Author(s): FERNANDES DA SILVA, D., OZECHOWSKI, B., WILD, J., THAANE, T., HAJJ-BOUTROS, G., GIMUNOVÁ, M., PALUDO, A.C., Institution: BISHOP'S UNIVERSITY, Country: CANADA, Abstract-ID: 2483

INTRODUCTION:
Rugby players strive for peak performance through demanding training regimes, marked by heightened training loads. Key methods for gauging these loads include the Heart Rate Training Impulse (HR TRIMP) technique, developed by Edwards [1], and the Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE) method by Foster [2]. Despite their distinct approaches—HR TRIMP focusing on physiological measurements and sRPE on perceptual markers—studies in various sports have shown significant correlations between them. Yet, research gaps still exist, particularly regarding their applicability in contact sports such as rugby, female athlete-focused analysis, and the impact of low energy availability risk on the HR TRIMP-sRPE relationship. Thus, our study aims to explore the link between HR TRIMP and sRPE among female rugby varsity players across a season.
METHODS:
Six female rugby varsity players (age: 22 ± 3 years; Weight: 69.8 ± 8.3 kg; Rugby experience: 1.6 ± 1.3) completed 2-3 monitored training sessions per week, employing both HR TRIMP and sRPE methods to quantify training loads for a total of 7 weeks. Polar H10 heart rate monitors were used during sessions, with data processed using the Polar Beat application to track time spent in specific heart rate zones. Time in each zone was multiplied by corresponding zone factors (1-5) and summed to calculate training loads in Arbitrary Units (AU) [1]. Additionally, participants provided 0-10 Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE), multiplied by session duration to determine sRPE in AU [2]. Prior to the season, participants completed the Lower Energy Availability for Females Questionnaire (LEAF-Q) [3] to assess the risk of low energy availability. To mitigate within-participant effects, residuals from a linear regression between participant as a random factor and the two training load markers were calculated. Spearman’s correlation was then applied to analyze the relationship between HR TRIMP and sRPE residuals, with separate analyses conducted for participants with LEAF-Q scores ≥8 and <8. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS:
A total of 39 collected data points revealed a large and positive correlation between HR TRIMP (203 ± 80 AU) and sRPE (362 ± 160 AU), with an observed correlation coefficient of r = 0.61. Among the six participants, four (66.7%) exhibited a risk of low energy availability. Subsequent sub-analysis focused on participants with a risk of low energy availability and those without. For those with a risk of low energy availability, a correlation coefficient of r = 0.69 was noted (n = 27 points), compared to r = 0.63 (n = 12 points) for the groups without risk.
CONCLUSION:
The physiological (HR TRIMP) and perceptual (sRPE) methods for quantifying training loads demonstrated a significant association, irrespective of the presence of low energy availability risk, among female rugby varsity players.