Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Despite the widespread use of wearables in endurance sports allowing the measurements needed for quantification of the training load (TL), studies in sports cardiology consistently use less reliable questionnaires to assess TL.[1] This scant use of activity trackers to determine TL can be explained by the large workload for data analysis. Purpose We aimed to develop a semi-automated post-processing tool that allows quantifying TL, based on heart rate (HR) monitoring by commercial wearables, for future use in clinical and epidemiological studies. We compared the calculated maximal HR automatically derived from HR monitoring during endurance training with the maximal HR obtained during incremental exercise testing in the lab. We describe TL calculated by our tool in young and older endurances athletes and compare it with the TL obtained via questionnaires. Methods Training data was collected in two multicenter studies. Master@Heart is a cohort study of endurance trained middle-aged men between 45 and 70 years.[2] Pro@Heart is a prospective study in young endurance athletes between 16 and 23 years.[3] For the purpose of this substudy, 44 athletes (38 ± 17 years) that had recorded all their training sessions using a chest-worn HR monitor for one year were included. Using an in-house developed pipeline in R (R core Team, Vienna, Austria), maximal HR and TL were calculated from training data. The maximal HR measured in the field (Tangent MaxHR) was then compared with the lab-measured maximal HR (Lab MaxHR). Both Lucia training impulse (LuTRIMP) and Edwards TRIMP (eTRIMP) were compared as measures of TL based on HR-based intensity zones. LuTRIMP, based on individually based exercise intensity zones, and eTRIMP based on the Tangent MaxHR. Participants filled in a standard exercise questionnaire to determine the amount of training sessions and training hours per week. Results Lab MaxHR was lower than Tangent MaxHR (183 ± 12.2bpm vs. 188.3 ± 13.0bpm; Figure 1 A), but correlated strongly (r=0.81, P<0.01; Figure 1 B) with low mean bias (-5.3bpm, LOA±15.4; Figure 1 C). LuTRIMP and eTRIMP correlated very strong (r=0.93, P<0.01). Pro@Heart athletes performed a higher TL (1730 ± 644 vs. 1190 ± 314 AU/week, P<0.01; Figure 2 A), duration (12.2 ± 4.6 hours per week vs. 7.9 ± 2.4, P<0.01; Figure 2 B) and trained more frequent (5.9 ± 1.7 vs. 4.0 ± 1.0 sessions per week, P<0.01; Figure 2 C) than Master@Heart athletes. Neither the reported training sessions nor the training hours in the questionnaires correlated with the measured training sessions (r=0.20) and training hours respectively (r=0.12). Conclusion Our tool allows to semi-automatically quantify different TL parameters in endurance athletes from a wide age range. The use of questionnaires to determine TL is inaccurate. TL calculated using eTRIMP is comparable to TL calculated using LuTRIMP. Since eTRIMP does not require an exercise test, it is more easily implementable in large studies.

Relationship Between External Training Load and Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Training Impulse in Elite Sprinters

Performance and Training Load Profiles in Recreational Male Trail Runners: Analyzing Their Interactions during Competitions

Research application of session-RPE in monitoring the training load of elite endurance athletes

Analysis of the Association between Internal and External Training Load Indicators in Elite Soccer; Multiple Regression Study

Validity of Session Rating Perceived Exertion Method for Quantifying Internal Training Load during High-Intensity Functional Training

The association between resistance training volume load and session rating of perceived exertion in junior developmental female rugby league athletes

Acceleration intensity is an important contributor to the external and internal training load demands of repeated sprint exercises in soccer players

Repeated sprint training: The effects of session volume on acute physiological, neuromuscular, perceptual and performance outcomes in athletes

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

Validation of Internal and External Load Metrics in NCAA D1 Women's Beach Volleyball

Relationship Between Various Training-Load Measures in Elite Cyclists During Training, Road Races, and Time Trials

Determinant Factors of the Match-Based Internal Load in Elite Soccer Players

Does External Load Reflect Acute Neuromuscular Fatigue and Rating of Perceived Exertion in Elite Young Soccer Players?

Quantifying the External and Internal Loads of Professional Rugby League Training Modes: Consideration for Concurrent Field-Based Training Prescription

Quantification of internal and external training load during a training camp in senior international female footballers

Session-RPE for quantifying the load of different youth basketball training sessions

The effects of training volume and repetition distance on session rating of perceived exertion and internal load in swimmers

The Relationships between Internal and External Load Measures for Division I College Football Practice

A semi-automatic tool to quantify training load in endurance athletes

Evaluating the effectiveness of quantitative pupillometry in assessing dynamic aerobic training intensity

Using the Rating of Perceived Exertion and Heart Rate to Quantify Training Intensity in Female Soccer Players: Validity and Utility