I don’t see why not. According to Borg himself, “the subject should not feel constrained in the sense of being forced to use something that is not perceived as natural. The scale should thus not be an arbitrary one, but a scale that encompasses a preferred range and numbers that most people find easy to use in a natural way.”
Moving to a five-point scale might look something like this…
RatingDescriptor
0 = Rest
1 = Very, Very Easy
2 = Easy = 1
3 = Moderate = 2
4 = Somewhat Hard
5 = Hard = 3
6 = -
7 = Very Hard = 4
8 = -
9 = -
10 = Maximal = 5
While the absolute numbers would change when calculating the weekly loads (Duration x RPE), the ratios (i.e. Training Monotony) would not. My only concern in modifying the existing CR-10 scale relates to what Nikoluski just mentioned in that it wouldn’t account for the exponential (non-linear) increase in perceived effort as workload gets higher.
I agree with your 5 point scale. I think it’s a lot more user-friendly. It still gets a bit tricky when the fatigue/workout cost is delayed, as is often the case with shorter sprints. For Special End the scale works well.
Ergonomics “research” has shown that if you use too wide a range of numbers people can’t decide how to clasify things. 5 points usually comes out most favourably! If you use 10 points, at least 5 of them are redundant!
Here are some notes from the aforementioned studies that I did not include in the original post…
[ul]The results indicated that performing 15 repetitions of a lighter resistance was perceived to be less difficult than performing 10 and 5 repetitions of heavier intensities.
Performing 15 repetitions at 50% 1RM is actually more total work than performing 70% 1RM for 10 repetitions or 90% 1RM for 4 or 5 repetitions. The low-intensity protocol produced the lowest RPE, despite that this intensity required the most total anaerobic exercise capacity to be performed.[/ul]
[ul]RPE may be a more reliable measure of exercise intensity when both anaerobic and aerobic systems are appreciably activated.[/ul]
[ul]RPE has been reported to increase during a standardized exercise test when athletes are in an increased fatigue state. Furthermore, during overreaching, RPE for a given HR was reported to increase, suggesting that RPE could be more sensitive to accumulated fatigue than HR.[/ul]
[ul]Exercises that require a range of motion using multiple joints such as leg press, bench press, shoulder press, and lateral pulldown may increase RPE.[/ul]
[ul]Increases in motor unit recruitment and frequency of firing during heavy lifting may have a large influence on RPE.[/ul]
Very informative posts here. Tnx AggieLax.
I was searching for something to replace HR monitoring (wich is measurement of internal state wich have no good relation to overall system behavior, see post http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?p=102370#post102370) and I found out that the best method is, again, combination of monitoring internal states (HR, VO2, RER etc), RPE and subjective/objective performance wich is the output.
AggieLax, I tottaly agree with your post but have some questions.
Load is not just a intensity x volume. There is also a quality and duration of rest and the type of training exefcise (whole body, less than 2/3, 1/3). How do you incorporate theese into calculation?
I found doing 10-15 RM more demanding (higher RPE) than doing 1-5RM. Again does RPE stand for rate of percieved effort or exhaustion?
I found measuring morning HR and recovery HR very usefull, but I dont understand a mechanism of lovering recovery HR at same %VO2max as a consequence of adaptation. Maybe Nikoluski could answer. I could think of increasing anaerobic treshold and as a consequence lovering LA accumulation, increasing efficacy of heart control mechanisms , heat control mechanism etc… Nikoluski?
Some ideas that crosses my mind…
According to my profesor Vladimir Koprivica, training load is a combination of:
Intensity
Volume
Quality and duration of rest
Type of exercise (whole-body, part etc.)
So this form a basis of calculating training load of one set of one exercise.
Intensity = RPE
Volume = time duration (or weight lifted??)
Rest = RQ (rest quality, another scaled that should be introduced ) x rest duration (secs)
Type of exerice = 0…1 continuum (1 = whole body)
Set load = (Intenisty x Volume) / (RQ x rest duration) x Type of exercise
This forms a set load, and the load for one exercise is the sum of set load
Exercise load = set load1 + set load2 + … + set loadN
But the problem is how to calculate training load? On my opinion, into training load comes only main part of training so we need to exclude warm-up and warm-down.We must come into considerartion that load can also be specific and non-specific. on the other hand the goals of loads are different (adaptation specificity) so then load is vector quantity and we cannot jus sum them arithmeticaly but rather geometricaly (using vectors or complex numbers)…
I know that I introduce more complexity in already complex issue, but do you thing that we can just easy sum a sprint load and weight load. Dont mix apples and oranges…
So this make variety and strain calculation more copmlex (and realistic)…
Hope I helped… but I doubt
Re Question two: How soon after the workout do you perceive the effort?
On the last point:I think we’re only talking about recovery to the existing baseline heart rate, not long-term change.
They already are. Training intensity, volume, and density are inherent to this subjective measure. RPE simply describes the overall sensation of the sessions difficulty. Whole body, free-weight training with short rest periods, for example, would yield a higher RPE than split training performed on machines with long rest periods. Therefore, the training load would be higher (given the same duration).
I can see where that would be the case. In looking back at the studies I noticed that the subjects were performing 15 repetitions with 50% 1RM. For most trainees, 15 repetitions would be performed with weights closer to 65% 1RM which could raise RPE significantly.
Mbladen,
if I understand your question correctly, I think you are right in mentioning the lack of such a mechanism after adaptation between these two. HR and VO2 have a parallel and linear (vs. load) relationship, which exists in the same format at any stage, same inter-relationship (e.g., 80% VO2max will “always” correspond to 88% HRmax). Absolute values will change, of course, but not their relationship.
According to the “guidelines” of such methods, the score should be recorded fairly soon after completion of the workout (e.g., 1 hour). In duxx’s example though a “hard” scoring after 15 reps will give an “easy” scoring the next day with the situation being reversed for, say, 5 reps -as would happen with tempo and sprints, I suppose.
Therefore, for such practices to have some merit IMO, they should be followed long enough and regarded as supplementary and not absolute guides.
Thoughts?
I suppose this is a rhetorical question of yours…
I can’t really see a point in tracking down the recovery HR after a sprint session (note: recovery meaning immediately after a session). The amounts and information are irrelevant to intensity.
There might be a rationale in the morning HR, as you’d normally use it, but as you say/imply perhaps and along with scoring, this will produce confusing results, if it’s not taken into account carefully! If I remember correctly, TC has some data on the HR of a female sprinter during normal sessions and close to a competition, where morning HR was elevated without necessarily any additional/negative stress from training but rather from anxiety -just an example here. TC, let us know!
Recovery (immediate) HR can be more useful after tempo sessions, but if you start adding other elements, as it’s usually the case (e.g., medicine ball work, etc), I am not sure about its reliability.
The only long term value of tracking HR -under any of these conditions- is with endurance athletes, as the developing bradychardia can shift things towards lower values; I’ve seen quite a strong correlation vs. years of training and independently of age -not statistical analysis, just observations. But as you say, tracking “recovery” HR vs. CURRENT baseline will always be more important; longitudinal observations are more like history lessons…
The case would not necassarily be the same with power athletes, but this should not result in the reverse conclusions vs. endurance athletes; it’s rather irrelevant most of the times…
And for the latter case, this is where systems like the Omegawave come handy!
Yes and no… If you do tempo for, lets say, 3xweek for about 3 months, and measure recovery HR after one set (lets say 4x100m with 50m walk) imidiately and after 1 and 2 mins you will se that your HR values are less than when you first time did tempo. This is because more eficiency of movement (less energy needs), increased anaerobic threshold and less bLA acumulated, larger stroke volume, etc… This is good for tracking improvements in aerobic power. This mechanism I understand and could be used in training practice (but not for comparing two different athletes)
The thing I dont understand is the mechanism of this same phenomenon (lower recovery HR) but not to standard load (tempo) but on same % of VO2max… When you did tempo, you improved your VO2max, so you did it at lower, and lower % of it, so this explains lower recovery HRs… I dont know if you get it Nikoluski? But thanks …
