Training monitoring is about keeping track of what athletes accomplish in training, for the purpose of improving the interaction between coach and athlete. Over history there have been several basic schemes of training monitoring. In the earliest days training monitoring was about observing the athlete during standard workouts. However, difficulty in standardizing the conditions of training made this process unreliable. With the advent of interval training, monitoring became more systematic. However, imprecision in the measurement of heart rate (HR) evolved interval training toward index workouts, where the main monitored parameter was average time required to complete index workouts. These measures of training load focused on the external training load, what the athlete could actually do. With the advent of interest from the scientific community, the development of the concept of metabolic thresholds and the possibility of trackside measurement of HR, lactate, VO₂, and power output, there was greater interest in the internal training load, allowing better titration of training loads in athletes of differing ability. These methods show much promise but often require laboratory testing for calibration and tend to produce too much information, in too slow a time frame, to be optimally useful to coaches. The advent of the TRIMP concept by Banister suggested a strategy to combine intensity and duration elements of training into a single index concept, training load. Although the original TRIMP concept was mathematically complex, the development of the session RPE and similar low-tech methods has demonstrated a way to evaluate training load, along with derived variables, in a simple, responsive way. Recently, there has been interest in using wearable sensors to provide high-resolution data of the external training load. These methods are promising, but problems relative to information overload and turnaround time to coaches remain to be solved.

The session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) method was developed 25 years ago as a modification of the Borg concept of rating of perceived exertion (RPE), designed to estimate the intensity of an entire training session. It appears to be well accepted as a marker of the internal training load. Early studies demonstrated that sRPE correlated well with objective measures of internal training load, such as the percentage of heart rate reserve and blood lactate concentration. It has been shown to be useful in a wide variety of exercise activities ranging from aerobic to resistance to games. It has also been shown to be useful in populations ranging from patients to elite athletes. The sRPE is a reasonable measure of the average RPE acquired across an exercise session. Originally designed to be acquired ∼30 minutes after a training bout to prevent the terminal elements of an exercise session from unduly influencing the rating, sRPE has been shown to be temporally robust across periods ranging from 1 minute to 14 days following an exercise session. Within the training impulse concept, sRPE, or other indices derived from sRPE, has been shown to be able to account for both positive and negative training outcomes and has contributed to our understanding of how training is periodized to optimize training outcomes and to understand maladaptations such as overtraining syndrome. The sRPE as a method of monitoring training has the advantage of extreme simplicity. While it is not ideal for the precise recording of the details of the external training load, it has large advantages relative to evaluating the internal training load.

The Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) is an important measure of exercise intensity, which is useful both as a primary and adjunctive method of exercise prescription. However, there are multiple variants of the Borg RPE scale, primarily the Borg 6-20 RPE scale (BORG-RPE) and the Borg Category-Ratio-10 scale (BORG-CR10). There are inadequate data available to address the comparability and interchangeability of these two widely used scales. Well-trained non-athletes performed two increment cycle tests, with each scale used in a random sequence. Subjects also performed interval sessions at three intensities (50, 75 and 85% of peak power output) with each scale used in a random sequence. There were very large correlations during the incremental exercise between the conventional physiological measures (% heart rate reserve – r=0.89 & r=.87); and %VO2reserve (r=.88 & r=.90) and RPE measured by either the BORG-RPE or the BORGCR10, respectively. This pattern was also evident during the interval exercise (% heart rate reserve (r=.85 & r=.84; and blood lactate concentration – r=.74 & r=.78) and RPE measured by either the BORG-RPE or the BORG-CR10, respectively. The relationship between RPE measured by the BORG-RPE and the BORGCR10 was large and best described by a non-linear relationship for both the incremental (R2=89) and the interval (R2=.89) exercise. The incremental and interval curves were virtually overlapping. We concluded that the two most popular versions of the RPE scale, BORG-RPE and BORG-CR10, were both highly related to the conventional physiological measures and very strongly related to each other, with an easily described conversion.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether session rating of perceived exertion-derived training load (sRPE-TL) correlates with GPS-derived measures of external load in National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Division I female soccer athletes. Methods: Twenty-one NCAA Division 1 collegiate women’s soccer athletes (11 starters, 10 non-starters; 65.1 ± 7.2 kg, 168.4 ± 7.9 cm, 20.3 ± 1.5 yrs) volunteered to take part in this study. Data for this study were collected over the course of 16 weeks during the 2018 NCAA women’s soccer season. External load and heart rate (HR) data were collected during each training session and match during the season. At least 30 min after the end of an activity (e.g., match or practice), athletes were prompted to complete a questionnaire reporting their perceived exertion for the session. sRPE-TL was calculated at the end of the season by multiplying perceived exertion by the respective session duration. Results: sRPE-TL was very strongly correlated with total distance, distance covered in velocity zones 1–3, the number of accelerations in zones 4 and 5, total PlayerLoad™, and PlayerLoad™. For internal load, sRPE-TL correlated very strongly (0.70 ≤ |r| < 0.90) with Edward’s and Bannister’s TRIMP and strongly (0.50 ≤ |r| < 0.70) with duration spent in in heart rate zones 5 and 6 (80–90% and 90–100% max HR, respectively) while correlations with maximum HR (bpm), mean HR (bpm), and mean HR (%) and sRPE-TL were moderate (0.30 ≤ |r| < 0.50). Conclusions: In NCAA Division I women soccer, sRPE-TL is strongly associated with external measures of workload. These relationships were stronger during match play, with acceleration load and total distance exhibiting the strongest relationship with sRPE-TL.

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and session RPE (sRPE) are reliable tools for predicting exercise intensity and are alternatives to more technological and physiological measurements, such as blood lactate (HLa) concentration, oxygen consumption and heart rate (HR). As sRPE may also convey some insights into accumulated fatigue, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of progressive fatigue in response to heavier-than-normal training on sRPE, with absolute training intensity held constant, and determine its validity as marker of fatigue. Twelve young adults performed eight interval workouts over a two-week period. The percentage of maximal HR (%HRmax), HLa, RPE and sRPE were measured for each session. The HLa/RPE ratio was calculated as an index of fatigue. Multilevel regression analysis showed significant differences for %HRmax (p = 0.004), HLa concentration (p = 0.0001), RPE (p < 0.0001), HLa/RPE ratio (p = 0.0002) and sRPE (p < 0.0001) across sessions. Non-linear regression analysis revealed a very large negative relationship between HLa/RPE ratio and sRPE (r = −0.70, p < 0.0001). These results support the hypothesis that sRPE is a sensitive tool that provides information on accumulated fatigue, in addition to training intensity. Exercise scientists without access to HLa measurements may now be able to gain insights into accumulated fatigue during periods of increased training by using sRPE.

Purpose: Although the session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is primarily a marker of internal training load (TL), it may be sensitive to external TL determining factors, such as duration and volume. Thus, sRPE could provide further information on accumulated fatigue not available from markers of internal TL. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate sRPE during heavy training bouts at relatively constant intensity. Methods: Eleven university swimmers performed a high-volume training session consisting of 4 × 10 × 100-yd (4 × 10 × 91.4 m). Repetition lap time and heart rate were measured for each repetition and averaged for each set. Blood lactate concentration was measured after each set. At the end of each set, a 10-minute rest period was allowed, during which sRPE values were obtained, as if the training bout had ended. Results: There were no differences between sets for lap time (P = .096), heart rate (P = .717), and blood lactate concentration (P = .466), suggesting that the subjects were working at the same external and internal intensity. There was an increase (P = .0002) in sRPE between sets (first 4 [1.2], second 5 [1.3], third 7 [1.3], and fourth 8 [1.5]), suggesting that even when maintaining the same intensity, the perception of the entire workload increased with duration. Conclusions: Increases in duration, although performed with a consistent internal and external intensity, influences sRPE. These findings support the concept that sRPE may provide additional information on accumulated fatigue not available from other markers of TL.