English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Context: Running programs traditionally monitor external loads (e.g., time, distance). There has been a recent movement to encompass a more comprehensive approach to also monitor training loads that account for internal loads (e.g., intensity, measured as session rating of perceived exertion [sRPE]). The combination of an external and internal load accounts for the potential interaction between these loads. While differences in weekly change in training loads have been reported between external loads and the combination of an external and internal load during 2- and 4-week training cycles, there are no reports whether these differences are apparent during an entire cross-country season in high school runners. Objective: To compare change in training loads, as measured by external loads and combinations of an external and internal load, in high school runners during an interscholastic cross-country season. Design: Case-series. Setting: Community-based with daily online surveys. Participants: Twenty-four high school cross-country runners (female=14, male=10, age=15.9±1.1 years, running experience=9.9±3.2 years). Main Outcome Measure(s): Week-to-week percent change in training load when measured by external loads (time, distance) and the combination of an external and internal load (timeRPE, distanceRPE). Results: Overall, the average weekly change was 7.1% greater for distanceRPE compared to distance (p=.04, d=0.18). When decreasing weekly running duration, the average weekly change was 5.2% greater for distanceRPE compared to timeRPE (p=.03, d=0.24). When maintaining or increasing weekly running duration, the average weekly change was 10–15% greater when an external load was combined with an internal load compared to external loads alone, but these differences were non- significant (p=.11–.22, d=0.19–0.34). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that progression in training load may be underestimated when relying solely on external loads. The interaction between internal loads (sRPE) and external loads (distance or time) appears to provide a different measure of training stresses experienced by runners than external loads alone.

Quantification Method and Training Load Changes in High School Cross-Country Runners Across a Competitive Season