This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]

On: 11 August 2014, At: 10:43

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Training load quantification in elite swimmers using a

modified version of the training impulse method
a a b c c
Amador García-Ramos , Belén Feriche , Carmen Calderón , Xavier Iglesias , Anna Barrero ,
c d c
Diego Chaverri , Thorsten Schuller & Ferran A. Rodríguez
a
Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
b
High Performance Centre of Sierra Nevada CSD, C.A.R. Sierra Nevada, Granada, Spain
c
INEFC-Barcelona Sport Sciences Research Group, Institut Nacional d'Educació Física de
Catalunya, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
d
Institut für Physiologie und Anatomie, Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln, Köln, Germany
Published online: 19 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Amador García-Ramos, Belén Feriche, Carmen Calderón, Xavier Iglesias, Anna Barrero, Diego Chaverri,
Thorsten Schuller & Ferran A. Rodríguez (2014): Training load quantification in elite swimmers using a modified version of the
training impulse method, European Journal of Sport Science, DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2014.922621

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.922621

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 European Journal of Sport Science, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.922621

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Training load quantification in elite swimmers using a modified version

of the training impulse method

AMADOR GARCÍA-RAMOS1, BELÉN FERICHE1, CARMEN CALDERÓN2,

XAVIER IGLESIAS3, ANNA BARRERO3, DIEGO CHAVERRI3, THORSTEN SCHULLER4, &
FERRAN A. RODRÍGUEZ3
1
Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain, 2High Performance Centre of Sierra Nevada CSD,
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014

C.A.R. Sierra Nevada, Granada, Spain, 3INEFC-Barcelona Sport Sciences Research Group, Institut Nacional d’Educació
Física de Catalunya, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 4Institut für Physiologie und Anatomie, Deutsche
Sporthochschule Köln, Köln, Germany

Abstract
Prior reports have described the limitations of quantifying internal training loads using hear rate (HR)-based objective methods
such as the training impulse (TRIMP) method, especially when high-intensity interval exercises are performed. A weakness of
the TRIMP method is that it does not discriminate between exercise and rest periods, expressing both states into a single mean
intensity value that could lead to an underestimate of training loads. This study was designed to compare Banister’s original
TRIMP method (1991) and a modified calculation procedure (TRIMPc) based on the cumulative sum of partial TRIMP, and
to determine how each model relates to the session rating of perceived exertion (s-RPE), a HR-independent training load
indicator. Over four weeks, 17 elite swimmers completed 328 pool training sessions. Mean HR for the full duration of a session
and partial values for each 50 m of swimming distance and rest period were recorded to calculate the classic TRIMP and the
proposed variant (TRIMPc). The s-RPE questionnaire was self-administered 30 minutes after each training session. Both
TRIMPc and TRIMP measures strongly correlated with s-RPE scores (r = 0.724 and 0.702, respectively; P < 0.001). However,
TRIMPc was ∼9% higher on average than TRIMP (117 ± 53 vs. 107 ± 47; P < 0.001), with proportionally greater inter-
method difference with increasing workload intensity. Therefore, TRIMPc appears to be a more accurate and appropriate
procedure for quantifying training load, particularly when monitoring interval training sessions, since it allows weighting both
exercise and recovery intervals separately for the corresponding HR-derived intensity.

Keywords: Interval training, swimming, s-RPE, TRIMP, heart rate

Introduction (Borresen & Lambert, 2008, 2009), to date no

The training adaptations are associated with changes
in performance. Finding the optimal balance between
training load and recovery is crucial for sports
performance (Smith, 2003). This principle of training
can be reduced to a simple dose–response relationship
between the physiological stress associated with the
load of exercise training (‘dose’) and the training
adaptations (‘response’) (Borresen & Lambert 2009).
While the ‘response’ can be measured rather easily,
either as a change in performance in the laboratory or
field or as a physiological adaptation, the ‘dose’
imposes more difficulty and logistical challenges
(Lambert & Borresen, 2010). Even if several methods
of quantifying training loads have been proposed
effective method has been described for assessing
training loads in swimming that can discriminate
between different types of time intervals (Wallace,
Coutts, Bell, Simpson, & Slattery, 2008).
In swimming, distance and/or speed are often
used to monitor the external training load. Along
with training session duration, heart rate (HR) is
considered an objective measure of internal training
load (Desgorces, Sénégas, Garcia, Decker, &
Noirez, 2007; Impellizzeri et al., 2006; Mallo &
Navarro, 2008; Stagno, Thatcher, & Van Someren,
2007). The training impulse (TRIMP) method
(Banister, 1991), first proposed by Banister and
Hamilton (1985), considers three factors: session
duration, the mean HR for the session (expressed

Correspondence: Belén Feriche, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Ctra. de Alfacar, 18011, Granada, Spain. E-mail:
mbelen@ugr.es

© 2014 European College of Sport Science

 2 A. García-Ramos et al.
according to resting and maximum HR values) and a
sex-dependent exponential coefficient that weights
intensity. Two of the main inconsistencies of Banis-
ter’s method are 1. the assignment of a single mean
intensity value (mean HR) for the entire workout
and 2. the generic weighting factor based on a
standard lactate curve instead of an individualised
one. We believe that an additional weakness of this
method is that it does not discriminate between
exercise and rest periods, a critical factor in interval
training. Instead, these two states are expressed as a
single mean intensity value for the total duration of
the training session and, most likely, this could lead
to underestimate training loads.
In addition, HR-based methods have certain lim-
itations for non-aerobic modes of exercise, such as
resistance training (Busso et al., 1990) or interval
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
exercises (Borresen & Lambert 2009), very common
in swimming training (Foster et al., 2001; Stagno
et al., 2007). Hellard et al. (2006) argued that this
indicator has limitations when monitoring starts and
turns. Indeed, these actions generally represent 30%
of training session duration for sprint swimmers
(Thompson, Haljand, & MacLaren, 2000). These
shortcomings have been addressed, and modifications
have been proposed (see Borresen & Lambert, 2009,
for a review). A proposal presented as a TRIMP
variant multiplies the cumulative time spent in a given
HR zone by a weighting factor (Foster et al., 2001;
Lucia, Hoyos, Santalla, Earnest, & Chicharro, 2003),
computing total exercise demands by adding the
loads within each HR zone. However, in contrast to
classical TRIMP, only exercise periods are computed.
Additionally, the weighting factor increases linearly,
instead of exponentially as in the TRIMP method,
and therefore does not seem to adequately represent
the training load of exercises performed at intensities
exceeding the anaerobic threshold (Stagno et al.,
2007). In interval workouts, these procedures could
lead to underestimated training loads as suggested by
Borresen and Lambert (2008).
Subjective methods such as the rating of perceived
exertion (RPE) are gaining popularity to monitor and
control training because of their practicality and
usability (Borresen & Lambert 2009; Lambert &
Borresen, 2010; Psycharakis, 2011; Raffaelli, Galvani,
Lanza, & Zamparo, 2012; Wallace, Slattery, &
Coutts, 2009). RPE was found to be closely asso-
ciated with different physiological variables (e.g., HR,
oxygen consumption and lactate concentration)
and training zones (Bonitch, Ramirez, Femia,
Feriche, & Padial, 2005; Coutts, Rampinini,
Marcora, Castagna, & Impellizzeri, 2009; Feriche,
Chicharro, Vaquero, Perez, & Lucia, 1998;
Mendez-Villanueva, Fernandez-Fernández, Bishop,
& Fernandez-Garcia, 2010; Steed, Gaesser, &
Weltman, 1994). The session RPE (s-RPE) proposed
by Foster (Foster, 1998; Foster et al., 1995) intends
to circumvent the problems associated with measur-
ing HR during training and is currently one of the
most used methods in sport. Recent reports have
established good agreement between objective and
subjective methods of exertion quantification such as
the TRIMP and s-RPE methods in endurance train-
ing (Wallace, Slattery, & Coutts, 2014) and its
ecological validity for training load evaluation in elite
swimmers has been established (Wallace et al., 2009).
Therefore, a quantification method for sessions
eliciting substantial HR changes across exercise
intervals interspersed with recovery periods of differ-
ent duration is needed. Such a method would make
it possible to determine the swimmer’s level of
exercise and more precisely reflect the physiological
stress imposed by the training session.
This study was designed to propose a modification
to the calculation of training impulses (cumulative
TRIMP or TRIMPc) based on the summation of
partial values weighted by the time duration of the
exercise and recovery intervals, and to correlate both
of them with an independent quantification method
(s-RPE) in elite swimmers. Our starting hypothesis
was that considering each repetition and recovery
periods separately would represent more accurately
the training load, and that this would be reflected by
an improved relationship with the subjective (RPE-
based) load indicator.
Methods
Participants
The study participants were 17 elite swimmers, 11
women (aged 19 ± 2.6 years, height 175 ± 6 cm,
body mass 64.7 ± 5.1 kg) and 6 men (aged 19.8 ±
1.9 years, height 186 ± 5 cm, body mass 78.5 ±
6.6 kg). They were members of the Spanish and
Dutch national teams and elite swimming clubs.
Selection criteria were to have competed interna-
tionally during the previous season and/or being pre-
selected as member of their National and/or Olympic
teams. To quantify the competitive level of the
participants, the FINA Point Scoring (FPS) system
was used (data from 2011), and a point score (range
0–1100) was ascribed to each swimmer according to
her/his best time in her/his main event, scaled up or
down from 1000 points based on the global 2012
fastest performance in each event. The FPS of the
study sample was 766.6 ± 59.5. Subjects were
invited to voluntarily participate in the study and
provided written informed consent. For swimmers
under 18 years old, consent was obtained from their
legal guardians. The study protocol adhered to the
tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was

approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Sport
Research of Catalonia.
Experimental design
A correlation study was designed with multiple
longitudinal observations. The participants took part
in a training camp and were monitored daily over four
consecutive weeks of training at the High Perform-
ance Centre of Madrid (CAR de Madrid, Consejo
Superior de Deportes), or at the Club Natació
Sabadell (50-m indoor swimming pools), located at
655 m and 190 m above sea level, respectively. The
swimmers completed the training programmes pre-
scribed by their coaches. On average, they trained six
days/week, three sessions/day (two in the pool and
one on dry land) and usually rested on Sunday. Data
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
from the pool sessions only were used in the analysis.
Three different methods for quantifying training load
were used and compared.
Materials
In each session, HR was recorded beat-by-beat, and
averaged every 5 seconds using waterproof monitors
(CardioSwim, Freelap, Fleurier and Switzerland).
The HR monitors’ belt contains two chest electrodes
wired to a monitoring device that was downloaded
on a computer at the end of each session using an
interface configuration and ancillary software (Free-
lap Manager, Fleurier, Switzerland, 2007) and then
transferred to Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software
(Microsoft, USA) for further analysis. Beacon trans-
mitters for electronic timekeeping (TX H2O, Free-
lap, Switzerland) were placed at each end of the 50-
m pool. These units sent a signal to the monitors’
microprocessor, which was registered as 50-m lap
time. Previous to the study period, the baseline and
maximum HR were recorded, which were main-
tained as such throughout the study. Baseline HR
was obtained after waking up with beat-by-beat
monitors (Polar RS800, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele,
Finland). While subjects remained in supine posi-
tion, time between adjacent R-waves (R-R intervals)
were recorded during 8 minutes, and the last 5
mintues were averaged. Maximum HR was the
maximal value obtained during a previous maximum
200-m freestyle test. As a subjective indicator of
training load, the self-administered Category Ratio
scale (CR-10) questionnaire was used according to
the procedure proposed by Foster et al. (2001).
Quantification of training load
HR and lap time intervals were recorded in all pool
training sessions to compute training impulse units
using two different calculation procedures: the
Training load quantification in elite swimmers 3
classic TRIMP method and the modified, so desig-
nated ‘cumulative TRIMP’ method or TRIMPc.
The classic TRIMP method (Banister & Hamilton,
1985) estimates the internal training load from the
exercise duration and HR-based intensity, deter-
mined by the increase in HR (ΔHRratio) weighed by
a sex-dependent exponential factor (Banister, 1991)
according to the following equation:


for men: k1 ¼ 0:64  e1:92x
TRIMP ¼ t  k1  x ð1Þ
for women: k1 ¼ 0:86  e1:67x
where TRIMP = ‘training impulse’ (arbitrary units,
a.u.); t = duration of training (minute); k1 = sex-
dependent intensity factor; e = base of the natural
logarithm (2.712); and x = fractional elevation of the
maximum HR range (ΔHRratio), or in other terms:
HR exercise  HR rest
x ¼ DHR ratio ¼ ð2Þ
HR max  HR rest
Since HR and time lap intervals were recorded in
each pool training session, the TRIMPc quantified
the training impulse as the summation of all partial
TRIMP values registered during the session. Thus,
each exercise and recovery time intervals (tint) were
individually quantified, and then summated to
obtain the TRIMPc value corresponding to the
entire training session:
X
N
TRIMPc ¼ tint  k1  x ð3Þ
int¼1
where TRIMPc = cumulative TRIMP (a.u.) and
N = total (cumulative) number of exercise/recovery
time intervals during the training session (Nint), each
with its corresponding ΔHRratio.
Additionally, the variability in HR during the
training session was expressed as the standard
deviation of the time-weighted HR (HRs):
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u P 
u N
u HR 2int  tint  HR 2mean  tsession
t int¼1
HR s ¼ ð4Þ
N int
where Nint = number of HR intervals monitored
during the session; HRint = mean HR for each time
interval; tint = time duration of each time interval
(minute); HRmean = mean HR for the entire training
session; and tsession = time duration of the training
session (minute).
Separately, within 30 minutes after each training
session all swimmers completed a RPE questionnaire
based on the CR-10 RPE scale (Borg, Ljunggren, &
Ceci, 1985), adapted for the overall assessment of
training sessions by Foster (Foster et al., 1995; Foster,
1998), and recently validated for swimmers (Wallace
 4 A. García-Ramos et al.

et al., 2009). The subjects were required to score from
0 to 10 on how hard they perceived their training
session to be, and s-RPE was then calculated using the
following equation:
s-RPE ¼ RPE score tsession
where RPE score is the rating of perceived exertion
score (from 0 to 10) for the whole training session
and t = duration of the training session (minute).
Statistical analysis
Data are summarised as means and standard devia-
tions (s). s-RPE was used as an independent (i.e.,
not HR based) training load indicator to which both
TRIMP calculation methods were compared by
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
and HRs) as predictor variables. The adjusted
Pearson’s multivariate coefficient of determination
(adjusted r2), the standard error of the estimate
(SEE), the regression constant (a), the raw score
(b) and standardised coefficients (β-weights) are
ð5Þ reported. Also a predictive linear regression model
for estimating the training impulse with anyone of
both calculation methods was developed, and a
Bland–Altman mean difference plot with 95% limits
of agreement was drawn. Significance was set at
P < 0.05 and the confidence interval at 95% is
indicated when appropriate (95% CI). All analyses
were performed using PASW Statistics for Windows,
version 18.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA.
Results

assessing the level of correlation and inter-method

agreement. Correlations between both objective
(TRIMP and TRIMPc) and subjective (s-RPE)
methods were quantified through Pearson’s linear
correlation coefficient (r). The two TRIMP calcula-
tion procedures were also compared using a t test
for paired data. Qualitative interpretations of the r
coefficients as defined by Hopkins (2002; 0–0.09
trivial; 0.1–0.29 small; 0.3–0.49 moderate; 0.5–0.69
large; 0.7–0.89 very large; 0.9–0.99 nearly perfect; 1
perfect) are provided for all significant correlations.
Workload indicators recorded across the four weeks
of study were compared by one-way analysis of
variance. In addition, algorithmic multiple linear
regression (MLR) analysis was used to individuate
factors showing an effect on s-RPE, TRIMP and
TRIMPc. The best-fit model was generated through
stepwise regression (Fin ≤ 0.05; Fout ≥ 1.0) using the
three estimated workload scores as the dependent
variable, and the objective training load indicators
during the training session (duration, ΔHRratio, Nint
The data analysed were obtained from a total of 328
individual swimming training sessions. The mean
duration of each session was 90.2 (22.3) minutes.
Table I shows the descriptive results for the training
load indicators, and both objective (TRIMP and
TRIMPc) and subjective (s-RPE) estimated the
internal workload scores across the study. The
pooled TRIMPc mean scores during the four-week
period were 9.0% higher (95% CI = 8.2–9.7) than
TRIMP (P < 0.001). No significant differences were
observed among scores across the four-week training
period in any of the training load variables.
The pooled scores obtained using both calculation
methods (TRIMP and TRIMPc) were nearly perfectly
correlated (r = 0.996; P < 0.001; Figure 1), and
showed a large to very large correlation with s-RPE
across the study (TRIMP: r = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.64–
0.75; TRIMPc: r = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.67–0.77; P
<0.001; Table II). The within-subjects correlation
coefficients were very large in both cases, although it

Table I. Workload indicators and estimated internal training load scores during individual sessions (n = 328) across the study

Weeks of training

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Weeks 1–4

Duration (minute) 91 ± 22 85 ± 24 93 ± 24 90 ± 20 90 ± 22
HRrest (bpm) 56 ± 8 55 ± 8 56 ± 8 55 ± 8 55 ± 8
HRmax (bpm) 191 ± 9 189 ± 7 190 ± 8 191 ± 9 190 ± 9
HRmean (bpm) 131 ± 15 131 ± 13 129 ± 12 128 ± 12 130 ± 13
HRs (bpm) 12 ± 5 14 ± 9 13 ± 5 12 ± 5 13 ± 6
ΔHRratio (%) 56 ± 11 56 ± 9 55 ± 9 53 ± 8 55 ± 9
Intervals (N) 281 ± 225 224 ± 216 326 ± 352 222 ± 151 264 ± 243
TRIMP (a.u.) 111 ± 47 104 ± 48 115 ± 55 98 ± 40 107 ± 47
TRIMPc (a.u.) 121 ± 52 112 ± 53 127 ± 63 107 ± 45 117 ± 53
s-RPE (a.u.) 422 ± 216 385 ± 220 475 ± 319 415 ± 247 424 ± 250

Training load indicators are: duration, time duration of the training session; HRrest/max/mean, resting, maximum, mean heart rate,
respectively (bpm, beat per minute); HRs, standard deviation of the time-weighted heart rate (equation 4); ΔHRratio, fractional elevation of
the heart rate (equation 2); intervals, number of exercise and recovery intervals.
Estimated training load scores are: s-RPE, session rating of perceived exertion (equation 5); TRIMP, training impulse score (Banister,
1991; equation 1); TRIMPc, cumulative training impulse score (equation 3).
 Training load quantification in elite swimmers 5

Figure 1. Relationship between the pooled training impulse scores with both classic (TRIMP) and cumulative (TRIMPc) calculation
methods: (A) Linear regression plot, regression equation and coefficient of determination (adjusted r2; P < 0.001); the regression (solid) and
identity (dashed) lines are depicted. (B) Bland–Altman mean difference plot. The zero difference (solid), mean difference (long-dashed) and
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014

the ±SD limits of agreement (short-dashed) lines are depicted.

was higher using TRIMPc (r = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.76–
0.78) than Banister’s TRIMP (r = 0.74; 95% CI =
0.73–0.75; P = 0.002).
As shown in Figure 1, the difference between both
methods of calculation increased with the mean
scores, indicating that proportional bias existed.
Table III shows the variables and parameters of
the three algorithmic explanatory MLR models
generated using the objective training load indicators
as independent variables (n = 328; k = 4). The HR
variability indicator (HRs) was excluded in all three
models and is not shown in Table III, and the
number of intervals (Nint) was excluded in the s-RPE
predictive model. Thus, when s-RPE was used as the
predicted variable, the resultant best-fit model
accounted for 55% of the variance (adjusted r2 =
0.551; SEE = 168; P < 0.001). When TRIMP and
TRIMPc were the predicted variables, the
corresponding model explained 92% of the variance
(adjusted r2 = 0.919 and 0.921; SEE = 13.5 and
14.9, respectively; P < 0.001). The standardised β-
weight coefficients indicated that the length of the
training session had a similar weight in the three
methods of workload quantification (β > 0.5),
whereas as expected, the ΔHRratio had a greater
weight (β = 0.7) in predicting both TRIMP and
TRIMPc as compared to s-RPE (β = 0.4). The
number of intervals entered both TRIMP models
but had a minor role in predicting the dependent
variable (β ≤ 0.1).
Discussion
The results of this study show that, using currently
available technology to identify and time the exercise
and recovery intervals, the internal workload for

Table II. Correlation between pooled group scores using objective (TRIMP and TRIMPc) and subjective (s-RPE) training load
quantification methods across the study

Number of training sessions Method of calculation Correlation with s-RPE (r)

Week 1 106 TRIMP 0.734

TRIMPc 0.751
Week 2 65 TRIMP 0.661
TRIMPc 0.690
Week 3 69 TRIMP 0.745
TRIMPc 0.768
Week 4 68 TRIMP 0.665
TRIMPc 0.676
Weeks 1–4 328 TRIMP 0.702 (0.64–0.75)
TRIMPc 0.724 (0.67–0.77)

TRIMP, training impulse score (Banister, 1991); TRIMPc, cumulative training impulse score; s-RPE, session rating of perceived exertion
score; r, Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (95% CI).
 6 A. García-Ramos et al.
Table III. Parameters of the explanatory MLR models generated with s-RPE, TRIMP and TRIMPc as the predicted variables
s-RPE
Constant (a) −695.3
Duration (minute) 6.573 (0.586)
ΔHRratio (%) 9.559 (0.359)
Intervals (N) Excluded
Data are MLR model raw-score constants (a) and raw-score (b) and standardised coefficients (β-weights, in parenthesis). Predicted
variables are: s-RPE, session rating of perceived exertion (equation 5); TRIMP, training impulse score (Banister, 1991; (equation 1);
TRIMPc, cumulative training impulse score (equation 3). Predictor variables are: duration, time duration of the training session; ΔHRratio,
fractional elevation of the HR (equation 2); intervals, number of exercise and recovery intervals.
Excluded: a variable not entering the stepwise regression MLR model.
interval training sessions can be more accurately
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
quantified by weighting each exercise and recovery
interval for the corresponding HR-derived intensity,
and calculating the summated TRIMP value. This
modified method, that we designated as ‘cumulative
TRIMP’ (TRIMPc), resulted in ∼9% higher training
impulse scores compared to the classical method of
calculation. The validity of this approach is sup-
ported by the better correlation with s-RPE – as an
independent subjective workload indicator – and the
proportionally greater inter-method difference with
increasing workload intensity, irrespective of work-
out duration during the training session.
The variables used to calculate TRIMP as estab-
lished by Banister (1991) are the total duration of
training and the mean HR of the training session,
expressed according to resting and maximum HR
values. In addition, an exponential factor is used to
adjust for the different demands of ‘long-duration
low-intensity’ and ‘short-duration high-intensity’
exercise (equations 1 and 2). Such factor is based
on the lactate curve versus HR ratio during exercise
of increasing intensity. Although this relationship is
different in each individual, for practical purposes a
standardised valid equation for each sex is used.
However, the literature lacks consensus as to
the adequacy of the use of the classic TRIMP for
high-intensity or interval training because, in such
conditions, HR increases disproportionately in
comparison with steady-state exercise (Borresen &
Lambert, 2008, 2009; Foster et al., 2001; Robson-
Ansley, Gleeson, & Ansley, 2009).
Consistent with these views, the present results
suggest that the conventional procedure used to
calculate TRIMP does not adequately reflect work-
load variations within an interval training session.
This can be explained by the fact that classic TRIMP
calculations assign a single mean intensity (mean
HR) to compute the training impulse for the entire
workout. Using the TRIMPc approach, the varia-
tions of internal load throughout the session are
Predicted variable
TRIMP TRIMPc
−185.0 −208.8
1.126 (0.530) 1.197 (0.503)
3.393 (0.673) 3.702 (0.656)
0.014 (0.069) 0.030 (0.138)
taken into account since the fractional elevation of
the maximum HR range (ΔHRratio in equation 2) is
more accurately calculated for each time period and,
consequently, the intensity factor (k1 in equation 1)
varies according to whether it relates to exercise or
recovery periods. Since, typically, a swimming train-
ing session is composed by a large number intervals,
most of them likely to be periods of incomplete
recovery from previous exercise, this may account
for the substantial difference in the quantification of
the training impulse between both methods. In fact,
TRIMPc scores were 9% higher (95% CI = 8.23–
9.72) than classical TRIMP scores, with the absolute
difference and the score variance increasing propor-
tionally to the mean score (Figure 1). These results
suggest that the classical TRIMP calculation under-
estimates the actual internal load because the mean
HR – the physiological intensity indicator – even if
adjusted for exercise intensity does not discriminate
between exercise and recovery periods during the
training session. Moreover, as pointed by Borresen
and Lambert (2008), the fact that the TRIMP
weighting factor is based on a fixed lactate–workload
relationship might introduce error in the quantifica-
tion of training load when an athlete’s training status
changes over time or when comparing training loads
of subjects who differ with respect to training status.
Such discrepancies might have a significant impact
not only in the quantification of the internal load but
also in the characterisation of the training stimulus.
In fact, the length of the recovery period between
high-intensity exercise intervals can generate differ-
ent oxygen uptake kinetics and HR responses
(Libicz, Roels, & Millet, 2005), whereas those
involving submaximal intensity may evoke similar
responses, although with large inter-subject variabil-
ity (Bentley et al., 2005).
A good relationship was observed between both
objective HR-based methods of calculating the
training impulse and the subjective load indicator
(s-RPE), which is considered an ecologically valid

and practical method for monitoring internal load
(Wallace et al., 2009). Our results are consistent
with previous reports of good agreement between s-
RPE and Bannister’s TRIMP in swimmers (Wallace
et al., 2009), along with good agreement with other
HR-based methods both in swimmers (Psycharakis,
2011; Wallace et al., 2008, 2009) and other athletes
(Borresen & Lambert 2009; Foster, 1998; Herman,
Foster, Maher, Mikat, & Porcari, 2009). The very
high individual correlation obtained here (r = 0.74;
95% CI = 0.73–0.75) is nearly identical to those
recorded in well-trained swimmers by Wallace et al.
(2009; r = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.67–0.81), in physically
active men and women by Borresen and Lambert
(2008; r = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.56–0.88) and in young
soccer players (r = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.17–0.94) by
Akubat et al. (2012) but higher than observed in
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
senior football players by Impellizzeri, Rampinini,
Coutts, Sassi, and Marcora (2004; r = 0.60; 95% CI
= 0.57–0.63). Importantly, the correlation with s-
RPE was higher when using the TRIMPc calculation
method (r = 0.76–0.78) as compared with the
classical TRIMP method (r = 0.73 vs. 0.76), which
supports the validity of the new procedure.
Interestingly, the number of intervals during the
training workout had only a minor effect in predict-
ing both TRIMP scores – although its weight was
greater in estimating TRIMPc values – and none in
predicting s-RPE scores. However, the strength of
the link with s-RPE was virtually unaffected, sug-
gesting that this subjective internal load indicator
may not sufficiently discriminate between mostly
continuous and interval types of training. The
explanatory MLR analysis provided further insight
into these relationships. Whereas the length of the
training session had a similar weight in the predic-
tion of the subjective (s-RPE) and both HR-based
methods – simply reflecting the use of this external
indicator in their calculation – the ΔHRratio had a
greater influence in predicting both TRIMP scores.
This finding was expected, since both methods use
the fractional elevation of HR as the internal load
indicator, although, as discussed before, the classical
TRIMP method does not discriminate between
exercise and recovery periods. However, since the
number of intervals was relatively less important in
estimating the overall workload score, it seems
logical to conclude that the underestimation of the
classical TRIMP method is almost entirely related to
the discrimination between exercise and recovery
periods and, consequently, to the more accurate use
of the intensity factor across the range of variation of
the ΔHRratio during the workout session.
From the point of view of practicality, the technical
difficulties associated with monitoring HR in the
aquatic environment (Wallace et al., 2009) were
substantially reduced with the HR monitors used in
Training load quantification in elite swimmers 7
this study, which do not rely on aerial/aquatic trans-
mission of the electrocardiographic signal. Two thin
isolated wires connect the electrode chest band with
the recording unit placed in the back of the swimmer,
acting also as shoulder belts and helping to prevent the
longitudinal displacement of the electrode band. Most
important, the monitors and timekeeping beacon
transmitters placed at the pool edges record HR and
lap times automatically and simultaneously, making it
possible to time the intervals and to discriminate
between exercise and recovery phases. Although they
cannot yet be considered as completely reliable and
there is room for further technical improvement, they
proved to be very useful instruments for HR monitor-
ing in the aquatic environment.
Conclusions
The present findings, using currently available tech-
nology to identify and time the exercise and recovery
intervals, suggest that Banister’s classical method of
TRIMP calculation underestimates the magnitude of
the training impulse, since acute load changes are
not adequately accounted for due to the typically
non-steady-state, variable intensity of swimming
training exercises. This likely occurs because the
mean HR – the physiological intensity indicator –
even if adjusted for exercise intensity, does not
discriminate between exercise and recovery periods
during an interval training session. We therefore
suggest that for training workouts in which moder-
ate- to high-intensity exercise alternate with incom-
plete recovery pauses, as is common in swimming
training, the proposed TRIMPc quantification
method can provide an improved estimate of the
internal training load.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the swimmers and coaches (Jordi
Murio and Patrick Pearson) for their collaboration
and commitment to this study. We also thank Chris
Brammer who provided valuable feedback on drafts
of this study.
Funding
The data here presented are part of a larger study
(ALTITUDE project) supported by grants awarded by
the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain [Minis-
terio de Ciencia e Innovación, DEP2009-09181], the
Higher Sports Council of Spain [Consejo Superior de
Deportes 35/UPB/10, 005/UPB10/11, 112/UPB10/12,
CAR-UGr 2009, CAR-UGr 2011], Dutch Olympic Com-
mittee [NOC*NSF WOT/44090101] and the National
Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia Generalitat de
Catalunya [Research Support Grants 2011, 2012]. A.G.R.
was supported by a FPU grant from the Ministry of
Economy and Innovation of Spain [FPU 12/0060].
 8 A. García-Ramos et al.
References
Akubat, I., Patel, E., Barrett, S., & Abt, G. (2012). Methods of
monitoring the training and match load and their relationship
to changes in fitness in professional youth soccer players.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(14), 1473–1480. doi:10.1080/
02640414.2012.712711
Banister, E. W. (1991). Modeling elite athletic performance. In H.
J. Green, J. D. McDougal, & H. Wenger (Eds.) . Physiological
testing of elite athletes (pp. 403–424). Champaign, IL. Human
Kinetics.
Banister, E. W., & Hamilton, C. L. (1985). Variations in iron
status with fatigue modelled from training in female distance
runners. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology, 54(1), 16–23. doi:10.1007/BF00426292
Bentley, D. J., Roels, B., Hellard, P., Fauquet, C., Libicz, S., &
Millet, G. P. (2005). Physiological responses during submax-
imal interval swimming training: Effects of interval duration.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 8(4), 392–402.
doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(05)80054-4
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
Bonitch, J., Ramirez, J., Femia, P., Feriche, B., & Padial, P.
(2005). Validating the relation between heart rate and per-
ceived exertion in a judo competition. Medicina dello Sport, 58,
23–28.
Borg, G., Ljunggren, G., & Ceci, R. (1985). The increase of
perceived exertion, aches and pain in the legs, heart rate and
blood lactate during exercise on a bicycle ergometer. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 54(4),
343–349. doi:10.1007/BF02337176
Borresen, J., & Lambert, M. I. (2008). Quantifying training load:
A comparison of subjective and objective methods. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3, 16–30.
Borresen, J., & Lambert, M. I. (2009). The quantification of
training load, the training response and the effect on perform-
ance. Sports Medicine, 39(9), 779–795. doi:10.2165/11317780-
000000000-00000
Busso, T., Hakkinen, K., Pakarinen, A., Carasso, C., Lacour,
J. R., Komi, P. V., & Kauhanen, H. (1990). A systems model
of training responses and its relationship to hormonal
responses in elite weight-lifters. European Journal of Applied
Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 61(1–2), 48–54.
doi:10.1007/BF00236693
Coutts, A. J., Rampinini, E., Marcora, S. M., Castagna, C., &
Impellizzeri, F. M. (2009). Heart rate and blood lactate
correlates of perceived exertion during small-sided soccer
games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(1), 79–84.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2007.08.005
Desgorces, F. D., Sénégas, X., Garcia, J., Decker, L., & Noirez, P.
(2007). Methods to quantify intermittent exercises. Applied
Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 32, 762–769. doi:10.1139/
H07-037
Feriche, B., Chicharro, J., Vaquero, A., Perez, M., & Lucia, A.
(1998). The use of a fixed value of RPE during a ramp
protocol: Comparison with the ventilatory threshold. Journal
of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 38, 35–38.
Foster, C. (1998). Monitoring training in athletes with reference to
overtraining syndrome. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
30(7), 1164–1168. doi:10.1097/00005768-199807000-00023
Foster, C., Florhaug, J. A., Franklin, J., Gottschall, L., Hrovatin,
L. A., Parker, … Dodge, C. (2001). A new approach to
monitoring exercise training. Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research, 15, 109–115.
Foster, C., Hector, L. L., Welsh, R., Schrager, M., Green M. A.,
& Snyder, A. C. (1995). Effects of specific versus cross-training
on running performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology
and Occupational Physiology, 70(4), 367–372. doi:10.1007/
BF00865035
Hellard, P., Avalos, M., Lacoste, L., Barale, F., Chatard, J.-C., &
Millet, G. P. (2006). Assessing the limitations of the Banister
model in monitoring training. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(5),
509–520. doi:10.1080/02640410500244697
Herman, L., Foster, C., Maher, M., Mikat, R., & Porcari, J.
(2009). Validity and reliability of the session RPE method for
monitoring exercise training intensity. South African Journal of
Sports Medicine, 18, 14–17.
Hopkins, W. G. (2002). A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. A
new view of statistics. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from http://
sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html
Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A.,
Iaia, F., & Rampinini, E. (2006). Physiological and perform-
ance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer
players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483–492.
doi:10.1055/s-2005-865839
Impellizzeri, F. M., Rampinini, E., Coutts, A. J., Sassi, A., &
Marcora, S. M. (2004). Use of RPE-based training load in
soccer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(6), 1042–
1047. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000128199.23901.2F
Lambert, M. I., & Borresen, J. (2010). Measuring training load in
sports. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
5, 406–411.
Libicz, S., Roels, B., & Millet, G. P. (2005). Responses to
intermittent swimming sets at velocity associated with max.
Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 30(5), 543–553.
doi:10.1139/h05-140
Lucia, A., Hoyos, J., Santalla, A., Earnest, C., & Chicharro, J. L.
(2003). Tour de France versus Vuelta a España: Which is
harder? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(5), 872–878.
doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000064999.82036.B4
Mallo, J., & Navarro, E. (2008). Physical load imposed on soccer
players during small-sided training games. Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48, 166–171.
Mendez-Villanueva, A., Fernandez-Fernández, J., Bishop, D., &
Fernandez-Garcia, B. (2010). Ratings of perceived exertion-
lactate association during actual singles tennis match play.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(1), 165–170.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a5bc6d
Psycharakis, S. G. (2011). A longitudinal analysis on the validity
and reliability of ratings of perceived exertion for elite swim-
mers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(2), 420–
426. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bff58c
Raffaelli, C., Galvani, C., Lanza, M., & Zamparo, P. (2012).
Different methods for monitoring intensity during water-based
aerobic exercises. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
112(1), 125–134. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-1963-7
Robson-Ansley, P. J., Gleeson, M., & Ansley, L. (2009).
Fatigue management in the preparation of Olympic athletes.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(13), 1409–1420. doi:10.1080/
02640410802702186
Smith, D. J. (2003). A framework for understanding the training
process leading to elite performance. Sports Medicine, 33(15),
1103–1126. doi:10.2165/00007256-200333150-00003
Stagno, K. M., Thatcher, R., & Van Someren, K. A. (2007). A
modified TRIMP to quantify the in-season training load of
team sport players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 629–634.
doi:10.1080/02640410600811817
Steed, J., Gaesser, G. A., & Weltman, A. (1994). Rating of
perceived exertion and blood lactate concentration during
submaximal running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exer-
cise, 26(6), 797–803. doi:10.1249/00005768-199406000-00021
Thompson, K. G., Haljand, R., & MacLaren, D. P. (2000). An
analysis of selected kinematic variables in national and elite
male and female 100-m and 200-m breaststroke swimmers.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(6), 421–431. doi:10.1080/
02640410050074359

Wallace, L., Coutts, A., Bell, J., Simpson, N., & Slattery, K.
(2008). Using session-RPE to monitor training load in
swimmers. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 30(6), 72–76.
doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e31818eed5f
Wallace, L. K., Slattery, K. M., & Coutts, A. J. (2009). The
ecological validity and application of the session-RPE method
for quantifying training loads in swimming. Journal of Strength
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 10:43 11 August 2014
Training load quantification in elite swimmers 9
and Conditioning Research, 23(1), 33–38. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181874512
Wallace, L. K., Slattery, K. M., & Coutts, A. J. (2014). A
comparison of methods for quantifying training load: Relation-
ships between modelled and actual training responses. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 114(1), 1–20.