Article at my blog
Well done, as always, Duxx:cool:
One comment Duxx: Foster’s session RPE while interesting is a bit flawed as it assumes a linear relationship as training intensity goes up and this is probably incorrect. A very short session at a true maximal RPE might be massively more fatiguing both acutely and in the long-term than a much longer session at a lower RPE.
PUt differently, 60 minutes at RPE 1 (60 points) may be far less problematic than 6 minutes at RPE 5 (think 6X400m almost all out) with only a total score of 30.
IN the Power Meter community (I know you have Dr. Coggan’s book), this is why he weights training stress score exponentially. As you crest a certain intensity, the physiological stress changes much faster than a linear RPE system (or TRIMP approach) would suggest.
Thanks for the feedback Lyle. I agree in everything you said. I was actually thinking to myself the differences between session-RPEs and training load for different training sessions (i.e. speed, weights, glycolitic conditioning) and how come the linear equation doesn’t get all the details, quality details. If you think more about it, real glycolisis conditioning will provide the greatest RPE (since this type of conditioning mess up with the homeostasis in greatest amount, compared to sprinting with is high quality and should be low RPE — thus my short article on the differences between exhaustion and effort). Even if the session-RPE is bigger compared to high quality sprints, does that means the former have bigger impact on recovery or latter? Can we even compare between modalities?
Anyway, both running (Daniels’ sheets for calculating training load) and cycling (Power meter community) are more easier to track compared to team sports, in which session RPEmay provide some insight into the training load, which is better to none. I guess session-RPE is oversimplification and we need to put more effort into research of subjective indicators.
Thanks for the input one more time.
All other factors being equal, there is an approximate inverse relationship between when an ‘RPE’/Subjective Score of the previous session is taken and the CNS/Metabolic balance of that session.
Can you expand on this no23? Give an example? Thanks
The time post training when you take an ‘RPE’ is critical - subjective scores for metabolic fatigue are greatest immediately post training, but will fade as time passes.
An ‘RPE’ taken after a short neurally demanding fatigue is often worthless - in fact misleading in many instances.
IMO the question is this - Is it worth while at all assessing Rate of Exertion or is it best ask the athlete to assess their current state?
They are not the same thing.
Also, intra-set RPE’s are a another completely different method of monitoring, but perhaps I shouldn’t throw that into the mix!
Then there is the learning effect of using RPE’s …
As a sole measurement session-RPE would be B.S., but while tracking OTHER parameters of both acute and immediate (asking subjective question pre-training) training effects it can give us more info.
This is why I agree with you, but don’t throw the baby with the bathwater. Why are we ditching the method because it’s implementation is ‘hard’ and real value should be put into the context of other measurements and coaching evaluation and plan at hand? Isn’t this true for all measurements? What does HR of 1506bpm as a sole number means? Put it into the context and then you might get some usable info.
Knowing complex relationships between load and effects like you mentioned for sure broaden our knowledge and defines the context to the better degree. As as coach you are the one that needs to give a certain indicator the meaning based on the work done and work planned. The meaning is not in the number itself.
Is anyone suggesting you either throw the baby out with the bath water or ditching the approach?
(I’ve not got my finger on the pulse of current opinions on boards as much as before so I might be missing something and article or someone’s comments)
The one thing I would say is that one piece of information assessed in isolation and acted on is far worse than no information and no action!
You can only look at the information in the context from which it was taken.
In a team context you can’t get the chance to ask everyone how they felt post session - hence an RPE might be useful.
Of course if you only train one or two people I would argue against it’s benefit.