-season phase. Figure 1 —NBL and Edwards TRIMP distribution during selected in-season phase. 30-15 IFT indicates 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test; AU, arbitrary units; NBL, new body load; TRIMP, training impulse. Error bars represent the SD. Methodology 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test After habituation, each
Alireza Rabbani, Mehdi Kargarfard, Carlo Castagna, Filipe Manuel Clemente and Craig Twist
Richard J. Taylor, Dajo Sanders, Tony Myers, Grant Abt, Celia A. Taylor and Ibrahim Akubat
dose-response relationships. Previous studies examining the validity of sRPE have observed large associations with HR-based measures 14 and very large associations with internal TL (Banister and Edwards TRIMP; bTRIMP and eTRIMP) and external TL (total distance, distance covered, and time spent at low
Anthony N. Turner, Conor Buttigieg, Geoff Marshall, Angelo Noto, James Phillips and Liam Kilduff
Session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is known to significantly relate to heart-rate (HR) -based methods of quantifying internal training load (TL) in a variety of sports. However, to date this has not been investigated in fencing and was therefore the aim of this study. TL was calculated by multiplying the sRPE with exercise duration and through HR-based methods calculated using Banister and Edwards TRIMP. Seven male elite foil fencers (mean ± SD age 22.3 ± 1.6 y, height 181.3 ± 6.5 cm, body mass 77.7 ± 7.6 kg) were monitored over the period of 1 competitive season. The sRPE and HR of 67 training sessions and 3 competitions (87 poule bouts and 12 knockout rounds) were recorded and analyzed. Correlation analysis was used to determine any relationships between sRPE- and HR-based methods, accounting for individual variation, mode of training (footwork drills vs sparring sessions), and stage of competition (poules vs knockouts). Across 2 footwork sessions, sRPE and Banister and Edwards TRIMP were found to be reliable, with coefficient of variation values of 6.0%, 5.2%, and 4.5%, respectively. Significant correlations with sRPE for individual fencers (r = .84–.98) and across mode of exercise (r = .73–.85) and competition stages (r = .82–.92) were found with HR-based measures. sRPE is a simple and valuable tool coaches can use to quantify TL in fencing.
Dajo Sanders, Grant Abt, Matthijs K.C. Hesselink, Tony Myers and Ibrahim Akubat
To assess the dose-response relationships between different training-load methods and aerobic fitness and performance in competitive road cyclists.
Training data from 15 well-trained competitive cyclists were collected during a 10-wk (December–March) preseason training period. Before and after the training period, participants underwent a laboratory incremental exercise test with gas-exchange and lactate measures and a performance assessment using an 8-min time trial (8MT). Internal training load was calculated using Banister TRIMP, Edwards TRIMP, individualized TRIMP (iTRIMP), Lucia TRIMP (luTRIMP), and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). External load was measured using Training Stress Score (TSS).
Large to very large relationships (r = .54–.81) between training load and changes in submaximal fitness variables (power at 2 and 4 mmol/L) were observed for all training-load calculation methods. The strongest relationships with changes in aerobic fitness variables were observed for iTRIMP (r = .81 [95% CI .51–.93, r = .77 [95% CI .43–.92]) and TSS (r = .75 [95% CI .31–.93], r = .79 [95% CI .40–.94]). The strongest dose-response relationships with changes in the 8MT test were observed for iTRIMP (r = .63 [95% CI .17–.86]) and luTRIMP (r = .70 [95% CI .29–.89).
Training-load quantification methods that integrate individual physiological characteristics have the strongest dose-response relationships, suggesting this to be an essential factor in the quantification of training load in cycling.
Dajo Sanders, Teun van Erp and Jos J. de Koning
: Edwards training impulse (TRIMP), 9 Training Stress Score (TSS), 11 and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). 12 Edwards TRIMP was calculated based on the time spent in the 5 predefined HR zones described above and multiplied by a zone-specific arbitrary weighting factor (zone 1: weighting
Adam Douglas, Michael A. Rotondi, Joseph Baker, Veronica K. Jamnik and Alison K. Macpherson
, in keeping with best practice, IMA data were selected as a count of explosive efforts. The internal load measure used in the analysis was Training impulse (TRIMP) —using Edwards TRIMP, recorded the cardiovascular demand of the session. 22 Edwards TRIMP uses a weighting factor that is multiplied by
Youri Geurkink, Gilles Vandewiele, Maarten Lievens, Filip de Turck, Femke Ongenae, Stijn P.J. Matthys, Jan Boone and Jan G. Bourgois
in each HR zone relative to the total time spent in the 5 HR zones and the Edwards’ training impulse (TRIMP) were also included into the model. Edwards’ TRIMP is expressed as the product of the accumulated training duration in each HR zone, with a coefficient relative to each HR zone (50–60% = 1, 60
Jeroen de Bruijn, Henk van der Worp, Mark Korte, Astrid de Vries, Rick Nijland and Michel Brink
(1) Females : HR max = 216 − 1.09 × Age (2) Subsequently, we calculated the respective heart rate zones prescribed by both TRIMP methods. For Edwards’ TRIMP, we separated participants’ heart rates in 5 zones based on percentages of maximum heart rate, after which we gave each zone its proposed
Mário A.M. Simim, Marco Túlio de Mello, Bruno V.C. Silva, Dayane F. Rodrigues, João Paulo P. Rosa, Bruno Pena Couto and Andressa da Silva
; TRA = training situations; TRIMP = training impulse; TRIMP_ Edw = TRIMP Edwards; TRIMP_ Luc = TRIMP Lucia; TRIMP_ mod = modified TRIMP; TRIMP_ Ban = TRIMP based on exercise duration and HR variability. We aimed to determine monitored loads for training or competition in the following sports