Micah C Garcia1, Brett S Pexa2, Kevin R Ford3, Mitchell J Rauh4, David M Bazett-Jones1. 1. † College of Health and Human Services, Motion Analysis and Integrative Neurophysiology Lab, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, Email: micah.garcia@rockets.utoledo.edu, david.bazettjones@utoledo.edu, Twitter: @run_mcg, @DrBazettJones. 2. ‡ Cogdon School of Health Sciences, Department of Athletic Training, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, Email: bpexa@highpoint.edu, Twitter: brexa17. 3. § Cogdon School of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, Email: kford@highpoint.edu, Twitter: @ford_kr. 4. ‖ Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, Email: mrauh@sdsu.edu.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Running programs traditionally monitor external loads (e.g., time, distance). There has been a recent movement to encompass a more comprehensive approach to also monitor training loads that account for internal loads (e.g., intensity, measured as session rating of perceived exertion [sRPE]). The combination of an external and internal load accounts for the potential interaction between these loads. While differences in weekly change in training loads have been reported between external loads and the combination of an external and internal load during 2- and 4-week training cycles, there are no reports whether these differences are apparent during an entire cross-country season in high school runners. OBJECTIVE: To compare change in training loads, as measured by external loads and combinations of an external and internal load, in high school runners during an interscholastic cross-country season. DESIGN: Case-series. SETTING: Community-based with daily online surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four high school cross-country runners (female=14, male=10, age=15.9±1.1 years, running experience=9.9±3.2 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Week-to-week percent change in training load when measured by external loads (time, distance) and the combination of an external and internal load (timeRPE, distanceRPE). RESULTS: Overall, the average weekly change was 7.1% greater for distanceRPE compared to distance (p=.04, d=0.18). When decreasing weekly running duration, the average weekly change was 5.2% greater for distanceRPE compared to timeRPE (p=.03, d=0.24). When maintaining or increasing weekly running duration, the average weekly change was 10-15% greater when an external load was combined with an internal load compared to external loads alone, but these differences were non- significant (p=.11-.22, d=0.19-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that progression in training load may be underestimated when relying solely on external loads. The interaction between internal loads (sRPE) and external loads (distance or time) appears to provide a different measure of training stresses experienced by runners than external loads alone.
CONTEXT: Running programs traditionally monitor external loads (e.g., time, distance). There has been a recent movement to encompass a more comprehensive approach to also monitor training loads that account for internal loads (e.g., intensity, measured as session rating of perceived exertion [sRPE]). The combination of an external and internal load accounts for the potential interaction between these loads. While differences in weekly change in training loads have been reported between external loads and the combination of an external and internal load during 2- and 4-week training cycles, there are no reports whether these differences are apparent during an entire cross-country season in high school runners. OBJECTIVE: To compare change in training loads, as measured by external loads and combinations of an external and internal load, in high school runners during an interscholastic cross-country season. DESIGN: Case-series. SETTING: Community-based with daily online surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four high school cross-country runners (female=14, male=10, age=15.9±1.1 years, running experience=9.9±3.2 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Week-to-week percent change in training load when measured by external loads (time, distance) and the combination of an external and internal load (timeRPE, distanceRPE). RESULTS: Overall, the average weekly change was 7.1% greater for distanceRPE compared to distance (p=.04, d=0.18). When decreasing weekly running duration, the average weekly change was 5.2% greater for distanceRPE compared to timeRPE (p=.03, d=0.24). When maintaining or increasing weekly running duration, the average weekly change was 10-15% greater when an external load was combined with an internal load compared to external loads alone, but these differences were non- significant (p=.11-.22, d=0.19-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that progression in training load may be underestimated when relying solely on external loads. The interaction between internal loads (sRPE) and external loads (distance or time) appears to provide a different measure of training stresses experienced by runners than external loads alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
adolescent athlete; rating of perceived exertion; running; training monitoring; workload
Authors: M L Bertelsen; A Hulme; J Petersen; R K Brund; H Sørensen; C F Finch; E T Parner; R O Nielsen Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: José L Dantas; Christian Doria; Huber Rossi; Gabriele Rosa; Tiziana Pietrangelo; Giorgio Fanò-Illic; Fábio Y Nakamura Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Torbjørn Soligard; Martin Schwellnus; Juan-Manuel Alonso; Roald Bahr; Ben Clarsen; H Paul Dijkstra; Tim Gabbett; Michael Gleeson; Martin Hägglund; Mark R Hutchinson; Christa Janse van Rensburg; Karim M Khan; Romain Meeusen; John W Orchard; Babette M Pluim; Martin Raftery; Richard Budgett; Lars Engebretsen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Max R Paquette; Christopher Napier; Richard W Willy; Trent Stellingwerff Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.751