Purpose: The session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is a well-accepted method of monitoring training load in athletes in many different sports. It is based on the category-ratio (0–10) RPE scale (BORG-CR10) developed by Borg. There is no evidence how substitution of the Borg 6–20 RPE scale (BORG-RPE) might influence the sRPE in athletes. Methods: Systematically training, recreational-level athletes from a number of sport disciplines performed 6 randomly ordered, 30-min interval-training sessions, at intensities based on peak power output (PPO) and designed to be easy (50% PPO), moderate (75% PPO), or hard (85% PPO). Ratings of sRPE were obtained 30 min postexercise using either the BORG-CR10 or BORG-RPE and compared for matched exercise conditions. Results: The average percentage of heart-rate reserve was well correlated with sRPE from both BORG-CR10 (r = .76) and BORG-RPE (r = .69). The sRPE ratings from BORG-CR10 and BORG-RPE were very strongly correlated (r = .90) at matched times. Conclusions: Although producing different absolute numbers, sRPE derived from either the BORG-CR10 or BORG-RPE provides essentially interchangeable estimates of perceived exercise training intensity.
Arney, Glover, de Koning, Jaime, Mikat, Porcari, and Foster are with the Dept of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse, La Crosse, WI. Fusco and Cortis are with the Dept of Human Sciences, Society and Health, University of Cassino and Lazio Meridionale, Cassino, Italy. Fusco is also with the Dept of Sport Science & Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. de Koning, van Erp, and Foster are with the Dept of Human Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
FosterCRodriguez-MarroyoJAde KoningJJ. Monitoring training loads: the past, the present, and the future. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(suppl 2):S22–S28. PubMed ID: 28253038 doi:10.1123/IJSPP.2016-0388
FosterC, Rodriguez-MarroyoJA, de KoningJJ. Monitoring training loads: the past, the present, and the future. . 2017;12(suppl 2):S22–S28. PubMed ID: 28253038 doi:10.1123/IJSPP.2016-038810.1123/IJSPP.2016-0388)| false
BorresenJ, LambertMI. The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance. . 2009;39(9):779–795. PubMed ID: 19691366 doi:10.2165/11317780-000000000-000001969136610.2165/11317780-000000000-00000)| false
FosterCHectorLLWelshRSchragerMGreenMASnyderAC. Effects of specific versus cross-training on running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(4):367–372. PubMed ID: 7649149 doi:10.1007/BF00865035
ImpellizzeriFM, RampiuusE, CouttsAJ, SassiP, MarcoraSM. Use of the RPE-based training load in soccer. . 2004;36:1042–1047. PubMed ID: 15179175 doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000128199.23901.2F1517917510.1249/01.MSS.0000128199.23901.2F)| false
MenaspaMJMenaspaPClarkSAFanchiniM. Variability of the online athlete management system to assess training load. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13:750–754. PubMed ID: 29091465 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0379
MenaspaMJ, MenaspaP, ClarkSA, FanchiniM. Variability of the online athlete management system to assess training load. . 2018;13:750–754. PubMed ID: 29091465 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-037910.1123/ijspp.2017-0379)| false
van ErpTFosterCde KoningJJ. Relationship between various training-load measures in elite cyclists during training, road races, and time trials. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(4):493–500. PubMed ID: 30300025 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0722
van ErpT, FosterC, de KoningJJ. Relationship between various training-load measures in elite cyclists during training, road races, and time trials. . 2019;14(4):493–500. PubMed ID: 30300025 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-072210.1123/ijspp.2017-0722)| false