IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Training load quantification of high intensity exercises: Discrepancies between original and alternative methods

Author

Listed:
  • François-Denis Desgorces
  • Jean-Christophe Hourcade
  • Romain Dubois
  • Jean-François Toussaint
  • Philippe Noirez

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to quantify training loads (TL) of high intensity sessions through original methods (TRIMP; session-RPE; Work-Endurance-Recovery) and their updated alternatives (TRIMPcumulative; RPEalone; New-WER). Ten endurance athletes were requested to perform five sessions until exhaustion. Session 1 composed by a 800m maximal performance and four intermittent sessions performed at the 800m velocity, three sessions with 400m of interval length and work:recovery ratios of 2:1, 1:1 and 1:2 and one with 200m intervals and 1:1. Total TL were quantified from the sessions’ beginning to the cool-down period and an intermediate TL (TL800) was calculated when 800m running was accumulated within the sessions. At the end of the sessions high and similar RPE were reported (effect size, η2 = 0.12), while, at the intermediate 800m distance, the higher interval distances and work:recovery ratios the higher the RPE (η2 = 0.88). Our results show marked differences in sessions’ total TL between original (e.g., lowest TL for the 800m and highest for the 200m-1:1 sessions) and alternative methods (RPEalone and New-WER; similar TL for each session). Differences appear in TL800 notably between TRIMP and other methods which are negatively correlated. All TL report light to moderate correlations between original methods and their alternatives, original methods are strongly correlated together, as observed for alternative methods. Differences in TL quantification between original and alternative methods underline that they are not interchangeable. Because of high exercise volume influence, original methods markedly enhance TL of sessions with higher exercise volumes although these presented the easiest interval distances and work-recovery ratios. Alternative methods based on exhaustion level (New-WER) and exertion (RPEalone) provided a new and promising point of view of TL quantification where exhaustion determines the highest TL whatever the exercise. This remains to be tested with more extended populations submitted to wider ranges of exercises.

Suggested Citation

  • François-Denis Desgorces & Jean-Christophe Hourcade & Romain Dubois & Jean-François Toussaint & Philippe Noirez, 2020. "Training load quantification of high intensity exercises: Discrepancies between original and alternative methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tom Normand-Gravier & Florian Britto & Thierry Launay & Andrew Renfree & Jean-François Toussaint & François-Denis Desgorces, 2022. "Exercise Dose Equalization in High-Intensity Interval Training: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-10, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.