{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038431372549019606, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014901960784313726, 'mean_word_length': 5.194174757281553, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quantification of Training Load in Endurance Sports: Additional Considerations

for intensity of Edwards TRIMP increase linearly and are arbitrary. For example, the weighting factors used for Edwards TRIMP suggest that the training stress for time spent in zone 5 (i.e., 90–100% of maximal heart rate) is 5 times greater than time spent in zone 1 (i.e., 50–60% of maximal heart rate). However, this is not supported by evidence of a particular physiological phenomenon. Furthermore, the widths of the zones are arbitrary, without using any physiological thresholds to establish these zones. Admittedly, both methods have limitations and relationships between Edwards’ TRMP and changes in aerobic fitness in cyclists have been established (9). However, a similar level of criticism highlighting the limitations should be applied to all metrics in a review. Finally, the authors have missed out on providing critical information for practitioners by not mentioning other TRIMP-based metrics such as Lucia (5) TRIMP or individualized TRIMP (7). Particularly, the latter metric has shown stronger dose-response validity with changes in aerobic fitness and performance in cycling (9), running (7), and team sports (1,6) compared with the metrics that are mentioned by the authors.