Internal Training Load Monitoring Using Perception-Based Measures - Essay Example

Internal Training Load Monitoring Using Perception-Based Measures Training Load monitoring The rating of perceived exertion is a subjective scale that is used to determine how individuals are feeling during an activity or exercise. RPE is performed in order to establish levels that are safe for prescribing exercise and in assessing the severity of diseases and prognosis. RPE being a subjective variable enable individuals to rate their feelings and indicates degree and levels of heaviness and strain that they are experiencing in physical work and activities (Eston 2012). As athletes are striving to improve their physical performance, there is a need to have a modification in their training load, especially increase in duration, intensity and frequency. Training loads are always adjusted at various times during the cycle of training to either increase or decrease the levels of fatigue depending on the training phase. Fatigue is a phenomenon that is complex and multifaceted having several mechanisms that are possible. Monitoring the training load of individuals is seen by many people as an important factor in the determination of whether an individual is adapting to the program of training or not. It is also important to minimise having the risk of non-functional overreaching, illness and injury. Today, monitoring training load has become a common thing, and several reasons lie behind the practice. Inexperience and knowledge on the use of monitoring load techniques may lead to an inability to implement a sustainable and practical system and inability to interpreting the collected information. In order to gaining the knowledge and understanding of the training load and its general effect on an athlete, several markers are available for the coaches, scientists and athletes to use. Nonetheless, few of these markers do have scientific evidence that is strong in support of their usage, and there is yet to have a single one in practice (Viveiros et al. 2011). Monitoring using perception-based measures - RPE’s When monitoring training load, the units of the load are thought of as either internal or external. In the past, external training load was frequently used as the foundation of a several system of monitoring. Whereas the external load is important in knowing the completed work, capabilities, and the athletes capacities, the internal load forms the critical part in determine the training load and the after that adaptation. The training load is influenced in most cases by the volume and intensity of training. A precise knowledge of the training loads that is completed during training is beneficial to the coach as well as the athlete. The coach can use the feedback gotten from training to modify the training in the future to improve performance. On the other hand, the athletes can use the feedback from training loads for future training motivation. Several methods can be used for training load monitoring, but the best method recommended is the ratio of perceived exertion method. This method is used to quantify the load of training since it is simple to use, easily understood and easy to put into implementation (Borg 1982). Several studies have confirmed the validity of using ratings of perceived exertion for measuring the intensity of an activity not only for those adults who are healthy but also for children and other clinical populations. Previous research also shows an existing relationship between ratings of perceived exertion and other physiological variables such as heart rate (Minganti et al. 2010). RPE (rating of perceived exertion) is the commonest methods used in the assessment of internal load monitoring. The use of rating perceived exertion (RPE) is based on the notion that athletes do monitor their physiological stress during an activity as well as providing vital information retrospectively regarding their perceived effort post competition or training. Strong evidence do suggest that rating perceived exertion do correlate well with the hate rate during a period of steady state activity and high-intensity cyclical training interval. However, it does not correlate well during the period of short duration high-intensity drills of soccer. Further, a meta-analysis of the literature reports that rating pf perceived exertion is an authentic means of exercise intensity assessment; the validity may not be high as previously thought. Most often, the RPE is combined with other variables including the duration of the session, the heart rate and blood lactate to providing additional insights into the internal load being experienced by the athletes (Balsamo et al. 2012). The perceived exertion is considered how hard an individual’s body feel while working. It is based on the physical feeling being experienced by an individual during physical exercise including the performance of physical exercise such as increased rate of breathing, increased perspiration, muscle fatigue, increased heart rate. Although this measure is subjective, an individual’s rating of exertion may provide a fairly good estimate of the actual heart rate during physical exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion appear to be a very useful tool for quantifying some of the perceptions being experienced during prolonged bouts of activities. The RPE provides individuals with an estimate of the subjective costs of the physical activity and exercises that may or may not be at variance with the actual physiological costs. In young and middle-aged individuals who do exercise at moderate to high intensities, ratings of perceived exertion has been shown to be a direct measure of the physiological stress as well as indirect measure of physical capacity of work. In elderly individuals with heart conditions or problems of psychiatry and in certain environmental and drug situations, the relationship that exists between the heart rate and rating perceived exertion appear to be altered (Gabbett 2004). Researched on perceived exertion has been focused on laboratory settings and it needs to be applied fully to the clinical setting in the evaluation of its usefulness. For those people exercising at restricted heart rates and in acute situations where accuracy is needed in matters of life and death, rating perceived exertion is seen to be appropriate to be used alone as either an assessment or a tool for prescription in measuring the capacity of work (Focht 2007). Practitioners generally agree that the perceived exertion ratings of 12 to 14 on the Borg scale indicates that physical work is being performed at a level of intensity seen as moderate. During an exercise period, the Borg scale is used in assigning numbers to how an individual is feeling. This self-monitors how an individual body is working and can help the person adjust exercise intensity by increasing the speed or decreasing the speed of the movements. Through the experience of monitoring how the body is going through and how it feels, it becomes easier to adjusting the intensity of the activity. For example, a person is willing to engage in an activity of moderate intensity is probably aiming at a Borg’s scale of 12 to 14. In any case the person describes his or her muscle fatigue and breathing as “very tight” he would probably want to increase his or her intensity of the activity (Foster et al. 2001). On the other hand, if at all he or she felt that the exertion was “extremely hard”, then, he would need to slow down his activity in order for him to achieve an activity that has moderate range of intensity. A high relationship exists between an individual perceived exertion ratings and the actual heart rate of the individual during a physical exercise. So an individual’s exertion ratings may issue a good estimate of the actual heart rate during an exercise (Impellizzeri et al. 2004). For many years, heart rate has been used as a method of monitoring the intensity of exercise. However, for many, this method of the monitoring exercise is difficult to master especially during an activity. In addition, monitoring the heart rate to manage an exertion during an activity is inappropriate for the individuals who are on certain medications that may affect their heart rate. The easiest way of monitoring intensity of an activity is using the ratings of perceived exertion scale. This method is easy whether an individual walks, jogs, rides a bicycle, climb stairs, the individuals intensity should always be within his or her comfort range (Nussbaum & Lang 2005). How to use the perceived exertion scale While doing physical exercise, the target should always be the rating perception of exertion. This feeling is reflecting how heavy and strenuous the activity was to the individual while combining all sensations and feelings of physical stress, fatigue, and effort. An individual is not supposed to concern himself with only one factor such as pain in the leg or shortness of breath, but trying to focus on the total feeling of exertion. The rating scale ranges from 6 to 20. An individual chooses the number that best describes the level of exertion. This gives a genuine idea of the intensity level of an individual activity, and one can use the information to speed ng up or slow ng down movement so as to reach the desired range of activity (Elloumi et al. 2012). The ratings of perceived exertion are assessed by the use of either a scale of 0 to 10 or 6 to 20 scale chart to help in rating the individuals feelings that are caused by exertion. The rating of exertion is always completely independent of the pace if walking; it solely depend on an individual’s feelings that are caused by the exertion during the period of exercise. Increasing the pace to a run and adding a hill an individual can work up to a scale of 10. On a rating scale of 0 to 10, the recommended rating of perceived exertion for most individuals ranges from 3 which is moderate to 5 which is strong (Killen et al. 2010). A scale of 6 to 20 6 indicates No exertion at all 7 indicates Extremely light 8 9 indicates Very light - (easy walking slowly at a comfortable pace) 10 11 indicates Light 12 13 indicates Somewhat hard (It is quite an effort; you feel tired but can continue) 14 15 indicates Hard (heavy) 16 17 indicates Very hard (very strenuous, and you are very fatigued) 18 19 indicates extremely hard (You cannot continue for long at this pace) 20 indicates Maximal exertion The most value any coach can get from monitoring the training load accurately is better through understanding of an athlete’s individual’s training tolerance. This is advantageous since the previous researches indicate that every individual possess a different level of tolerance to training load. In addition, when monitoring the training load, coaches are able to determine the athletes implementation of the plan of training (Chen et al. 2002). Why use ratings of perceived exertion Using perceived exertion ratings to monitor the intensity of an activity is beneficial because: It provides a double check of an individual’s heart rate especially when the target heart rate is an estimate of the age An assessment of ratings of perceived exertion can be performed without stoppages as it is with monitoring heart rate There is no use of equipment hence it is a cheaper means of monitoring exertion Any increase in the intensity of exertion is directly related to an elevation in the exercise heart rate and other processes of metabolism. Consequently, ratings of perceived exertion can be used independently or alongside with heart rate during monitoring of exercise intensity. During an aerobic activity, perceived effort is considered to be a combination of sensory input from points, muscles, heart rate and breathing rate. By using the scale of rating of perceived exertion, an individual can accurately describe his or her effort sensation when performing an activity or exercise and gauging how hard one is working. In addition, ratings of perceived exertion help an individual evaluate his or her internal comfort zone when performing an activity. It also helps one establish how he or she feels during a session of an activity depending on what he or she feels during a normal sensation of exertion, breathing, and even discomfort (Killen et al. 2010). Conclusions Despite increasing research, the popularity of monitoring internal load in programs of high performance, there is no evident of a single and uppermost reliable tool that is accurate. Indeed, different sports nature of monitoring may be different from the other hence more than one tool is used in monitoring and determining the internal load of individuals during physical exercise (Gabbett et al. 2011). This is the main reason for having variation in the physiological adaptation and response to activities as well each sports specificity. However, recent research and evidence suggests that coaches, athletes and the supporting staffs are leaning towards a scientific approach in monitoring the internal load. The use of scientific approaches and principles for monitoring internal loads is an important tool in minimising the non-functional risk of overreaching, illness and injuries from happening. With several athletes being exposed to high loads of training and high-stress competition, it is important to manage such risks being associated with possible outcomes that re negative so as to maintain optimal physiological and psychological health and well-being status (Foster et al. 2001). It has also been suggested that variables that are unexplained by the perception of exertion and the physiological variables may be caused by the presence of psychological variables. Anxiety, depression, neurosis have been found to cause an inaccurate interpretation of subjective sensation of the physical activity and postulated that this may be as a result of an altered status of autonomic arousal. References Balsamo, S. et al., 2012. Exercise order affects the total training volume and the ratings of perceived exertion in response to a super-set resistance training session. International Journal of General Medicine, 5, pp.123–127. Borg, G.A., 1982. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 14, pp.377–381. Chen, M.J., Fan, X. & Moe, S.T., 2002. Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. Journal of sports sciences, 20, pp.873–899. Elloumi, M. et al., 2012. Monitoring training load and fatigue in rugby sevens players. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine, 3, pp.175–184. Eston, R., 2012. Use of ratings of perceived exertion in sports. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7, pp.175–182. Focht, B.C., 2007. Perceived exertion and training load during self-selected and imposed-intensity resistance exercise in untrained women. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 21, pp.183–187. Foster, C. et al., 2001. A New Approach to Monitoring Exercise Training. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 15, pp.109–15. Gabbett, T.J., 2004. Incidence of injury in junior and senior rugby league players. Sports Medicine, 34, pp.849–859. Gabbett, T.J., Jenkins, D.G. & Abernethy, B., 2011. Correlates of tackling ability in high-performance rugby league players. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 25, pp.72–79. Impellizzeri, F.M. et al., 2004. Use of RPE-based training load in soccer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36, pp.1042–1047. Killen, N.M., Gabbett, T.J. & Jenkins, D.G., 2010. Training loads and incidence of injury during the preseason in professional rugby league players. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 24, pp.2079–2084. Minganti, C. et al., 2010. The validity of sessionrating of perceived exertion method for quantifying training load in teamgym. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association, 24, pp.3063–3068. Nussbaum, M.A. & Lang, A., 2005. Relationships between static load acceptability, ratings of perceived exertion, and biomechanical demands. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, pp.547–557. Viveiros, L. et al., 2011. Training load monitoring in Judo: Comparison between the training load intensity planned by the coach and the intensity experienced by the athlete. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 17, pp.266–269. Read More