The Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes (RESTQ-Sport) questionnaire was implemented after every week of the study period. Internal training load was calculated using session RPE (sRPE) to categorize training load by effort (i.e., sRPE1, sRPE2, and sRPE3). All individual training sessions were analyzed to quantify training intensity distribution based on the HR time-in-zone method (i.e., HR Z1, HR Z2, and HR Z3) determined by the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1/VT2).
kg ⁻¹ ) were collected during a 4-week volume increased training period. Methods: Training data from 19 high-level rowers (age 23.5 ± 5.9 years maximal oxygen uptake 58.9 ± 5.8 ml Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the interaction of training load quantification using heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-based methodology, and the relationship between internal training load parameters and subjective training status ( Fatigue ) in high-level rowers during volume increased low-intensity training period. In addition to general "overall internal load" parameters of the training session, previous studies have also used rating of perceived exertion (RPE) as effort-based quantification to distinguish between easy or hard training sessions based on RPE value using the same VT1/VT2 anchor points as for Lucia TRIMP (Seiler and Kjerland, 2006 Wallace et al., 2009). The sRPE method is a simple and valid method (Foster, 1998 Foster et al., 2001), and has already been applied in different endurance sports (Foster et al., 2001 Wallace et al., 2014 Roos et al., 2018 Sanders et al., 2018) including rowing (Tran et al., 2015) and has shown high reliability with different objective HRbased methods (Seiler and Kjerland, 2006 Rodríguez-Marroyo et al., 2012 Lupo et al., 2014 García-Ramos et al., 2015). An additional practical method to measure internal load is the use of the training session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), which reflects the subjective response of an individual to training load (Foster et al., 2001), taking into account both the duration and intensity components. The suggestions we present in this review are based on imploring practitioners to consider a multi-modal approach and the implications of monitoring when using RPE. There was a moderate to high association between coach RIE and/or ROE and athlete-reported RPE and this association seems to be influenced by many factors. The pooled correlation from 7 studies of player vs. 
A random effect meta-analysis based on 11 studies demonstrated a positive association of player vs. Inclusion criteria were (1) male and/or female individuals, (2) individual and/or team sport active participants, and (3) original research article published in the English language.ĭata from 19 articles were found to meet the eligibility criteria. Assessment for risk of bias was undertaken using the Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. We assessed the correlation between coach-reported RIE and/or ROE and RPE. We conducted a search of Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases.
The review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the relationship between coaches’ rating of intended exertion (RIE) and/or rating of observed exertion (ROE) and athletes’ reported rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Identifying the relationship between the athlete and coach’s interpretation of training would likely further benefit understanding load management. Typically, the information is used to understand the training load and at times modify forthcoming sessions. Subjective monitoring of rate of perceived exertion is common practice in many sports.
0 kommentar(er)
