Skip to content

Study note

Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Combined With Training Volume for Estimating Training Responses in Runners.

PMID 33064812 (2020): injury, load — Injury risk (study note for endurance athletes).

Updated Jul 22, 2026

Read the study note
On this page

Study note • PMID 33064812

Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Combined With Training Volume for Estimating Training Responses in Runners.

Journal of athletic training • 2020 • DOI 10.4085/1062-6050-573-19
Open on PubMedOpen full text

How to use this page

This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.

  • • Design signal: controlled study.
  • • Population relevance: mixed/unclear athlete specificity.
  • • Consistency: single-study evidence.
  • • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.

ELI5

In plain language

To compare week-to-week changes in the training loads of recreational runners using different quantification methods. (controlled study; recreational runners).

The abstract suggests a positive effect on Injury risk under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • • Study question: To compare week-to-week changes in the training loads of recreational runners using different quantification methods.
  • • The abstract suggests a positive effect on Injury risk under the tested conditions.
  • • Population: recreational runners.
  • • Protocol cues: abstract may omit dose/timing; use the full paper to replicate accurately.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • • Intervention/exposure: injury, load (vs comparison group).
  • • Dose/time/duration: abstract doesn’t include enough detail; use the full paper’s methods section.
  • • Outcomes: Injury risk.
  • • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it may help, and who should be cautious

Who it helps

  • • Athletes similar to the study population (recreational runners) working on injury risk.
  • • Athletes who can measure Injury risk with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should be cautious

  • • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • • Design: controlled study.
  • • Population: recreational runners.
  • • Comparator: comparison group.
  • • Outcomes measured: Injury risk.
  • • Source: PubMed PMID 33064812 (2020) — Journal of athletic training.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

“Differences were present in week-to-week changes for running time compared with timeRPE (d = 0.24), stepsRPE (d = 0.24), and shockRPE (d = 0.31).”

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations and bias

  • • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
  • • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Pair perceived effort with the work completed

This recreational-running study compared week-to-week load changes calculated from running volume alone with measures that combined volume and session rating of perceived exertion. The methods produced different pictures of change; that is a monitoring lesson, not proof of an injury-prevention formula.

Record session duration or distance, the main workout job, terrain and a consistent post-session effort rating. Review trends across weeks instead of reacting to one hard score. When volume is stable but effort rises repeatedly, check sleep, illness, heat, fueling and life stress before adding load.

Read the measurement definitions in the PubMed record. Session RPE is useful context, not a diagnosis or a universal safe-load boundary. New pain, symptoms that alter gait or unusually poor recovery need a direct assessment.

Adaptive AI coach for iPhone

Meet your adaptive AI coach.

Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.

Start training now

Keep going

Performance Science Lab

Research summaries for endurance athletes, with study context, practical protocols, and clear limitations.

Injury risk performance research

Injury risk is mostly about load errors — spikes, monotony, and ignoring pain signals.

Injury risk research for endurance athletes

Most injury risk comes from load spikes and insufficient tissue tolerance — manage both.

Sources