Is simple better? A methodical comparison of monitoring training load in well-trained cyclists

Abstract

Background: Lack of a “gold-standard” for measuring training load (TL) makes it challenging for coaches and athletes to avoid over- or under-reaching during endurance training. Purpose: To describe physical and perceptual exertional demands of high intensity training (HIT) and explain variance in quantification of TL with use of Banister’s training impulse (BanTRIMP), session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and individualized training impulse (iTRIMP). Method: During 12 weeks, 12 well-trained male cyclists (VO2peak 60 ± 3 ml · kg-1 · min-1) completed 879 individual endurance training sessions including HIT-sessions; 4 x 16 min, 4 x 8 min and 4 x 4 min described at their maximal sustainable intensity (isoeffort). Training characteristics, in addition to TL were quantified into categories based on the principle of session goal (SG) 1-5 (HR zone 1-5). Results: sRPE-score was practically identical for HIT in the range of SG3-5-sessions (4 x 16 to 4 x 4 min) respectively 6,8 ± 1,3 to 7,1 ± 1,4 , consistent with the isoeffort prescription. Compared to the other TL-methods quantified; BanTRIMP significant higher contribution of total TL from SG1- and 2-sessions and significant lower from SG5-sessions; iTRIMP significant higher from SG3-sessions and sRPE significant higher from SG5-sessions. Conclusion: In well-trained cyclists completing an isoeffort prescription: 1) the perceived cost (sRPE) of training ≥ LT2 is practically identical over a 4-fold range of accumulated duration. Appropriate use of TL for the specific cohort and type of training cannot be neglected. Despite its simplicity, sRPE-based-TL appears highly consistent with the training prescription.