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.

Using TRIMP to Evaluate Football Training Load

Training Impulse and Its Impact on Load Management in Collegiate and Professional Soccer Players

Accumulative weekly load in a professional football team: with special reference to match playing time and game position

Quantification of a Professional Football Team's External Load Using a Microcycle Structure

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

Quantification of Training Load in Canadian Football: Application of Session-RPE in Collision-Based Team Sports

The Profile of the Internal Load of Amateur Soccer Players during Official Matches with Formation 1-4-3-3 and Relationships with Indexes of External Load

Application of MBI to Analyses of the Training Load on the Football major College Students in Simulation Matches

Relationship between methods of monitoring training load and physiological indicators changes during 4 weeks cross-country skiing altitude training

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

A Validation Study of Heart Rate Variability Index in Monitoring Basketball Training Load

Resultant equations for training load monitoring during a standard microcycle in sub-elite youth football: a principal components approach

Time to change direction in training load monitoring in elite football? The application of MEMS accelerometers for the evaluation of movement requirements

Application strategies of resting heart rate for monitoring training load intensity in football players

Absolute and Relative Training Load and Its Relation to Fatigue in Football

Measuring Training Load in Sports

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

Application of a Modified Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale and Weight Loss on the Control of Football Training Load

Training load responses to football game profile-based training (GPBT) formats: effects of locomotive demands manipulation

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

Physical Load of Football Matches on Collegiate Players:Analyses Based on the MBI and GMLM