Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32745112›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Training load quantification of high intensity exercises: Discrepancies between original and alternative methods.

François-Denis Desgorces, Jean-Christophe Hourcade, Romain Dubois, Jean-François Toussaint, Philippe Noirez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Exercise Dose Equalization in High-Intensity Interval Training: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

François-Denis DesgorcesInstitut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Épidemiologie du Sport, Institut National du Sport de l'Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2598-8599
Jean-Christophe HourcadeInstitut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Épidemiologie du Sport, Institut National du Sport de l'Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.
Romain DuboisMouvement, Équilibre, Performance, Santé, Équipe d'Accueil, Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, Tarbes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0051-244X
Jean-François ToussaintInstitut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Épidemiologie du Sport, Institut National du Sport de l'Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.
Philippe NoirezInstitut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Épidemiologie du Sport, Institut National du Sport de l'Expertise et de la Performance, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to quantify training loads (TL) of high intensity sessions through original methods (TRIMP; session-RPE; Work-Endurance-Recovery) and their updated alternatives (TRIMPcumulative; RPEalone; New-WER). Ten endurance athletes were requested to perform five sessions until exhaustion. Session 1 composed by a 800m maximal performance and four intermittent sessions performed at the 800m velocity, three sessions with 400m of interval length and work:recovery ratios of 2:1, 1:1 and 1:2 and one with 200m intervals and 1:1. Total TL were quantified from the sessions' beginning to the cool-down period and an intermediate TL (TL800) was calculated when 800m running was accumulated within the sessions. At the end of the sessions high and similar RPE were reported (effect size, η2 = 0.12), while, at the intermediate 800m distance, the higher interval distances and work:recovery ratios the higher the RPE (η2 = 0.88). Our results show marked differences in sessions' total TL between original (e.g., lowest TL for the 800m and highest for the 200m-1:1 sessions) and alternative methods (RPEalone and New-WER; similar TL for each session). Differences appear in TL800 notably between TRIMP and other methods which are negatively correlated. All TL report light to moderate correlations between original methods and their alternatives, original methods are strongly correlated together, as observed for alternative methods. Differences in TL quantification between original and alternative methods underline that they are not interchangeable. Because of high exercise volume influence, original methods markedly enhance TL of sessions with higher exercise volumes although these presented the easiest interval distances and work-recovery ratios. Alternative methods based on exhaustion level (New-WER) and exertion (RPEalone) provided a new and promising point of view of TL quantification where exhaustion determines the highest TL whatever the exercise. This remains to be tested with more extended populations submitted to wider ranges of exercises.

Indexed as

AdolescentAthletesExerciseExercise TherapyHeart RateHumansMaleOxygen ConsumptionPhysical Conditioning, HumanPhysical ExertionRunningYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32745112
PMCPMC7398532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.