Acute and session RPE responses during resistance training: Bouts to failure at 60% and 90% of 1RM

Pritchett, Robert; Green, JM; Wickwire, P. J.; Kovács,

doi:10.17159/2078-516x/2009/v21i1a304

Cited by 61 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings corroborate other research from Pritchett et al [28], who recorded higher sRPE scores and volume load during moderate-load (60% 1RM) resistance exercise to failure compared to high-load (90% 1RM) training. However, Singh et al [27] reported similar sRPE values between resistance exercise targeting strength (3 sets of 5 repetitions using 90% 1RM) and hypertrophy (3 sets of 10 repetitions using 70% 1RM), despite higher relative volume loads in the hypertrophyfocused exercise.…”

Section: Srpe Methodssupporting

confidence: 92%

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points• To quantify resistance exercise, it is important to understand the numerous factors contributing to the overall intensity of training, rather than simply the relative load being lifted.• Methods to monitor the external volume load, perceptual training intensity, subjective wellness, and physical performance during resistance exercise all appear useful methods for monitoring resistance training.• Strength coaches should identify which monitoring tools are applicable and viable for their athletes, and should take an integrative approach to resistance training monitoring to help inform their practice.3 AbstractResistance exercise is difficult to quantify due to its inherent complexity with numerous training variables contributing to the training dose (type of exercise, load lifted, training volume, inter-set rest periods and repetition velocity). In addition, the intensity of resistance training is often inadequately determined as the relative load lifted (% 1-repetition maximum), which does not account for the effects of inter-set recovery periods, repetition velocity, or the number of repetitions performed in each set at a given load. Methods to calculate the volume load associated with resistance training, as well as the perceived intensity of individual sets and entire training sessions have been shown to provide useful information regarding the actual training stimulus. In addition, questionnaires to subjectively assess how athletes are coping with the stressors of training and portable technologies to quantify performance variables such as concentric velocity may also be valuable. However, while several methods have been proposed to quantify resistance training, there is not yet consensus regarding how these methods can be best implemented and integrated to complement each other. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide practical information for strength coaches to highlight effective methods to assess resistance training, and how they can be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring program.4

show abstract

Section: Srpe Methodssupporting

confidence: 92%

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus we can only assume that either; participants did not exercise to MF, or the participants were unclear as to how to report their perception of effort. Increasing ratings of effort, despite conditions being controlled by training to supposed MF, were however given with lower load for lower body exercise 29 , as set volume's increased 30 , with increased volume-load 28 , and with increased work rate 26,27 supporting that participants may have expressed their feelings of increasing discomfort 19,25 . Some studies have attempted to differentiate between effort and discomfort during RT and have found that, though participants appear able to report different values for each, there is a similar pattern for both responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…19,[23][24][25] Certain manipulations of RT variables appear to have the potential to impact upon RPE in unexpected ways and thus may indicate a conflation of perceived effort and discomfort by participants. [26][27][28][29][30] Indeed, even where studies have attempted to differentiate the two, strong relationships in their responses manifest both during traditional RT and blood flow restriction based RT [31][32][33][34] . This may be potentially be due to these studies in some cases using high effort RT conditions known also to anecdotally produce high levels of discomfort (e.g.…”

Section: Figure 3 Scatter Plot Of Rpe-e and Rpe-d For Combined Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies 20,[26][27][28][29][30] have reported that participants exercised to MF with verbal encouragement to ensure adequate motivation and effort where RPE was measured. In this case, each trial, irrespective of exercise, load, or training status would be expected to result in a maximal value for perceived effort since people were exercising to MF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differentiation between perceived effort and discomfort during resistance training in older adults:Reliability of trainee ratings of effort and discomfort,and reliability and validity of trainer ratings of trainee effort

Steele¹,

Fisher²,

McKinnon³

et al. 2016

Journal of Trainology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Rating of perceived exertion scales are commonly used in resistance training (RT) though most suffer from conflation of perceptions of both effort and discomfort by participants. The aim of this study was to examine reliability of trainee ratings of perceived effort (RPE-E) and discomfort (RPE-D) using two novel scales in addition to reliability and validity of trainer RPE-E.Design: Participants underwent 3 RT trials over a period of three weeks. Methods: Seventeen participants (males n = 6, females n = 11, age 63 ± 16 years) completed 5 RT exercises for a single set using a load permitting a self-determined 6 repetition maximum (meaning they determined inability to complete further repetitions if attempted i.e. they predicted momentary failure on the next repetition). Trainers completed their rating of RPE-E, followed by participants reporting of RPE-E and RPE-D immediately after completion of the exercises. Spearman's correlations examined the relationship between RPE-E and RPE-D. Reliability was examined as standard error of measurement (SEM) calculated for each outcome across the 3 trials (intra-rater), in addition to agreement between trainers (inter-rater), and agreement between trainer and trainee RPE-E. Results:Correlations between RPE-E and RPE-D were significant but weak (r = .373 to 0.492; p < 0.01). Intra-rater SEMs for trainee RPE-E ranged from 0.64 to 0.85, trainee RPE-D ranged from 0.60 to 1.00, and trainer RPE-E ranged from 0.56 to 0.71. Inter-rater SEMs for trainer RPE-E ranged 0.25 to 0.66. SEMs for agreement between trainer and trainee RPE-E ranged from 1.03 to 1.25. Conclusions:Results suggest participants were able to differentiate RPE-E and RPE-D and that the reliability for both trainee measures of RPE-E and RPE-D, in addition to trainer RPE-E is acceptable. Further, trainer RPE-E appeared to have acceptable validity compared to trainee RPE-E. These scales might be adopted in research examining the dose-response nature of effort upon RT outcomes and trainers might use them to inform programming.(Journal of Trainology 2017;5:1-8)

show abstract

“…Early research indicated that intensity (as measured by percentage of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) was a key mediating factor and that SRPE increased with increases in the percentage of 1RM lifted (4,18,27). However, Pritchett et al (22) reported higher SRPE at lower relative resistance (% 1RM) during resistance training to failure, noting that participants performed more total volume of work at lower intensities. This led authors to conclude that total volume lifted was a principle mediating factor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Distribution Influences Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Response During Resistance Exercise Matched for Total Volume

Kraft

Green

Gast³

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Session ratings of perceived exertion (SRPE) are sensitive to changes in total work volume and work rate during resistance training. This study examined the influence of work distribution (varied load, set, and repetitions [reps]) on SRPE in 2 resistance exercise trials matched for total work volume (sets × reps × percentage of 1 repetition maximum [% 1RM]) and work rate (total work volume/time). Participants completed a low load/high rep (LLHR) trial (2 sets × 12 reps × 3-minute recovery at ∼60% 1RM) and a high load/low rep (HLLR) trial (3 sets × 6 reps × 1.5-minute recovery at ∼80% 1RM) of the bench press, lat pull-down, overhead press, upright row, triceps extension, and biceps curl. A 2-minute recovery separated each exercise in both trials. Session ratings of perceived exertion and recovery heart rate (HR) were recorded 20 minutes after exercise. Preset and postset RPE and HR were higher for HLLR vs. LLHR (3.1 ± 1.6; 104 ± 15 b·min-1 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3; 98 ± 10 b·min-1) and (5.5 ± 0.9; 139 ± 14 b·min-1 vs. 4.4 ± 0.9; 131 ± 12 b·min-1), respectively. Session RPE was higher for HLLR (5.7 ± 1.4) vs. LLHR (4.3 ± 1.4) with no difference in recovery HR. Session ratings of perceived exertion was greater with higher load despite matched total volumes and work rates. Higher preset acute RPE and HR in HLLR may indicate differences in recovery between sets. Higher postset acute RPE and HR in HLLR indicated increased difficulty of individual sets in HLLR, which likely contributed to SRPE differences. Practitioners can be confident that SRPE accurately reflects changes in training load when the number of sets, reps, and loads are altered within routine training.

show abstract

Acute and session RPE responses during resistance training: Bouts to failure at 60% and 90% of 1RM

Cited by 61 publications

References 19 publications

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Differentiation between perceived effort and discomfort during resistance training in older adults:Reliability of trainee ratings of effort and discomfort,and reliability and validity of trainer ratings of trainee effort

Work Distribution Influences Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Response During Resistance Exercise Matched for Total Volume

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About