Training Mode’s Influence on the Relationships between Training-Load Models During Basketball Conditioning

in International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $112.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $149.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $213.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $284.00


To compare perceptual and physiological training-load responses during various basketball training modes.


Eight semiprofessional male basketball players (age 26.3 ± 6.7 y, height 188.1 ± 6.2 cm, body mass 92.0 ± 13.8 kg) were monitored across a 10-wk period in the preparatory phase of their training plan. Player session ratings of perceived exertion (sRPE) and heart-rate (HR) responses were gathered across base, specific, and tactical/game-play training modes. Pearson correlations were used to determine the relationships between the sRPE model and 2 HR-based models: the training impulse (TRIMP) and summated HR zones (SHRZ). One-way ANOVAs were used to compare training loads between training modes for each model.


Stronger relationships between perceptual and physiological models were evident during base (sRPE-TRIMP r = .53, P < .05; sRPE-SHRZ r = .75, P < .05) and tactical/game-play conditioning (sRPE-TRIMP r = .60, P < .05; sRPE-SHRZ r = .63; P < .05) than during specific conditioning (sRPE-TRIMP r = .38, P < .05; sRPE-SHRZ r = .52; P < .05). Furthermore, the sRPE model detected greater increases (126–429 AU) in training load than the TRIMP (15–65 AU) and SHRZ models (27–170 AU) transitioning between training modes.


While the training-load models were significantly correlated during each training mode, weaker relationships were observed during specific conditioning. Comparisons suggest that the HR-based models were less effective in detecting periodized increases in training load, particularly during court-based, intermittent, multidirectional drills. The practical benefits and sensitivity of the sRPE model support its use across different basketball training modes.

Scanlan, Tucker, Borges, and Dalbo are with the School of Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia. Wen is with the Sport Science Research Dept, Australian Basketball College, Melbourne, Australia. Address author correspondence to Aaron Scanlan at