A detailed quantification of differential ratings of perceived exertion during team-sport training

Shaun J McLaren; Andrew Smith; Iain R Spears; Matthew Weston

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2016.06.011

A detailed quantification of differential ratings of perceived exertion during team-sport training

J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Mar;20(3):290-295. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.06.011. Epub 2016 Jul 6.

Authors

Shaun J McLaren¹, Andrew Smith², Iain R Spears³, Matthew Weston³

Affiliations

¹ Sport & Exercise Subject Group, School of Social Sciences, Business and Law, Teesside University, UK. Electronic address: s.mclaren@tees.ac.uk.
² A S Strength and Conditioning Limited, UK; Nottingham Rugby, UK.
³ Sport & Exercise Subject Group, School of Social Sciences, Business and Law, Teesside University, UK.

PMID: 27451269
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.06.011

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the application of differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) to team-sport training.

Design: Single cohort, observational study.

Methods: Twenty-nine professional rugby union players were monitored over a six-week intensified training period. Training sessions were classified as: high-intensity intervals, repeated high-intensity efforts, speed, skill-based conditioning, skills, whole-body resistance, or upper-body resistance. After each session, players recorded a session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE; CR100^®), along with differential session ratings for breathlessness (sRPE-B), leg muscle exertion (sRPE-L), upper-body muscle exertion (sRPE-U), and cognitive/technical demands (sRPE-T). Each score was multiplied by the session duration to calculate session training loads. Data were analysed using mixed linear modelling and multiple linear regression, with magnitude-based inferences subsequently applied.

Results: Between-session differences in dRPE scores ranged from very likely trivial to most likely extremely large and within-session differences amongst dRPE scores ranged from unclear to most likely very large. Differential RPE training loads combined to explain 66-91% of the variance in sRPE training loads, and the strongest associations with sRPE training load were with sRPE-L for high-intensity intervals (r=0.67; 90% confidence limits ±0.22), sRPE-B for repeated high-intensity efforts (0.89; ±0.08) and skill-based conditioning (0.67; ±0.19), sRPE-T for Speed (0.63; ±0.17) and Skills (0.51; ±0.28), and sRPE-U for resistance training (whole-body: 0.61; ±0.21, upper-body: 0.92; ±0.07).

Conclusions: Differential RPE can provide a detailed quantification of internal load during training activities commonplace in team sports. Knowledge of the relationships between dRPE and sRPE can isolate the specific perceptual demands of different training modes.

Keywords: Internal load; RPE; Rugby; Training demands; Training monitoring; Training prescription.

Publication types

Observational Study

MeSH terms

Adult
Cohort Studies
Football / physiology*
Humans
Linear Models
Male
Physical Exertion*
Young Adult