For those with access, thoughts?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2014.969296#.VGBJE_mUeSo
.
For those with access, thoughts?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2014.969296#.VGBJE_mUeSo
Andy Coggan has created some charts based on the data…
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.892926167396349.1073741829.378267952195509&type=3
Just read through lunch break. I believe for those who conducted the study the data could be tremendously interessting, however I found the paper a bit disappointing.
From the discussion section - PO refers to Power Output, TL to Training Load:
The main finding of this study was that increases in the TL, monotony and strain from the junior category to the world-class level were significantly correlated with improvement in the aerobic potential of the cyclist characterised by an increase in the record POs between 5 min and 4 h.
Train more - gain more.
Programming the TL is very important to enhance the athlete’s performance, and hence the necessity to quantify it. As demonstrated by Rodriguez-Marroyo et al. (2012), the session-RPE method, proposed by Foster et al. (2001) and representative of the combined intensity and duration of training sessions, is a valid method for quantifying and monitoring the TL in cycling.
Maybe true for pro athletes, for others who are not that aware of their body and the intensity of the wrkout I doubt that.
I agree. What’s easy for me, and I think I’m fairly in tune with my output, is that when I feel “good” 80-90% is easy. When I fatigued, 65-70% can feel hard. I can have highs and lows within a long ride and energy levels come and go. My point being that I can have a 30% in output based on just RPE. Can that be utilized to self determine the intensity? Maybe. But there are plenty of times when doing hard sessions on fatigued legs is a good thing. I’m often surprised that the power numbers I generate once I warm-up and get going. I just don’t think you get the precision and lose the ability to compare one workout session vs. another to gauge improvement.
A couple of comments re. Foster’s session RPE method:
-
training load is quantified by multiplying the duration of a session by the athlete’s rating of its difficulty (on 1-10 scale) 30 min after it is over. (The suggestion is to pretend that a significant other asks, “honey, how was your workout?”) The purpose of this delay to encourage the athlete to consider the session in its entirety, rather than focus on just the last portion.
-
while both convenient and valid, other methods have been shown to be a bit more reliable, and hence a better predictor of training-induced improvements in performance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662229
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24104194
That said, I’ve always thought the session RPE method would be good in a team (e.g., soccer) setting, where you could simply have the athletes log their ratings when they return to the locker room after a practice or competition. (In fact, I made this very suggestion to UK Sport back in 2007.) For others (e.g., cyclists), though, more reliable methods are available. (Better still is to track both, as discrepancies between objectively-measured and subjectively-rated training load tells you that something might be amiss.)
A couple of comments re. Foster’s session RPE method:
-
training load is quantified by multiplying the duration of a session by the athlete’s rating of its difficulty (on 1-10 scale) 30 min after it is over. (The suggestion is to pretend that a significant other asks, “honey, how was your workout?”) The purpose of this delay to encourage the athlete to consider the session in its entirety, rather than focus on just the last portion.
-
while both convenient and valid, other methods have been shown to be a bit more reliable, and hence a better predictor of training-induced improvements in performance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662229
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24104194
That said, I’ve always thought the session RPE method would be good in a team (e.g., soccer) setting, where you could simply have the athletes log their ratings when they return to the locker room after a practice or competition. (In fact, I made this very suggestion to UK Sport back in 2007.) For others (e.g., cyclists), though, more reliable methods are available. (Better still is to track both, as discrepancies between objectively-measured and subjectively-rated training load tells you that something might be amiss.)
I was just discussing this in a different thread in a different context: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5325704#5325704
I can’t help but think that session rpe is “close enough” for me, especially as it gets more reliable with practice and can be used with any training or sport and with any one of my bikes.
Besides, I actually like the idea that my training metric reflects subjective issues – measuring how hard I went that day, how fast I was in that weather, how long I went *despite being tired or sore or whatever. *For me, the fact that SRPE isn’t as objective as a powermeter makes it that much more meaningful.
I can’t help but think that session rpe is “close enough” for me, especially as it gets more reliable with practice and can be used with any training or sport and with any one of my bikes.
Besides, I actually like the idea that my training metric reflects subjective issues – measuring how hard I went that day, how fast I was in that weather, how long I went *despite being tired or sore or whatever. *For me, the fact that SRPE isn’t as objective as a powermeter makes it that much more meaningful.
That’s one of the more interesting thoughts I’ve seen on ST in a while, thanks for putting it forward. To build…Can RPE be a better measure than more analytic means? Is it the better measure, as it is all inclusive of watts, calories, conditions, etc? Does it work (even though it’s not as scientific or cool?).
Or the converse…do the more analytic watts, calories, etc necessarily discount some other more important factors that can’t be measured, and must be felt?
Now I’m fascinated. Popular opinion, marketing, and the discourse on ST would tell you that more analytics are better. However, some of these opinions are based in the fact that people are selling something, explicitly or implicitly. I’m also fascinated by the idea that we dive REALLY deep into understanding the physiology of cycling (as one of 3 sports), but swim is more-or-less done by RPE, and to some degree the run is too. I can’t help wanting to think that some of the comfort of analytics (watts) in cycling are selling false precision - if you don’t know what you did on the swim, can the watt measure - without RPE and considering conditions - be valid on the bike?
BTW…I’m open to the discrediting of RPE too…recognize that your body’s signals may not exactly be the best forecast for what kind of condition you’re in (e.g., you feel good until you bonk). But I’m also open to hearing that you may be able to manage these conditions by paying more/better attention to the signals, as the guy I quoted mentioned.
By disclaimer - I used to be technical (Ga. Tech). But I’m a long way from being DOE capable in this world, or figuring out what measures are significant, predictive, anecdotal, or otherwise. I’d love to hear Tom, RChung, et. al. comment on any, or all of this…
Read the two links Coggan provided.
RPE on the swim?! Everything I’ve known is lap clock, lap clock, lap clock. Assuming to a close enough degree that water is water is water (not entirely perfect–different pools/water temperatures/swimmers in neighboring lanes will have an effect), swimming is done in a controlled environment–i.e. where swim velocity can be tied closely to power:drag without confounding variables.
Running, outside of track workouts (or consistent, frequent courses) would tend to fall into more of an RPE feedback loop.
Feel like a bit of a mooch, but could one of you post this for me to read?
If I wasn’t a poor college kid I’d get the membership.
For those with access, thoughts?
Here is a free link to the paper.