Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 13, 2025

Muscle Imbalances: Testing and Training Functional Eccentric Hamstring Strength in Athletic Populations
Published on: May 1, 2018
Training load quantification of high intensity exercises: Discrepancies between original and alternative methods
François-Denis Desgorces1,2, Jean-Christophe Hourcade1,3, Romain Dubois4
1Institut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Épidemiologie du Sport, Institut National du Sport de l'Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.
Quantifying training loads (TL) in high-intensity sessions reveals significant differences between original and alternative methods. Alternative methods like RPEalone and New-WER offer a promising perspective, prioritizing exhaustion over exercise volume for TL assessment.
Area of Science:
- Sports Science
- Exercise Physiology
- Performance Analysis
Background:
- Accurate quantification of training loads (TL) is crucial for optimizing endurance athlete performance and preventing overtraining.
- Existing methods for measuring TL, including TRIMP, session-RPE, and Work-Endurance-Recovery (WER), have limitations in high-intensity interval training.
- Updated alternatives like TRIMPcumulative, RPEalone, and New-WER aim to provide more precise TL measurements.
Purpose of the Study:
- To quantify and compare training loads (TL) in high-intensity endurance sessions using original methods and their updated alternatives.
- To investigate the influence of exercise volume and intensity on TL quantification across different methods.
- To determine if original and alternative TL methods are interchangeable.
Main Methods:
- Ten endurance athletes performed five high-intensity sessions until exhaustion, including maximal 800m runs and intermittent interval sessions.
- Training loads were quantified using original methods (TRIMP, session-RPE, WER) and alternative methods (TRIMPcumulative, RPEalone, New-WER).
- Intermediate TL (TL800) was calculated at 800m of accumulated running within sessions, alongside end-session RPE and TL.
Main Results:
- Marked differences in total TL were observed between original and alternative methods, with RPEalone and New-WER showing similar TL across sessions.
- Intermediate TL (TL800) showed notable discrepancies, particularly between TRIMP and other methods.
- Original methods showed strong correlations among themselves, as did the alternative methods, but correlations between original and alternative methods were light to moderate.
Conclusions:
- Original and alternative methods for quantifying training loads are not interchangeable due to significant differences in their outcomes.
- Alternative methods (RPEalone, New-WER) based on perceived exertion and exhaustion provide a potentially more accurate reflection of training stress, irrespective of exercise volume.
- Further research with larger, diverse populations and varied exercise protocols is needed to validate these findings.
More Related Videos
07:26Conducting Maximal and Submaximal Endurance Exercise Testing to Measure Physiological and Biological Responses to Acute Exercise in Humans
Published on: October 17, 2018
08:27A Real-World High-Intensity Interval Training Protocol for Cardiorespiratory Fitness Improvement
Published on: February 22, 2022