IJSPP finds RPE differs training vs competition

Carl Foster and colleagues have published ahead-of-print research in the *International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance* examining whether athletes rate effort the same way in training and competition. The paper, published online in late August 2026, focuses on two common measures: mean rating of perceived exertion during an exercise bout, often called xRPE, and session rating of perceived exertion after the bout, or sRPE. The study matters because coaches and sport scientists use RPE as a low-cost way to track internal load when building training plans, judging readiness and reviewing how hard a session felt. The authors said it has often been assumed that session RPE is effectively a simple average of the effort reported during the session itself, but prior evidence of RPE drift during exercise raised doubts about that assumption. (journals.humankinetics.com) ### What exactly did the researchers compare? The paper compared mean RPE recorded during exercise with session RPE recorded for the whole bout afterward, and it did so across both training and competition settings. Foster, Daniel Bok, Cristina Cortis, Jos J. de Koning, Andrea Fusco and Olga Papale wrote that the purpose was to test whether the two values behave the same way when the session context changes. (journals.humankinetics.com) The authors framed the question around common practice in athlete monitoring. Session RPE is widely used because it is simple, inexpensive and practical across sports, while mean RPE during exercise can capture how exertion changes across the bout. ### Why is training-versus-competition context such a big deal here? The ahead-of-print abstract says the study found systematic differences in both mean RPE and session RPE during training versus competition. (journals.humankinetics.com) That means the same scale is being influenced not only by physiological strain, but also by the setting in which the athlete experiences the effort. Competition can differ from training in pacing, emotional arousal, attention and consequences, and the paper’s core finding is that practitioners should not assume an RPE number carries identical meaning across those settings. (journals.humankinetics.com) That is an inference from the reported result that the differences were systematic rather than random. ### So does this mean sRPE is unreliable? (journals.humankinetics.com) The article does not say session RPE is unusable. The abstract instead positions RPE as a “useful subjective method” for rating training intensity and training load, while questioning a narrower assumption that post-session RPE is simply the mean of in-session RPE. Earlier IJSPP work has made a similar point from another angle. (journals.humankinetics.com) A 2020 study by some of the same researchers reported that session RPE during prolonged training could reflect accumulated fatigue and external-load features such as duration and volume, not just a single steady estimate of intensity. ### What should coaches and practitioners do with this? The practical takeaway is to be careful when comparing RPE values across different session types. (journals.humankinetics.com) A competition sRPE and a training sRPE may both be valid reports, but the new paper indicates they should not automatically be interpreted as equivalent markers of load. For coaches using RPE in periodized plans, the cleaner approach is to keep context attached to the number: whether it came from training or competition, whether it was collected during the bout or after it, and how it fits with other load markers already in use. (journals.humankinetics.com) That follows directly from the paper’s comparison of xRPE and sRPE across settings. ### Where does this sit in the broader monitoring literature? (journals.humankinetics.com) IJSPP describes itself as a journal focused on sport physiology and performance, and RPE has long been part of that field’s monitoring toolkit. Previous IJSPP papers have examined session RPE scale choice, validity in team-sport settings and its relationship to external load in elite athletes. The new Foster-led paper adds a narrower point to that literature: context changes the relationship between effort felt during a session and effort remembered afterward. (journals.humankinetics.com) The full ahead-of-print article is listed by IJSPP under the title “Systematic Differences in Mean Rating of Perceived Exertion and Session Rating of Perceived Exertion During Training and Competition.” (journals.humankinetics.com 1) (journals.humankinetics.com 2)