Search Results

Purpose: Session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is an often-used measure to assess athletes’ training load (TL). However, little is known about which factors could optimize the quality of data collection thereof. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the survey methods and the time points when sRPE was assessed on the correlation between subjective (sRPE) and objective (heart-rate training impulse; TRIMP) assessment of TL. Methods: In the first part of the study, 45 well-trained subjects (30 men and 15 women) performed 20 running sessions with a heart-rate monitor and reported sRPE 30 min after training cessation. For the reporting, the subjects were grouped into 3 groups (paper–pencil, online questionnaire, and mobile device). In the second part of the study, another 40 athletes (28 men and 12 women) performed 4 × 5 running sessions with the 4 time points to report the sRPE randomly assigned (directly after training cessation, 30 min postexercise, in the evening of the same day, and the next morning directly after waking up). Results: The assessment of sRPE is influenced by time point, survey method, TRIMP, sex, and training type. It is recommended to assess sRPE values via a mobile device or online tool, as the paper survey method displayed lower correlations between sRPE and TRIMP. Conclusions: Subjective TL measures are highly individual. When compared with the same relative intensity, lower sRPE values were reported by women for the training types representing slow runs and for time points with greater duration between training cessation and sRPE assessment. The assessment method for sRPE should be kept constant for each athlete, and comparisons between athletes or sexes are not recommended.

Context: Successful elite sprint to long-distance runners are known to have shorter ground-contact time (GCT) than their less successful counterparts. Purpose: To investigate whether augmented feedback (aF) about GCT can reduce the time on ground (TOG) per minute in long-distance runners and, if so, whether this reduction improves running performance. Methods: Thirty well-trained runners were allocated to 3 groups. The intervention group (IG) received visual aF about their GCT during 8 high-intensity interval sessions in the 4-wk training period and were instructed to minimize GCT. The 1st control group (CG1) trained with the IG but was not given any feedback. The 2nd control group (CG2) followed their own training routine. Data were obtained pre- and postintervention for all 3 groups. The dependent variable was TOG per minute, computed from step frequency and GCT. Results: The IG significantly reduced TOG (P = .043, −1.7%, 90%CL −3.1;−0.3) and improved their mean 10 × 400-m performance time (P < .001, −1.5%, 90%CL −1.9;−1.1). In contrast, the 2 control groups revealed unchanged values, indicating that normal high-intensity training and an individualized routine without aF were not able to reduce TOG. The fact that CG1 received the same instructions and participated in the same training sessions as the IG underlined that aF was crucial to reduce TOG. Conclusions: The provision of aF about GCT seems to be a promising approach that should be considered during training practice of well-trained runners.