Training load quantification of high intensity exercises: Discrepancies between original and alternative methods

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to quantify training loads (TL) of high intensity sessions through original methods (TRIMP; session-RPE; Work-Endurance-Recovery) and their updated alternatives (TRIMPcumulative; RPEalone; New-WER). Ten endurance athletes were requested to perform five sessions until exhaustion. Session 1 composed by a 800m maximal performance and four intermittent sessions performed at the 800m velocity, three sessions with 400m of interval length and work:recovery ratios of 2:1, 1:1 and 1:2 and one with 200m intervals and 1:1. Total TL were quantified from the sessions' beginning to the cool-down period and an intermediate TL (TL800) was calculated when 800m running was accumulated within the sessions. At the end of the sessions high and similar RPE were reported (effect size, η2 = 0.12), while, at the intermediate 800m distance, the higher interval distances and work:recovery ratios the higher the RPE (η2 = 0.88). Our results show marked differences in sessions' total TL between original (e.g., lowest TL for the 800m and highest for the 200m-1:1 sessions) and alternative methods (RPEalone and New-WER; similar TL for each session). Differences appear in TL800 notably between TRIMP and other methods which are negatively correlated. All TL report light to moderate correlations between original methods and their alternatives, original methods are strongly correlated together, as observed for alternative methods. Differences in TL quantification between original and alternative methods underline that they are not interchangeable. Because of high exercise volume influence, original methods markedly enhance TL of sessions with higher exercise volumes although these presented the easiest interval distances and work-recovery ratios. Alternative methods based on exhaustion level (New-WER) and exertion (RPEalone) provided a new and promising point of view of TL quantification where exhaustion determines the highest TL whatever the exercise. This remains to be tested with more extended populations submitted to wider ranges of exercises.

Fig 1. Protocol of 800m and 400m-1:2 sessions.

Sessions were composed by warm-up and cool-down and by a 800m performance or by 400m intervals with recovery periods (two times longer than work duration) performed until exhaustion.

Fig 2. Calculated training loads for the entire sessions using TRIMP and cumulative TRIMP methods, Session-RPE and RPE alone, Work Endurance Recovery (WER) and new WER.

Sessions comprised of warm-up and cool down periods and a 800m performance (800-), or of intervals of 400 or 200m (respectively 400 and 200m) with work: recovery ratios of 1:1, 2:1 and 1:2. In this figure, results with different manuscript letters (a, b, c, d, e) are significantly different from each other (p<0.05; one way-Anova and Tukey test) and those with the same letter are not. Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Fig 3. Calculated training loads for 800m accumulated in the sessions using TRIMP and cumulative TRIMP methods, Session-RPE and RPE alone, Work Endurance Recovery (WER) and new WER.

Sessions comprised of a warm-up and a cool down periods and a 800-m performance (800-), or of intervals of 400 or 200 meters (respectively 400 and 200-) with work: recovery ratios of 1:1, 2:1 and 1:2. Results with different manuscript letters (a, b, c, d, e) are significantly different from each other (p<0.05; one way-Anova and Tukey test) and those with the same letter are not. Data are presented as mean ± SD.