Methods of monitoring training load and their relationships to changes in fitness and performance in competitive road cyclists

摘要

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response relationships between different training load methods and aerobic fitness and performance in competitive road cyclists.ud udMethod: Training data from 15 well-trained competitive cyclists were collected during a 10-week (December – March) pre-season training period. Before and after the training period, participants underwent a laboratory incremental exercise test with gas exchange and lactate measures and a performance assessment using an 8-min time trial (8MT). Internal training load was calculated using Banister’s TRIMP (bTRIMP), Edwards’ TRIMP (eTRIMP), individualized TRIMP (iTRIMP), Lucia’s TRIMP (luTRIMP) and session-RPE (sRPE). External load was measured using Training Stress Score™ (TSS). udududResults: Large to very large relationships (r = 0.54-0.81) between training load and changes in submaximal fitness variables (power at 2 and 4 mmol·L-1) were observed for all training load calculation methods. The strongest relationships with changes in aerobic fitness variables were observed for iTRIMP (r = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93, r = 0.77 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.92]) and TSS (r = 0.75 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.93], r = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.40 to 0.94]). The highest dose-response relationships with changes in the 8MT performance test were observed for iTRIMP (r = 0.63 [95% CI 0.17 to 0.86]) and luTRIMP (r = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.29 to 0.89). udududConclusions: The results show that training load quantification methods that integrate individual physiological characteristics have the strongest dose-response relationships, suggesting this to be an essential factor in the quantification of training load in cycling.