4.6 Review

Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00612

关键词

perceived exertion; training sessions; competitions; individual sports; team sports

资金

  1. Qatar University [QUST-2-CAS-2017-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this review is to (1) retrieve all data validating the Session-rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-method using various criteria, (2) highlight the rationale of this method and its ecological usefulness, and (3) describe factors that can alter RPE and users of this method should take into consideration. Method: Search engines such as SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases in the English language between 2001 and 2016 were consulted for the validity and usefulness of the session-RPE method. Studies were considered for further analysis when they used the session-RPE method proposed by Foster et al. in 2001. Participants were athletes of any gender, age, or level of competition. Studies using languages other than English were excluded in the analysis of the validity and reliability of the session-RPE method. Other studies were examined to explain the rationale of the session-RPEmethod and the origin of RPE. Results: A total of 950 studies cited the Foster et al. study that proposed the session RPE-method. 36 studies have examined the validity and reliability of this proposed method using the modified CR-10. Conclusion: These studies confirmed the validity and good reliability and internal consistency of session-RPE method in several sports and physical activities with men and women of different age categories (children, adolescents, and adults) among various expertise levels. This method could be used as standing alone method for training load (TL) monitoring purposes though some recommend to combine it with other physiological parameters as heart rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据