training in this population.

show abstract

Validity and reliability of the session RPE method for monitoring exercise training intensity

Cited by 103 publications

References 17 publications

From Heart-Rate Data to Training Quantification: A Comparison of 3 Methods of Training-Intensity Analysis

From Heart-Rate Data to Training Quantification: A Comparison of 3 Methods of Training-Intensity Analysis

Monitoring training load: necessity, methods and applications

Effects of run sprint interval training on healthy, inactive, overweight/obese women: A pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About