Validity of Session-Rate of Perceived Exertion to Quantify Training Loads in Paralympic Swimmers

Current Technologies and Practices to Assess External Training Load in Paralympic Sport: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Knowing the methods to assess the external load in Paralympic sports can help multidisciplinary teams rely on scientific evidence to better prescribe and monitor the athlete's development, improving sports performance and reducing the risk of injury/illness of Paralympic athletes.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to systematically explore the current practices of quantifying the external load in Paralympic sports and provide an overview of the methods and techniques used.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO was carried out until November 2022. The measures of interest were objective methods for quantifying the external load of training or competition. The inclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: (1) peer-reviewed article; (2) the population were Paralympic athletes; (3) evaluated during training or competition; (4) reported at least one external load measure; and (5) published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 1961 articles found, 22 were included because they met the criteria, and 8 methods were identified to quantify the external load in training or competition in 8 Paralympic sports. The methods varied according to the characteristics of the Paralympic sports. To date, the devices used included an internal radiofrequency-based tracking system (wheelchair rugby) a miniaturized data logger (wheelchair tennis, basketball, and rugby); a linear position transducer (powerlifting and wheelchair basketball); a camera (swimming, goalball, and wheelchair rugby); a global positioning system (wheelchair tennis); heart rate monitors that assess external load variables in set (paracycling and swimming) and an electronic timer (swimming).

CONCLUSIONS

Different objective methods were identified to assess the external load in Paralympic sports. However, few studies showed the validity and reliability of these methods. Further studies are needed to compare different methods of external load quantification in other Paralympic sports.

Internal Training Load Perceived by Athletes and Planned by Coaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and session RPE (sRPE) has been widely used to verify the internal load in athletes. Understanding the agreement between the training load prescribed by coaches and that perceived by athletes is a topic of great interest in sport science.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate differences between the training/competition load perceived by athletes and prescribed/intended/observed by coaches.

Methods

A literature search (September 2020 and updated in November 2021) was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SPORTDiscus databases. The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/wna4x). Studies should include athletes and coaches of any sex, age, or level of experience. The studies should present outcomes related to the RPE or sRPE for any scale considering overall training/competition sessions (physical, strength, tactical, technical, games) and/or classified into three effort categories: easy, moderate, and hard.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found between coaches and athletes for overall RPE (SMD = 0.19, P = 0.10) and overall sRPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.75). There was a difference for easy RPE (SMD = − 0.44, small effect size, P = 0.04) and easy sRPE (SMD = − 0.54, moderate effect size, P = 0.04). No differences were found for moderate RPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.74) and hard RPE (SMD = 0.41, P = 0.18). No difference was found for moderate (SMD = -0.15, P = 0.56) and hard (SMD = 0.20, P = 0.43) sRPE.

Conclusion

There is an agreement between coaches and athletes about overall RPE and sRPE, and RPE and sRPE into two effort categories (moderate and hard). However, there were disagreements in RPE and sRPE for easy effort category. Thus, despite a small disagreement, the use of these tools seems to be adequate for training monitoring.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-022-00420-3.