Article Title



M.J. Andvik, A. Seipel, C.B. Jones, and J.T. Penry

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Successful athletic preparation balances periods of increased training load that stimulate physiological adaptation, with periods of reduced training load that allow growth and repair in response to that stimulus. To this end, practitioners must have a reliable measure of training load, as well as an understanding of the training load produced by prescribed training sessions. PURPOSE: To determine the utility of Edwards’ training impulse (TRIMP) and Foster’s session RPE (sRPE) in describing training load across three different types of training sessions in female Division I collegiate distance runners. METHODS: Female Division I collegiate distance runners were recruited to participate in this study (n=4). Participants completed 12 training sessions (workout type, WT) that could be classified as an easy run (eWT), a hard unstructured run (huWT), or a hard structured run (hsWT). Heart rate values were recorded via a chest strap with internal memory, and sRPE values were recorded via written questionnaire immediately upon workout completion. Data were analyzed using a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA, with sRPE as the predicted variable, and TRIMP and WT as predictor variables. A Tukey post-hoc comparison was used to examine difference in sRPE among WT. RESULTS: TRIMP was strongly related to sRPE across participants (p<0.001). WT did not differentiate sRPE across individuals (p=0.11); closer examination showed sRPE associated with hsWT to be significantly different than sRPE huWT (p<0.01) or sRPE eWT (p<0.001), with no difference in sRPE between huWT and eWT (p=0.68). The TRIMP:WT interaction effect was not significant across individuals (p=0.70). CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that training load values produced by TRIMP and sRPE are closely related across individuals and are not affected by workout type. As such, sRPE may be a more useful measure of training load than TRIMP, as it requires a lower investment in equipment cost, as well as less preparation and processing time. The similar training load values produced by huWT and eWT warrant additional investigation, as it is possible that the training load elicited by huWT is not large enough to elicit the training response desired of a “hard” WT.

This document is currently not available here.