Relationship Between External Training Load and Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Training Impulse in Elite Sprinters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the change in session rating of perceived exertion training impulse (RPE-TRIMP) that may occur in response to increased running distance at 3 running velocity ranges in elite sprinters. METHODS: We monitored training load in elite sprinters (women: n = 7; men: n = 11) using wearable Global Positioning System technology and RPE-TRIMP for a total of 681 individual training sessions during a 22-week competition-preparation period. Internal training load was operationalized by RPE-TRIMP, and external training load was operationalized by distance covered in 3 velocity ranges. A linear mixed-effects model with athlete as a random effect was fit to RPE-TRIMP with total distance covered at ≤69.99% (low-velocity running [LVR]), 70% to 84.99% (high-velocity running [HVR]), and 85% to 100% (very-high-velocity running [VHVR]) of individual maximum velocity. RESULTS: Increased running distance in all 3 velocity ranges (LVR, HVR, and VHVR) resulted in a significant (P < .001) increase in RPE-TRIMP. Coefficients (95% CIs) were .10 (.08-.11) for LVR, .23 (.18-.28) for HVR, and .44 (.35-.53) for VHVR. A 50-m increase in running distance covered in the LVR, HVR, and VHVR velocity ranges was associated with increases in RPE-TRIMP of 5, 11.5, and 22 arbitrary units, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Internal training load, calculated as RPE-TRIMP, increased with increases in total distance covered in the LVR, HVR, and VHVR velocity ranges (P < .001). RPE-TRIMP can be a practical solution for monitoring global training-session load in elite sprinters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".