Scientific Poster: Pilot Study - Tracking Session RPE TRIMP During an NCAA D1 Men's Soccer Season with Special Emphasis on Practical Application

At the 2010 Coaches College, I presented a poster on the session RPE TRIMP method. Although details are scarce, and you may have read about this monitoring system elsewhere on my blog, I thought it may be useful here. At the very least, it will give you some normative data from the athletes and training - we need to make this kind of information more accessible to help all of our efforts.

As always, I have a disclaimer - this is only the first step in a monitoring program - my future applied work, research, and writings will address steps two and three in the process. Please check out the image at the very bottom of the post - this is the whole poster - I was quite happy with how it turned out aesthetically.

Pilot Study - Tracking Session RPE TRIMP During an NCAA D1 Men’s Soccer Season with Special Emphasis on Practical Application

Howard S. Gray, Satoshi Mizuguchi, Henry B. Nowell, Dr. Michael W. Ramsey, Dr. Jason B. Winchester, & Dr. Michael H. Stone

KLSS / Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education

Sport Performance Enhancement Consortium

East Tennessee State University

Johnson City, TN, USA 37614

Introduction:

Training in team sports has often been applied haphazardly, with random increases in intensity, volume, and frequency of training (2). As well as sub-optimal performance, this approach may also result in overtraining and injury (7).

In order to improve training practice, the first step that the sport scientist or coach must perform is to investigate what the athletes are currently doing. Second, an examination into whether the athletes are responding positively to the current levels of training needs to be carried out, before finally modifying training and creating plans based on the findings (2).

Various methods, such as volume load calculations in strength training, heart rate monitoring (HRM), and global positioning systems (GPS) for team and endurance sports are available. These methods all have their own strengths and weaknesses. There has been a difficulty in quantifying different forms of exercise into a single measure of volume. Use of the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) as a form of monitoring has been found valid for a wide range of exercise types (5), including resistance training (11) and soccer (9). Session RPE training-impulse (TRIMP) is a product of the athletes’ perceived exertion for a session and the total training duration (4, 5). Another method, as proposed by Edwards (3), is a training load method based on time spent in various heart rate zones. Impellizzeri (9) found a strong correlation (8) between the session RPE TRIMP method and the Edwards heart-rate training load (r = 0.71, P < 0.001) during soccer training. To our knowledge, no such comparison between the above methods has been conducted with NCAA Division 1 male soccer players. Therefore, the purpose of this poster is to investigate and present a simple and cost effective way of performing the first step in the monitoring process, along with suggestions in how to move forward from that point.

Methods

22 players from an NCAA Division 1 men’s soccer team (N=22) volunteered for this study. Team data (mean & standard deviation) from the 1^st day of preseason is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The procedures for testing have been previously described (10). The subjects read and signed informed consents prior to participating in the present study. The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of East Tennessee State University.

The session RPE TRIMP and Edwards methods (3) were applied to an NCAA D1 men’s soccer team during fall pre-season. The pre-season period was defined as the time from the first day of training to the last day of training before the first competitive NCAA game. This phase was 16 days in duration and comprised of 2 testing, 18 field, & 4 strength training sessions. The team took part in 2 exhibition games, and had 2 days off.

The session RPE TRIMP method was also applied in-season, which was 79 days in duration, and for the starters, was made up of 44 field, 10 strength, & 3 swimming pool sessions. There were 21 competitive games (18 regular season and 3 post season), and 15 full days off with no organized training performed. Post-season testing was held after 5 days of active rest following the end of the season. This data was not available for this poster at time of print.

At the beginning of the pre-season period, a meeting was held and players were educated on the following: 1. The role of monitoring in the training process. 2. That the session RPE should represent an aggregate of the whole session (all the different stages within the training session including the warm-up and cool-down). 3. The importance of an honest score from every individual.

Following each session and game during the two phases (pre-season & in-season), players were asked to rate the difficulty of their workouts using the term, “how was your workout”. With the exception of the initial educational meeting, no extra prompting was used other than a reminder to rate the entire session from the beginning of the warm-up to the end of the cool-down. A visual reminder of ratings and corresponding descriptors (as displayed in Figure 3) was also available after each training session.

The work of Carl Foster, amongst others, suggests that athletes should be asked to make a rating 30 minutes following the end of the session (4, 5). This has been shown to produce more accurate and reliable scoring. In the pre-season period, this protocol was strictly followed, with perceived exertion taken 30 minutes after the end of the cool-down. During the in-season, however, ratings were taken 5-15 minutes post-session due to logistical reasons. Each score was asked individually away from other players, although not in strict confidentiality. Players were never allowed to see the scores that other players gave.

The duration for each session was timed from the beginning of the warm-up, to the end of the cool-down. The session RPE and the training duration were used in the following formula to create the session RPE TRIMP: TRIMP = Session RPE x Training Duration (4, 5, 9).

Heart rate data was recorded throughout the duration of training (as defined above) by the Polar Team² system (Polar Electro, Kempele, Finland). Data was transferred to a PC and analyzed with the supplied software. Players’ maximum heart rate was determined previously using the method proposed by Bangsbo (1).

To calculate the Edwards training load, heart rate data was broken into the five heart zones displayed in figure 4. Time accumulated (in minutes) within each zone was multiplied by the corresponding coefficient and summated to calculate the training load.

The relationship between the session RPE TRIMP and Edwards method were determined using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. The alpha-level p ≤ 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) (ver. 18.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

The result of the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between the two methods was found to be r = 0.880 (p < 0.0001). The relationship is illustrated in Figure 5, and mean values are presented in Figure 6.

Discussion

The purpose of this poster was to investigate and present how the session RPE TRIMP method can be used to monitor the training load of NCAA Division 1 men’s soccer players.

When compared to a previously proposed Edwards HRM method (3), a significant correlation was found (8). This correlation was stronger than the one previously found by Impellizzeri (r = 0.880 versus r = 0.71). This could be due to the smaller number of sessions compared in this study (13 versus 27), or other factors specific to the athlete population (age, education level, compliance, etc.). The absolute values of the session RPE Trimp was higher than that of the Edwards training load, something that was also found by Impellizzeri (9).

The session RPE TRIMP method has two main advantages over HRM-based monitoring. Firstly, it does not require expensive equipment. This may be a major factor for a college team with limited resources, and it may not be legal to wear HRM equipment during competitive games. Secondly, HRM may underestimate intense exercise that can play a big part of soccer training and competition (9, 5).

A possible area of concern when considering the application of session RPE TRIMP method regards the honesty in which athletes rate sessions. Now whilst this is not specifically addressed in the literature, the researchers feel that athlete education may play a role in minimizing dishonest scoring. A close relationship between the sport scientist, and the coaches and athletes could also help avoid this situation. A further question that has to be addressed regards the ability of the athlete to accurately summate all of the physiological factors at play during training. This may be further complicated by the psychological state of the athlete during and after training (2).

In conclusion, the session RPE TRIMP method seems to be a useful way of monitoring training for an NCAA Division 1 men’s soccer team. It is cost-effective, and requires minimal time to record and analyze findings. Once a period of training have been tracked by this method, the sport scientist or coach can look to analyze the data in an effort to identify how athletes are responding to certain levels of training load, and when injuries are occurring. After this process, changes to the training program can be made, and a more detailed periodized plan can be put in place in an effort to improve performance and limit the incidence of injury and illness.

Practical Application

In order to make this monitoring system more applicable for coaches, data from sessions, phases, and the whole season can be represented in charts (such as Figures 7 – 9). All of these figures represent real data taken during the fall pre-season and in-season, and are displayed to help the coach have a visual impression of the periodization plan.

Along with day-to-day training loads, week-to-week and phase-to-phase loads and variance can also be interpreted in terms of monotony and strain as described by Foster (4). Further analysis of training loads in soccer, it’s influence on performance, injury and illness, and how to manipulate training as a result of this should be presented in future literature.

References:

 1. Bangsbo, J. (2007). Aerobic and Anaerobic Training in Soccer. Copenhagen: Stormtryk, Bagsvaerd.

2. Borresen, J., & Lambert, M. I. (2009). The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance. Sports Medicine, 39, 779-795.

3. Edwards, S. (1993). The Heart Rate Monitor Book. Sacramento, CA: Feet Fleet Press.

4. Foster, C. (1998). Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 30, 1164-1168.

5. Foster, C., Florhaug, J. A., Franklin, J., Gottschall, L., Hrovatin, L. A., Praker, S., Doleshal, P., & Dodge, C. (2001). A new approach to monitoring exercise training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15, 109-115.

6. Gabbett, T. J. (2010). The development and application of an injury prediction model for noncontact, soft-tissue injuries in elite collision sport athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24, 2593-2603.

7. Halson, S. L., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2004). Does overtraining exist? An analysis of overreaching and overtraining research. Sports Medicine, 34, 967-981.

8. Hopkins, W. A new view of statistics. 1997 (updated 2001) c:\sportsci stats\index.htm

9. Impellizzeri, F. M., Rampinini, E., Coutts, A. J., Sassi, A., & Marcora, S. M. (2004). Use of rpe-based training load in soccer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36, 1042-1047.

10. Kraska, J. M., Ramsey, M. W., Haff, G. G., Fethke, N., Sands, W. A., Stone, M. E., & Stone, M. H. (2009). Relationship between strength characteristics and unweighted and weighted vertical jump height. International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance, 4(4), 461-473.

11. McGuigan, M. R., & Foster, C. (2004). A new approach to monitoring resistance training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 25: 6, 42-47.

Whole Poster:

(click for bigger version)

Although not formally published or copyrighted, if you would like to use the data or images from this poster please shoot me an email: sportscienceed@gmail.com.