Institut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Épidemiologie du Sport, Institut National du Sport de l'Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.
Université de Paris, Équipe d'accueil, Paris, France.
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 3;15(8):e0237027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237027. eCollection 2020.
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.
本研究旨在通过原始方法（TRIMP；会话-RPE；工作耐力-恢复）及其更新的替代方法（TRIMPcumulative；RPEalone；New-WER）来量化高强度训练的负荷（TL）。要求十名耐力运动员进行五次直到力竭的训练。第一个训练组由 800 米最大性能组成，四个间歇性训练组在 800 米速度下进行，三个训练组的间歇长度为 400 米，工作与恢复的比值为 2:1、1:1 和 1:2，一个训练组的间歇长度为 200 米，工作与恢复的比值为 1:1。从会话开始到冷却期，总 TL 被量化，当 800 米跑步在会话中积累时，计算中间 TL（TL800）。在会话结束时，报告了较高和相似的 RPE（效应量，η2 = 0.12），而在中间 800 米距离，间隔距离越高和工作与恢复的比值越高，RPE 越高（η2 = 0.88）。我们的结果显示，在原始方法（例如，800 米的最低 TL 和 200 米-1:1 会话的最高 TL）和替代方法（RPEalone 和 New-WER）之间，会话的总 TL 存在明显差异。TRIMP 和其他方法之间的 TL800 差异明显，且呈负相关。所有 TL 报告原始方法与其替代方法之间存在轻度至中度相关性，原始方法之间存在强烈相关性，与替代方法观察到的结果相似。原始方法和替代方法在 TL 量化方面的差异表明它们不可互换。由于运动量大的影响，原始方法显著提高了具有较高运动量大的训练的 TL，尽管这些训练具有最简单的间歇距离和工作与恢复的比值。基于疲劳水平（New-WER）和努力（RPEalone）的替代方法提供了一种新的、有前途的 TL 量化观点，即无论运动如何，疲劳决定了最高 TL。这有待于用更广泛的运动范围对更多的扩展人群进行测试。
