Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse
Despite its increase in popularity, little is known about how to best quantify internal training loads from functional fitness training (FFT) sessions. The purpose of this study was to assess which method [training impulse (TRIMP) or session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE)] is more accurate to m...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020-08-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Physiology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2020.00919/full |
| _version_ | 1818302713957449728 |
|---|---|
| author | Joao Henrique Falk Neto Ramires Alsamir Tibana Ramires Alsamir Tibana Nuno Manuel Frade de Sousa Jonato Prestes Fabricio Azevedo Voltarelli Michael D. Kennedy |
| author_facet | Joao Henrique Falk Neto Ramires Alsamir Tibana Ramires Alsamir Tibana Nuno Manuel Frade de Sousa Jonato Prestes Fabricio Azevedo Voltarelli Michael D. Kennedy |
| author_sort | Joao Henrique Falk Neto |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Despite its increase in popularity, little is known about how to best quantify internal training loads from functional fitness training (FFT) sessions. The purpose of this study was to assess which method [training impulse (TRIMP) or session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE)] is more accurate to monitor training loads in FFT. Eight trained males (age 28.1 ± 6.0 years) performed an ALL-OUT FFT session and an intensity-controlled session (RPE of six out of 10). Internal load was determined via Edward’s TRIMP (eTRIMP), Bannister’s TRIMP (bTRIMP), and sRPE. Heart rate was measured continuously during the session, while blood lactate and rate of perceived exertion were measured at baseline, and immediately and 30 min after the sessions. ALL-OUT blood lactate and RPE were significantly higher immediately and 30 min after the session compared to the RPE6 condition. ALL-OUT training load was significantly different between conditions using bTRIMP (61.1 ± 10.6 vs. 55.7 ± 12.4 AU) and sRPE (91.7 ± 30.4 vs. 42.6 ± 14.9 AU), with sRPE being more sensitive to such differences [p = 0.045, effect size (ES) = 0.76 and p = 0.002, ES = 1.82, respectively]. No differences in the training loads of the different sessions were found using eTRIMP (93.1 ± 9.5 vs. 84.9 ± 13.7 AU, p = 0.085). Only sRPE showed a significant correlation with lactate 30 min post session (p = 0.015; p = 0.596, large). sRPE was more accurate than both TRIMP methods to represent the overall training load of the FFT sessions. While the use of sRPE is advised, further research is necessary to establish its ability to reflect changes in fitness, fatigue, and performance during a period of training. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T05:43:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9d485f58844a453992dbf084cd08212f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-042X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T05:43:17Z |
| publishDate | 2020-08-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Physiology |
| spelling | doaj.art-9d485f58844a453992dbf084cd08212f2022-12-21T23:57:44ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Physiology1664-042X2020-08-011110.3389/fphys.2020.00919542795Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training ImpulseJoao Henrique Falk Neto0Ramires Alsamir Tibana1Ramires Alsamir Tibana2Nuno Manuel Frade de Sousa3Jonato Prestes4Fabricio Azevedo Voltarelli5Michael D. Kennedy6Athlete Health Lab, Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CanadaGraduate Program on Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, BrazilGraduate Program in Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFTM), Cuiabá, BrazilLaboratory of Exercise Physiology, Faculty Estacio of Vitoria, Vitoria, BrazilGraduate Program on Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, BrazilGraduate Program in Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFTM), Cuiabá, BrazilAthlete Health Lab, Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CanadaDespite its increase in popularity, little is known about how to best quantify internal training loads from functional fitness training (FFT) sessions. The purpose of this study was to assess which method [training impulse (TRIMP) or session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE)] is more accurate to monitor training loads in FFT. Eight trained males (age 28.1 ± 6.0 years) performed an ALL-OUT FFT session and an intensity-controlled session (RPE of six out of 10). Internal load was determined via Edward’s TRIMP (eTRIMP), Bannister’s TRIMP (bTRIMP), and sRPE. Heart rate was measured continuously during the session, while blood lactate and rate of perceived exertion were measured at baseline, and immediately and 30 min after the sessions. ALL-OUT blood lactate and RPE were significantly higher immediately and 30 min after the session compared to the RPE6 condition. ALL-OUT training load was significantly different between conditions using bTRIMP (61.1 ± 10.6 vs. 55.7 ± 12.4 AU) and sRPE (91.7 ± 30.4 vs. 42.6 ± 14.9 AU), with sRPE being more sensitive to such differences [p = 0.045, effect size (ES) = 0.76 and p = 0.002, ES = 1.82, respectively]. No differences in the training loads of the different sessions were found using eTRIMP (93.1 ± 9.5 vs. 84.9 ± 13.7 AU, p = 0.085). Only sRPE showed a significant correlation with lactate 30 min post session (p = 0.015; p = 0.596, large). sRPE was more accurate than both TRIMP methods to represent the overall training load of the FFT sessions. While the use of sRPE is advised, further research is necessary to establish its ability to reflect changes in fitness, fatigue, and performance during a period of training.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2020.00919/fullresistance exerciseexercise trainingfunctional performanceinternal training loadhigh-intensity functional training |
| spellingShingle | Joao Henrique Falk Neto Ramires Alsamir Tibana Ramires Alsamir Tibana Nuno Manuel Frade de Sousa Jonato Prestes Fabricio Azevedo Voltarelli Michael D. Kennedy Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse Frontiers in Physiology resistance exercise exercise training functional performance internal training load high-intensity functional training |
| title | Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse |
| title_full | Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse |
| title_fullStr | Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse |
| title_full_unstemmed | Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse |
| title_short | Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Is a Superior Method to Monitor Internal Training Loads of Functional Fitness Training Sessions Performed at Different Intensities When Compared to Training Impulse |
| title_sort | session rating of perceived exertion is a superior method to monitor internal training loads of functional fitness training sessions performed at different intensities when compared to training impulse |
| topic | resistance exercise exercise training functional performance internal training load high-intensity functional training |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2020.00919/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joaohenriquefalkneto sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse AT ramiresalsamirtibana sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse AT ramiresalsamirtibana sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse AT nunomanuelfradedesousa sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse AT jonatoprestes sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse AT fabricioazevedovoltarelli sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse AT michaeldkennedy sessionratingofperceivedexertionisasuperiormethodtomonitorinternaltrainingloadsoffunctionalfitnesstrainingsessionsperformedatdifferentintensitieswhencomparedtotrainingimpulse |