Background: Lack of a "gold-standard" for measuring training load (TL) makes it challenging for coaches and athletes to avoid over- or under-reaching during endurance training. Purpose: To describe physical and perceptual exertional demands of high intensity training (HIT) and explain variance in quantification of TL with use of Banister`s training impulse (BanTRIMP), session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and individualized training impulse (iTRIMP). Method: During 12 weeks, 12 well-trained male cyclists (VO2peak 60 ± 3 ml · kg-1 · min-1) completed 879 individual endurance training sessions including HIT-sessions; 4 x 16 min, 4 x 8 min and 4 x 4 min described at their maximal sustainable intensity (isoeffort). Training characteristics, in addition to TL were quantified into categories based on the principle of session goal (SG) 1-5 (HR zone 1-5). Results: sRPE-score was practically identical for HIT in the range of SG3-5-sessions (4 x 16 to 4 x 4 min) respectively 6,8 ± 1,3 to 7,1 ± 1,4 , consistent with the isoeffort prescription. Compared to the other TL-methods quantified; BanTRIMP significant higher contribution of total TL from SG1- and 2-sessions and significant lower from SG5-sessions; iTRIMP significant higher from SG3-sessions and sRPE significant higher from SG5-sessions. Conclusion: In well-trained cyclists completing an isoeffort prescription: 1) the perceived cost (sRPE) of training = LT2 is practically identical over a 4-fold range of accumulated duration. Appropriate use of TL for the specific cohort and type of training cannot be neglected. Despite its simplicity, sRPE-based-TL appears highly consistent with the training prescription
© Copyright 2015 Alle Rechte vorbehalten.