Premium
Monitoring training to assess changes in fitness and fatigue: The effects of training in heat and hypoxia
Author(s) -
Crowcroft S.,
Duffield R.,
McCleave E.,
Slattery K.,
Wallace L. K.,
Coutts A. J.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of medicine and science in sports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.575
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1600-0838
pISSN - 0905-7188
DOI - 10.1111/sms.12364
Subject(s) - rating of perceived exertion , medicine , heart rate , hypoxia (environmental) , perceived exertion , physical therapy , endurance training , anesthesia , blood pressure , oxygen , chemistry , organic chemistry
This study examined the association between monitoring tools, training loads, and performance in concurrent heat and hypoxia ( H + H ) compared with temperate training environments. A randomized parallel matched‐group design involved 18 well‐trained male cyclists. Participants performed 12 interval sessions (3 weeks) in either H + H (32 ± 1 ° C , 50% RH , 16.6% O 2 normobaric hypoxia) or control (21 ° C , 50% RH , 21% O 2 ), followed by a seven‐session taper (3 weeks; 21 ° C , 50% RH , 21% O 2 ), while also maintaining external training (∼ 6–10 h/week). A 20‐km time trial ( TT ) was completed pre‐ and post‐training block (21 ° C , 50% RH , 21% O 2 ). Before each TT and once weekly, a 4‐min cycle warm‐up (70% 4‐min mean maximum power) was completed. Visual analog scale rating for pain, recovery, and fatigue was recorded before the warm‐up, with heart rate ( HR Ex ), heart rate recovery ( HRR ), and rating of perceived exertion ( RPE WU ) recorded following. Training load was quantified using the session rating of perceived exertion ( sRPE ) method throughout. Overall TT improved 35 ± 47 s with moderate correlations to HRR ( r = 0.49) and recovery ( r = −0.55). H + H group had a likely greater reduction in HR Ex [ ES = −0.50 (90% CL ) (−0.88; 0.12)] throughout and a greater sRPE ( ES = 1.20 [0.41; 1.99]), and reduction in HRR [ ES = −0.37 (−0.70;−0.04)] through the overload. RPE WU was associated with weekly training load ( r = 0.37). These findings suggest that recovery and HRR in a temperate environment may be used as simple measures to identify an athlete's readiness to perform. Alternatively, the relationship of RPE WU and training load suggests that perception of effort following a standardized warm‐up may be a valid measure when monitoring an athlete's training response, irrespective of the training environment.