scholarly journals Not straightforward: modelling non-linearity in training load and injury research

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001119
Author(s):  
Lena Kristin Bache-Mathiesen ◽  
Thor Einar Andersen ◽  
Torstein Dalen-Lorentsen ◽  
Benjamin Clarsen ◽  
Morten Wang Fagerland
Keyword(s):  
Injury Risk ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Cubic Splines ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Quadratic Model ◽  
Fractional Polynomials ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Restricted Cubic Splines ◽  
The Relationship

ObjectivesTo determine whether the relationship between training load and injury risk is non-linear and investigate ways of handling non-linearity.MethodsWe analysed daily training load and injury data from three cohorts: Norwegian elite U-19 football (n=81, 55% male, mean age 17 years (SD 1)), Norwegian Premier League football (n=36, 100% male, mean age 26 years (SD 4)) and elite youth handball (n=205, 36% male, mean age 17 years (SD 1)). The relationship between session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and probability of injury was estimated with restricted cubic splines in mixed-effects logistic regression models. Simulations were carried out to compare the ability of seven methods to model non-linear relationships, using visualisations, root-mean-squared error and coverage of prediction intervals as performance metrics.ResultsNo relationships were identified in the football cohorts; however, a J-shaped relationship was found between sRPE and the probability of injury on the same day for elite youth handball players (p<0.001). In the simulations, the only methods capable of non-linear modelling relationships were the quadratic model, fractional polynomials and restricted cubic splines.ConclusionThe relationship between training load and injury risk should be assumed to be non-linear. Future research should apply appropriate methods to account for non-linearity, such as fractional polynomials or restricted cubic splines. We propose a guide for which method(s) to use in a range of different situations.

Technical and Tactical Training Load in Professional Volleyball Players

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 1338-1343
Author(s):  
Thiago S. Duarte ◽  
Danilo L. Alves ◽  
Danilo R. Coimbra ◽  
Bernardo Miloski ◽  
João C. Bouzas Marins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Technical Training ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Volleyball Players ◽  
Tactical Training ◽  
Training Impulse ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
And Training

Purpose: To analyze the technical and tactical training load in professional volleyball players, using subjective internal training load (session rating of perceived exertion  [SRPE]) and objective internal training load (training impulse of the heart rate [HR]) and the relationship between them. Methods: The sample was composed of 15 male professional volleyball players. They were monitored during 37 training sessions that included both technical (n = 23) and tactical (n = 14) training. Technical and training load was calculated using SRPE and training impulse of the HR. Results: Significant correlations were found between the methods in tactical (r = .616) and technical training (r = −.414). Furthermore, it was noted that technical training occurs up to 80% of HRmax (zone 3) and tactical training between 70% and 90% of HRmax (zones 3–4). Conclusions: The training impulse of the HR method has proved to be effective for training-load control during tactical training. However, it was limited compared with technical training. Thus, the use of SRPE is presented as a more reliable method in the different types of technical training in volleyball.

Relationship Between Pretraining Subjective Wellness Measures, Player Load, and Rating-of-Perceived-Exertion Training Load in American College Football

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Govus ◽  
Aaron Coutts ◽  
Rob Duffield ◽  
Andrew Murray ◽  
Hugh Fullagar
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Soreness ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Session ◽  
College Football ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Football Players ◽  
Unit Increase ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Context:The relationship between pretraining subjective wellness and external and internal training load in American college football is unclear.Purpose:To examine the relationship of pretraining subjective wellness (sleep quality, muscle soreness, energy, wellness Z score) with player load and session rating of perceived exertion (s-RPE-TL) in American college football players.Methods:Subjective wellness (measured using 5-point, Likert-scale questionnaires), external load (derived from GPS and accelerometry), and s-RPE-TL were collected during 3 typical training sessions per week for the second half of an American college football season (8 wk). The relationship of pretraining subjective wellness with player load and s-RPE training load was analyzed using linear mixed models with a random intercept for athlete and a random slope for training session. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) denote the effect magnitude.Results:A 1-unit increase in wellnessZscore and energy was associated with trivial 2.3% (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.5, 4.2; SMD 0.12) and 2.6% (90% CI 0.1, 5.2; SMD 0.13) increases in player load, respectively. A 1-unit increase in muscle soreness (players felt less sore) corresponded to a trivial 4.4% (90% CI −8.4, −0.3; SMD −0.05) decrease in s-RPE training load.Conclusion:Measuring pretraining subjective wellness may provide information about players’ capacity to perform in a training session and could be a key determinant of their response to the imposed training demands American college football. Hence, monitoring subjective wellness may aid in the individualization of training prescription in American college football players.

Internal Training Load Measures in Elite Adolescent Ballet Dancers

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 175-182
Author(s):  
Valeriya G. Volkova ◽  
Amanda M. Black ◽  
Sarah J. Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Heart Rate Data ◽  
Ballet Dancers ◽  
Adolescent Dancers ◽  
Training Impulse

Training load has been identified as a risk factor for musculoskeletal injury in sport, but little is known about the effects of training load in dance. The purpose of this study was to describe adolescent dancers' internal training load (ITL) and compare objective and subjective measures of ITL using heart rate (HR) training impulse methods and session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE), respectively. Fifteen female elite adolescent ballet dancers at a vocational dance school volunteered to participate in the study. Internal training load data using HR and sRPE were collected over 9 days of multiple technique classes at the midpoint of the dancers' training year. Heart rate data were quantified using Edwards' training impulse (ETRIMP) and Banister's training impulse (BTRIMP), and sRPE was estimated from the modified Borg 0 to 10 scale and class duration. Descriptive statistics (median [M], and interquartile range [IQR]) were determined in arbitrary units (AU), and were as follows for all classes combined: ETRIMP: M = 134 AU (IQR = 79 to 244 AU); BTRIMP: M = 67 AU (IQR = 38 to 109); sRPE: M = 407 AU (IQR = 287 to 836 AU). The association and agreement between objective and subjective ITL measures in ballet and pointe class was assessed using Spearman correlations (rs) and adjusted Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA), respectively, with alpha set at 0.05. A significant moderate positive correlation was found between ETRIMP and BTRIMP in pointe class (rρ = 0.8000, p = 0.0031). The mean difference (LOA) between ETRIMP and BTRIMP was 121 AU (33 to 210 AU) in ballet and 43 AU (-3 to 88 AU) in pointe. It is concluded that some, but not all, measures of ITL in elite adolescent ballet dancers are comparable. Additional research is needed to examine the utilization of ITL measures for evaluating dance-related injury risk, as well as the application of ITL to inform the development of effective injury prevention strategies for this high-risk population.

Importance of Various Training-Load Measures in Injury Incidence of Professional Rugby League Athletes

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 819-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi R. Thornton ◽  
Jace A. Delaney ◽  
Grant M. Duthie ◽  
Ben J. Dascombe
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Rugby League ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Injury Incidence ◽  
The Individual

Purpose:To investigate the ability of various internal and external training-load (TL) monitoring measures to predict injury incidence among positional groups in professional rugby league athletes.Methods:TL and injury data were collected across 3 seasons (2013–2015) from 25 players competing in National Rugby League competition. Daily TL data were included in the analysis, including session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE-TL), total distance (TD), high-speed-running distance (>5 m/s), and high-metabolic-power distance (HPD; >20 W/kg). Rolling sums were calculated, nontraining days were removed, and athletes’ corresponding injury status was marked as “available” or “unavailable.” Linear (generalized estimating equations) and nonlinear (random forest; RF) statistical methods were adopted.Results:Injury risk factors varied according to positional group. For adjustables, the TL variables associated most highly with injury were 7-d TD and 7-d HPD, whereas for hit-up forwards they were sRPE-TL ratio and 14-d TD. For outside backs, 21- and 28-d sRPE-TL were identified, and for wide-running forwards, sRPE-TL ratio. The individual RF models showed that the importance of the TL variables in injury incidence varied between athletes.Conclusions:Differences in risk factors were recognized between positional groups and individual athletes, likely due to varied physiological capacities and physical demands. Furthermore, these results suggest that robust machine-learning techniques can appropriately monitor injury risk in professional team-sport athletes.

Relationship Between Various Training-Load Measures in Elite Cyclists During Training, Road Races, and Time Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teun van Erp ◽  
Carl Foster ◽  
Jos J. de Koning
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Mechanical Energy ◽  
Training Load ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Heart Rate Data ◽  
Training Stress ◽  
Training Impulse ◽  
Road Races ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose: The relationship between various training-load (TL) measures in professional cycling is not well explored. This study investigated the relationship between mechanical energy spent (in kilojoules), session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), Lucia training impulse (LuTRIMP), and training stress score (TSS) in training, races, and time trials (TT). Methods: For 4 consecutive years, field data were collected from 21 professional cyclists and categorized as being collected in training, racing, or TTs. Kilojoules (kJ) spent, sRPE, LuTRIMP, and TSS were calculated, and the correlations between the various TLs were made. Results: 11,655 sessions were collected, from which 7596 sessions had heart-rate data and 5445 sessions had an RPE score available. The r between the various TLs during training was almost perfect. The r between the various TLs during racing was almost perfect or very large. The r between the various TLs during TTs was almost perfect or very large. For all relationships between TSS and 1 of the other measurements of TL (kJ spent, sRPE, and LuTRIMP), a significant different slope was found. Conclusion: kJ spent, sRPE, LuTRIMP, and TSS all have a large or almost perfect relationship with each other during training, racing, and TTs, but during racing, both sRPE and LuTRIMP have a weaker relationship with kJ spent and TSS. Furthermore, the significant different slope of TSS vs the other measurements of TL during training and racing has the effect that TSS collected in training and road races differs by 120%, whereas the other measurements of TL (kJ spent, sRPE, and LuTRIMP) differ by only 73%, 67%, and 68%, respectively.

scholarly journals Monitoring What Matters: A Systematic Process for Selecting Training-Load Measures

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (s2) ◽  
pp. S2-101-S2-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Williams ◽  
Grant Trewartha ◽  
Matthew J. Cross ◽  
Simon P.T. Kemp ◽  
Keith A. Stokes
Keyword(s):  
Injury Risk ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Rugby Union ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Systematic Process ◽  
Daily Training ◽  
Monitoring Training ◽  
Generalized Linear Mixed Effects

Purpose:Numerous derivative measures can be calculated from the simple session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), a tool for monitoring training loads (eg, acute:chronic workload and cumulative loads). The challenge from a practitioner’s perspective is to decide which measures to calculate and monitor in athletes for injury-prevention purposes. The aim of the current study was to outline a systematic process of data reduction and variable selection for such training-load measures.Methods:Training loads were collected from 173 professional rugby union players during the 2013–14 English Premiership season, using the sRPE method, with injuries reported via an established surveillance system. Ten derivative measures of sRPE training load were identified from existing literature and subjected to principal-component analysis. A representative measure from each component was selected by identifying the variable that explained the largest amount of variance in injury risk from univariate generalized linear mixed-effects models.Results:Three principal components were extracted, explaining 57%, 24%, and 9% of the variance. The training-load measures that were highly loaded on component 1 represented measures of the cumulative load placed on players, component 2 was associated with measures of changes in load, and component 3 represented a measure of acute load. Four-week cumulative load, acute:chronic workload, and daily training load were selected as the representative measures for each component.Conclusions:The process outlined in the current study enables practitioners to monitor the most parsimonious set of variables while still retaining the variation and distinct aspects of “load” in the data.

Quantifying Training Load: A Comparison of Subjective and Objective Methods

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Borresen ◽  
Michael I. Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Regression Equations ◽  
Training Time ◽  
Ad Libitum ◽  
Training Impulse ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose:To establish the relationship between a subjective (session rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) and 2 objective (training impulse [TRIMP]) and summated-heart-rate-zone (SHRZ) methods of quantifying training load and explain characteristics of the variance not accounted for in these relationships.Methods:Thirty-three participants trained ad libitum for 2 wk, and their heart rate (HR) and RPE were recorded to calculate training load. Subjects were divided into groups based on whether the regression equations over- (OVER), under- (UNDER), or accurately predicted (ACCURATE) the relationship between objective and subjective methods.Results:A correlation of r = .76 (95% CI: .56 to .88) occurred between TRIMP and session-RPE training load. OVER spent a greater percentage of training time in zone 4 of SHRZ (ie, 80% to 90% HRmax) than UNDER (46% ± 8% vs 25% ± 10% [mean ± SD], P = .008). UNDER spent a greater percentage of training time in zone 1 of SHRZ (ie, 50% to 60% HRmax) than OVER (15% ± 8% vs 3% ± 3%, P = .005) and ACCURATE (5% ± 3%, P = .020) and more time in zone 2 of SHRZ (ie, 60% to 70%HRmax) than OVER (17% ± 6% vs 7% ± 6%, P = .039). A correlation of r = .84 (.70 to .92) occurred between SHRZ and session-RPE training load. OVER spent proportionally more time in Zone 4 than UNDER (45% ± 8% vs 25% ± 10%, P = .018). UNDER had a lower training HR than ACCURATE (132 ± 10 vs 148 ± 12 beats/min, P = .048) and spent more time in zone 1 than OVER (15% ± 8% vs 4% ± 3%, P = .013) and ACCURATE (5% ± 3%, P = .015).Conclusions:The session-RPE method provides reasonably accurate assessments of training load compared with HR-based methods, but they deviate in accuracy when proportionally more time is spent training at low or high intensity.

The Relationship Between Training Load and Injury in Men’s Professional Basketball

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1238-1242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn J. Weiss ◽  
Sian V. Allen ◽  
Mike R. McGuigan ◽  
Chris S. Whatman
Keyword(s):  
Regression Model ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Basketball Players ◽  
Professional Basketball ◽  
Trauma Research ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose:To establish the relationship between the acute:chronic workload ratio and lower-extremity overuse injuries in professional basketball players over the course of a competitive season. Methods:The acute:chronic workload ratio was determined by calculating the sum of the current week’s session rating of perceived exertion of training load (acute load) and dividing it by the average weekly training load over the previous 4 wk (chronic load). All injuries were recorded weekly using a self-report injury questionnaire (Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Injury Questionnaire20). Workload ratios were modeled against injury data using a logistic-regression model with unique intercepts for each player. Results:Substantially fewer team members were injured after workload ratios of 1 to 1.49 (36%) than with very low (≤0.5; 54%), low (0.5–0.99; 51%), or high (≥1.5; 59%) workload ratios. The regression model provided unique workload–injury trends for each player, but all mean differences in likelihood of being injured between workload ratios were unclear. Conclusions:Maintaining workload ratios of 1 to 1.5 may be optimal for athlete preparation in professional basketball. An individualized approach to modeling and monitoring the training load–injury relationship, along with a symptom-based injury-surveillance method, should help coaches and performance staff with individualized training-load planning and prescription and with developing athlete-specific recovery and rehabilitation strategies.

Seasonal Training Load and Wellness Monitoring in a Professional Soccer Goalkeeper

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 672-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Malone ◽  
Arne Jaspers ◽  
Werner Helsen ◽  
Brenda Merks ◽  
Wouter G.P. Frencken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Positioning System ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Total Distance ◽  
Professional Soccer ◽  
Competitive Season ◽  
Global Positioning ◽  
The Relationship

The purpose of this investigation was to (1) quantify the training load practices of a professional soccer goalkeeper and (2) investigate the relationship between the training load observed and the subsequent self-reported wellness response. One male goalkeeper playing for a team in the top league of the Netherlands participated in this case study. Training load data were collected across a full season using a global positioning system device and session-RPE (rating of perceived exertion). Data were assessed in relation to the number of days to a match (MD− and MD+). In addition, self-reported wellness response was assessed using a questionnaire. Duration, total distance, average speed, PlayerLoad™, and load (derived from session-RPE) were highest on MD. The lowest values for duration, total distance, and PlayerLoad™ were observed on MD−1 and MD+1. Total wellness scores were highest on MD and MD−3 and were lowest on MD+1 and MD−4. Small to moderate correlations between training load measures (duration, total distance covered, high deceleration efforts, and load) and the self-reported wellness response scores were found. This exploratory case study provides novel data about the physical load undertaken by a goalkeeper during 1 competitive season. The data suggest that there are small to moderate relationships between training load indicators and self-reported wellness response. This weak relation indicates that the association is not meaningful. This may be due to the lack of position-specific training load parameters that practitioners can currently measure in the applied context.

scholarly journals Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Combined With Training Volume for Estimating Training Responses in Runners

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (12) ◽  
pp. 1285-1291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Napier ◽  
Megan Ryan BSc ◽  
Carlo Menon ◽  
Max R. Paquette
Keyword(s):  
External Load ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Running Time ◽  
Training Adaptations ◽  
Recreational Runners ◽  
Training Stress ◽  
External Loads

Context Historically, methods of monitoring training loads in runners have used simple and convenient metrics, including the duration or distance run. Changes in these values are assessed on a week-to-week basis to induce training adaptations and manage injury risk. To date, whether different measures of external loads, including biomechanical measures, provide better information regarding week-to-week changes in external loads experienced by a runner is unclear. In addition, the importance of combining internal-load measures, such as session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), with different external-load measures to monitor week-to-week changes in training load in runners is unknown. Objective To compare week-to-week changes in the training loads of recreational runners using different quantification methods. Design Case series. Setting Community based. Patients or Other Participants Recreational runners in Vancouver, British Columbia. Main Outcome Measure(s) Week-to-week changes in running time, steps, and cumulative shock, in addition to the product of each of these variables and the corresponding sRPE scores for each run. Results Sixty-eight participants were included in the final analysis. Differences were present in week-to-week changes for running time compared with timeRPE (d = 0.24), stepsRPE (d = 0.24), and shockRPE (d = 0.31). The differences between week-to-week changes in running time and cumulative shock were also significant at the overall group level (d = 0.10). Conclusions We found that the use of an internal training-load measure (sRPE) in combination with external load (training duration) provided a more individualized estimate of week-to-week changes in overall training stress. A better estimation of training stress has significant implications for monitoring training adaptations, resulting performance, and possibly injury risk reduction. We therefore recommend the regular use of sRPE and training duration to monitor training load in runners. The use of cumulative shock as a measure of external load in some runners may also be more valid than duration alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document