緒論：訓練變項的量化，例如強度、持續時間與訓練量，對於運動員的成功表現，是一項重要因素。訓練衝量（training impulse, TRIMP），已被用來追蹤與評估運動員訓練課表的運動量。室內划船測功儀被用以模擬水上划船的動作，也已經被用作划船選手的替代性訓練策略。有趣的是，關於室內與室外划船運動量之差異情形，目前並不清楚。本研究採用不同訓練衝量法，探討室內與水上划船運動量的差異，並檢驗新方法：血乳酸法（blood lactate training impulse, BLa-TRIMP）與現有訓練衝量法之間的相關性。方法：20名男子划船選手（年齡為17±1歲、身高為177±6公分、體重為76±8公斤）先進行漸增負荷運動測驗獲取最大心跳率（maximal heart rates, MHR）、乳酸閾值（lactate threshold, LT）、換氣閾值（ventilatory threshold, VT）及呼吸代償點（respiratory compensation point, RCP），而後，以對抗平衡次序設計進行2,000公尺室內划船測驗（indoor rowing test, IRT）及2,000公尺水上划船測驗（outdoor rowing test, ORT），並計算TRIMP。結果：IRT標準化（除以運動持續時間）的TRIMP顯著高於ORT（IRT vs. ORT, Foster法，2.57±0.26 vs. 2.31±0.39 AU．min^(-1), p＜.05; Edwards法，4.34±0.39 vs. 3.97±0.67 AU．min^(-1), p＜.05; BLa-TRIMP，2.69±0.20 vs. 2.44±0.38 AU．min^(-1), p＜.05）。然而，未標準化的TRIMP則顯著低於ORT（IRT vs. ORT, RPE訓練衝量法，64.41±5.36 vs. 69.90±11.97 AU, p＜.05）。無論IRT或ORT，BLa-TRIMP均與其餘TRIMP呈顯著相關（r = .47~ .76, p ＜ .05）。結論：2,000公尺室內划船的運動量與高強度運動時間的比例高於水上划船，划船運動／訓練的處方須注意兩者生理負荷的不同。此外，BLa-TRIMP具良好信效度，可作為評估划船運動量的另一方式。

Introduction: Quantify the training variables, i.e., intensity, duration, and training load, is an important way to successful performance for athletes. The training impulse (TRIMP) has been used to monitor and evaluate the exercise loads for the athletic training program. The indoor rowing ergometer is used to mimic the motion of rowing a boat on the water, and has been used as an alternative training strategy for rowers' training. Interestingly, the differences in exercise loads between the indoor and outdoor rowing are unclear. This study was to investigate the differences on the exercise loads between indoor and outdoor rowing by using the different TRIMP methods, and it also examined the relationships between the new method, blood lactate training impulse (BLa-TRIMP), and previous TRIMP methods. Methods: Twenty male rowers (age, 17±1 years; height, 177±6cm; weight, 76±8kg) performed the incremental exercise test first, to obtain the maximal heart rates (MHR), lactate threshold (LT), ventilatory threshold (VT) and respiratory compensation point (RCP), and then, performed the 2,000 meters indoor rowing test (IRT) and 2,000 meters outdoor rowing test (ORT) in counter balance order to measure the TRIMP. Results: The normalized TRIMP, divided by exercise duration, in the IRT were significantly higher than those in the ORT (IRT vs. ORT, Foster's method, 2.57±0.26 vs. 2.31±0.39 AU．min^(-1), p＜.05; Edwards's method, 4.34±0.39 vs. 3.97±0.67 AU．min^(-1), p＜.05; BLa-TRIMP, 2.69±0.20 vs. 2.44±0.38 AU．min^(-1), p＜.05). However, the TRIMP which could not be normalized were significantly lower than those in ORT (IRT vs. ORT, Session RPE TRIMP, 64.41±5.36 vs. 69.90±11.97 AU, p＜.05). The BLa-TRIMP significantly correlated to the other TRIMP methods either in the IRT or in the ORT (r=47~76, p＜.05). Conclusion: The exercise load and percentage of high intensity during the 2,000-m indoor rowing exercise could be higher than outdoor, the prescriptions for rowing exercise/training should concern with the different physiological load. In addition, the BLa-TRIMP might be a reliable and available method to measure the exercise load of rowing exercise.