Seeing Effort: Assessing Coaches' Prediction of the Number of Repetitions in Reserve Before Task-Failure

Emanuel, Aviv; Har-Nir, Itai; Obolski, Uri; Halperin, Israel

doi:10.1186/s40798-022-00526-8

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following a meticulous examination of titles and abstracts, 31 studies moved on to Level II screening. After full-text reviews of the remaining records, 12 more studies were excluded for not using any RIR scales ( Emanuel et al, 2022 ; García-Ramos et al, 2018 , 2021 ; González-Badillo et al, 2017 ; Janicijevic et al, 2021 ; Lemos et al, 2017 ; Morán-Navarro et al, 2019 ; Rodríguez-Rosell et al, 2020 ; Sánchez-Moreno et al, 2017 , 2021 ; Servais, 2015 ; Steele et al, 2017 ), leaving just 19 studies. We identified 14 new studies in the reference sections of these 19 studies; 12 of these new studies met the inclusion criteria and two were excluded due to not applying an RIR scale ( Emanuel et al, 2021 ; Hernández-Belmonte et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

Bastos,

Machado,

Teixeira

2024

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intensity of resistance training (RT) exercise is an important consideration for determining relevant health and performance-related outcomes. Yet, current objective exercise intensity measures present concerns in terms of viability or cost. In response to these concerns, repetition-in-reserve (RIR) scales may represent an adequate method of measuring and regulating intensity. However, no recent review has focused on how RIR scales have been used for this purpose in prior research. We prepared the present scoping review to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in selecting RT intensity. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (last search date April 2023) for experimental and non-experimental studies that utilized an RIR scale to measure proximity to failure in RT activities with apparently healthy individuals of any age. We qualitatively analyzed 31 studies (N = 855 mostly male adult participants) published between 2012-2023. RIR scales appeared to be contextually feasible and useful in prescribing and adjusting RT intensity. The most common trend in this research was to prescribe a target RIR and adjust the exercise load for a desired proximity to muscle failure. Additionally, when measuring proximity to failure as an outcome of interest, the literature suggests that the RIR prediction should be made close to task failure to increase its accuracy. Future research should further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection, and muscle conditioning on the overall RIR approach.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

Bastos,

Machado,

Teixeira

2024

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Coaches’ Eye: A Randomized Repeated-Measure Observational Study Assessing Coaches’ Perception of Velocity Loss during Resistance Training Exercises.

Iacono,

Henry,

Ben-Ari

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Resistance training (RT) coaches regularly instruct their trainees to terminate a set based on their estimation that repetition velocity has dropped beyond a certain threshold, aligning with the concept of velocity loss in the velocity-based training (VBT) method. However, this ability has never been studied. Here, we assess the accuracy of RT coaches in estimating the repetition velocity loss of trainees. Methods: Twenty RT coaches participated in a single experimental session in which they observed videos of two trainees completing sets of the barbell bench press and barbell back squat exercises, using three loads (45%, 65%, and 85% of 1 repetition-maximum [1RM]), and recorded from two views (front and side). We asked them to estimate when repetitions exceeded two velocity loss thresholds (20% and 40%). We examined whether velocity loss threshold, load, view, mental fatigue, and gaze strategy influenced estimation accuracy. We compared outcomes using a negative binomial generalized mixed-effects model. Results: The average absolute accuracy error across all conditions was 2.6 repetitions, with errors ranging from 1 to 5 repetitions. Coaches improved their accuracy (negative estimates indicate reduced error) when estimating higher velocity loss threshold (40% vs 20%; −1.8, 95%CI [−2.3, −1.3]), using heavier loads (−0.8, 95%CI [−1.5, −0.1]) for 65% 1RM, and −3, 95%CI [−3.4, −2.6] for 85% 1RM compared to 45% 1RM), and employing a bar tracking gaze strategy compared to a no-bar strategy (−1.7, 95%CI [−2.7, −0.4]). These findings were consistent across both points of view, with mental fatigue having a negligible impact. Conclusions: While coaches perceive velocity loss with some degree of accuracy, their error rates vary depending on the velocity loss threshold, load, and gaze strategy used. Coaches should consider these error rates with their specific RT goals when using perceived velocity loss in practice.

show abstract

Seeing Effort: Assessing Coaches' Prediction of the Number of Repetitions in Reserve Before Task-Failure

Cited by 2 publications

References 32 publications

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

The Coaches’ Eye: A Randomized Repeated-Measure Observational Study Assessing Coaches’ Perception of Velocity Loss during Resistance Training Exercises.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About