Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
��������� �� �� �������� ���� ���������� ��� ��� ���������������������������������������� �������������������������� ����������������� ������� ���!���""�#$��"�������$�� ��$�$ ��� ��� ����#$�%�� ���� � ���#$�%���&�$���� �"� $�������� ����� � ��$�"�#�$����� '��$���(�����$��� �$� $!�� )*$!� +�������� �"� $!�� , ��(����+��������"�-(��$��-#���#�� .,+--/��0� �����0���� ���� �&�1�*��23)2�
����� ������!�"�����"
-(��$�-#���#���������#!�4�� (��5,6+�0��#�����
����������������� �� �������������������������������������� ��������������� !
���� ����� �����"��� #��$� ���������%&'(�����"���� )���*�����������������+�,+����������� �!
-, ��,� ���� � ���������������������������.��/.���(���������������������������/����0�����
Feriche, B.1; Rodríguez, F.A.2, Iglesias, X.2, Calderón, C.3, Barrero, A.2, Pérez-Medina, I.2, Vázquez, J.2, Ábalos, X.2, Rodríguez-Zamora, L.2, Truijens, M.4
1: FCAFD, University of Granada (Granada, Spain); 2: INEFC-Barcelona, University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain); 3: CAR Sierra Nevada (Granada, Spain), 4: Royal Dutch Swimming Federation (The Netherlands)
Supported by CSD grant (35/UPB10/10)
Introduction
Objective and subjective training load indicators, such as training impulses (TRIMP) and ratings of perceived exertions (RPE) have been used to monitor elite swimmers under normoxic
conditions (Wallace et al., 2009). However, their usefulness and validity under hypoxic conditions has not been studied to date. This study aims to analyse the effect of 3-weeks exposure to
moderate altitude on the relationship between objective (TRIMPs) and subjective (s-RPE) systems of training load quantification in elite swimmers
M&M
40 elite swimmers were assigned to two groups: Lo, who lived and trained
at sea level, and Hi, who lived and trained at moderate altitude (CAR
Sierra Nevada, Spain, 2320m). During three weeks all training sessions
were monitored. Heart rate(HR) and time were recorded to compute
TRIMP (Banister& Hamilton, 1985). Session-RPE(s-RPE, Foster et al.
2001) was self-administered within 30 min after each swimming (S1, S2)
and dry-land (Dl) training sessions.
Results
There were no differences in S1 and S2
TRIMPs in any of both Hi and Lo groups.
s-RPE was smaller in the Hi group in S1
(p<0.001). In Dl differences were noted
groups in all training sessions (P<0.05)
(Table 1). The association between s-
RPE and TRIMPs during swimming
sessions was moderate (r<0.8) both in
S1 and S2.In Dl sessions we did not find
an association between methods (Fig.1).
Discussion & Conclusion
The relationship between TRIMPs and s-
RPE training load indicators is low-
moderate. Therefore, we consider they
should not be used indiscriminately in
altitude, at least during the
acclimatization phase. s-RPE appears to
be more sensitive to an increase in the
intensity of the load than to a rise in
volume (Sweet et al., 2004). This is
supported by our observation that there
were differences in s-RPE between the
Hi and the Lo groups in the first two
weeks, but not in third week when
training intensity tend to equalize.
TRIMPs do not seem to constitute an
appropriate quantification procedure for
workload during DI sessions.
References
Banister & Hamilton. (1985).Eur J Appl Physiol,54, 16-23.
Foster et al. (2001).J Strength Cond Res, 15, 109-115.
Wallace et al. (2009) J Strength Cond Res, 23, 33-38.
Sweet et al. (2004) J Strength Cond Res, 18, 796-802.
S1
S2s-R
PE
Dl
O Hi +Lo
O r =0.42;p<0.001
+ r= 0.76;p<0.001
O r =0.68;p<0.001
+ r= 0.56;p<0.001
O r =0.02;p>0.05
+ r= 0.02;p>0.05
Fig 1. Analysis of the correlation between s-RPE and TRIMP.
Table 1. Comparative analysis of training load as TRIMP and s-RPE per training session between the study groups (mean±std). . * differences between Hi & Lo
Hi Lo
s-RPE
S1 *
S2
Dl *
275.9 ±179.3
324.4±198.0
252.2±146.2
372.8±225.4
284.1±175.6
128.8±61.2
TRIMP
S1
S2
Dl *
96.1±47.6
94.1±53.4
73.1±314.4
102.94±44.4
89.04±46.6
26.24±11.4
THE EFFECT OF MODERATE ALTITUDE ON OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE
SYSTEMS OF TRAINING LOAD QUANTIFICATION
TRIMP
