Self-Rated Accuracy of Rating of Perceived Exertion-Based Load Prescription in Powerlifters

Helms, Eric R.; Brown, Scott R.; Cross, Matt R.; Storey, Adam G.; Cronin, John; Zourdos, Michael C.

doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002097

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results permit the acceptance of the second hypothesis of utilizing the RPE and in some way the neuromuscular signal to differentiate loading ranges based on 10% slot of 1RM percentages. The observed results are in line of previous studies with powerlifters (17,18) and recreationally resistance-trained individuals (9,32) Similar to the present study, Naclerio et al (32) reported that relative loads in BP could be clearly differentiated between light, moderate and heavy loads by perceived exertion. However, the study by Naclerio and colleagues was unable to further discriminate between 10% increments of 1RM as was observed in the present investigation for the first four ranges (30 <40% vs. 40 <50% vs. 50 <60% vs. 60 <70%); see Table 2.…”

Section: Mechanical Changes Estimated By Perceived Exertion and The Esupporting

confidence: 93%

Using Perceptual and Neuromuscular Responses to Estimate Mechanical Changes During Continuous Sets in the Bench Press

Chapman

Larumbe-Zabala

Goss-Sampson

et al. 2019

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study analyzed the effectiveness of the OMNI-RES (0-10) and the electromyographic signal for monitoring changes in the movement velocity during a set to muscular failure performed with different relative loads in the bench press exercise (BP). Ten males (30.8 ± 5.7 years) were evaluated on eight separate days with 48 hours of rest between sessions. After determining the 1RM value, participants performed seven sets to failure with the following relative loads ranges: 30<40%; 40<50%, 50<60%, 60%<70%, 70<80%, 80<90% and >90%. The mean accelerative velocity (MAV), the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and the normalized root mean square (N-RMS) signal from the anterior deltoids were measured for every repetition of each set. The RPE expressed after the first repetition and when the maximum value of MAV was achieved over the sets was lower (p <0.001, d >0.80) than the RPE associated with a 10% drop in MAV and at failure. Furthermore, the initial RPE was useful to distinguish different loading zones between the light relative loads (30<40% vs. 40<50% vs. 50<60%) and from these three zones to the higher relative load ranges (60 to >90%). Similar, but less clear, differences were observed for the N-RMS. In conclusion, apart from differentiating between relative loads, the RPE and in some cases N-RMS can both reflect changes associated with the initial, maximal, 10% drop in movement velocity and muscular failure during a continuous set in the BP. .

show abstract

Section: Mechanical Changes Estimated By Perceived Exertion and The Esupporting

confidence: 93%

Using Perceptual and Neuromuscular Responses to Estimate Mechanical Changes During Continuous Sets in the Bench Press

Chapman

Larumbe-Zabala

Goss-Sampson

et al. 2019

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since there were only 3 failed “daily max” attempts among the 5 participants of the MAX group throughout the 10-week training intervention, the results of this pilot study suggest that PL athletes may be able to effectively self-adjust load by using the modified RPE scale and that doing so may be a beneficial approach to load management in PL training [ 10 , 19 ]. The PER group followed a percentage 1RM based training plan, though were instructed to not exceed RPE 9, while the MAX group self-adjusted load until an RPE of 9–9.5 was reached.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior to the first testing session all participants first underwent 4 weeks of familiarization with the resistance training version of the RPE scale based upon ‘repetitions in reserve’ [ 10 , 11 ]. The athletes were required to implement the modified RPE scale in their current training.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced Volume ‘Daily Max’ Training Compared to Higher Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters Preparing for Competition—A Pilot Study

Androulakis-Korakakis

Fisher

Kolokotronis³

et al. 2018

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study looked to examine reduced volume ‘daily max’ (near max loads) training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition. Ten competitive powerlifters were split into 2 groups (MAX group and PER group) and participated in a 10-week training intervention either following a “daily max” training protocol or a traditional periodized training protocol while preparing for competition. All participants underwent 1RM testing for squat (SQ), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) prior to the 10-week intervention. The MAX group performed single sets of single repetitions using a load equating to an RPE rating of 9–9.5 while the PER group performed higher volume periodized training with loads ranging from 70%1RM up to 93%1RM as well as a taper at the final weeks of the training intervention. Both groups were tested after the 10-week training intervention at the Greek IPF-affiliate National Championships. In the PER group, powerlifting (PL) total increased for P1 and P3 by 2% and 6.5% respectively while P2 experienced no change. In the MAX group PL total increased for P1 and P2 by 4.8% and 4.2% respectively while it decreased by 0.5%, 3.4% and 5% for P3, P4 and P5 respectively. In the MAX group peri PL total increased for P1–4 by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while it decreased by 1.2% for P5. The results of this pilot study show that single-set, single-rep, RPE based ‘daily max’ training may be a favorable strategy for some beginner-intermediate powerlifters preparing for competition while it may lead to performance decreases for others. Further, it suggests that performance may be comparable to traditional periodized training during shorter training cycles, though future work with larger samples is needed to further test this. Practically ‘daily max’ training may be useful for PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.

show abstract

“…As such, the effects of experience level on the SEMs reported may be confounded as a result of differing ability to predict repetitions to MF when training using heavier or lighter loads. Greater predictive ability may therefore occur with heavier loads ( Zourdos et al, 2016 ; Helms et al, 2017 ). This may be reflective of the conflation between effort and discomfort described above as greater perceived discomfort occurs with lower load RT ( Fisher, Ironside & Steele, 2016 ; Fisher, Farrow & Steele, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ability to predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training experience

Steele

Endres

Fisher

et al. 2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Repetitions in Reserve’ (RIR) scales in resistance training (RT) are used to control effort but assume people accurately predict performance a priori (i.e. the number of possible repetitions to momentary failure (MF)). This study examined the ability of trainees with different experience levels to predict number of repetitions to MF. One hundred and forty-one participants underwent a full body RT session involving single sets to MF and were asked to predict the number of repetitions they could complete before reaching MF on each exercise. Participants underpredicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF (Standard error of measurements [95% confidence intervals] for combined sample ranged between 2.64 [2.36–2.99] and 3.38 [3.02–3.83]). There was a tendency towards improved accuracy with greater experience. Ability to predict repetitions to MF is not perfectly accurate among most trainees though may improve with experience. Thus, RIR should be used cautiously in prescription of RT. Trainers and trainees should be aware of this as it may have implications for the attainment of training goals, particularly muscular hypertrophy.

show abstract

Self-Rated Accuracy of Rating of Perceived Exertion-Based Load Prescription in Powerlifters

Cited by 22 publications

References 9 publications

Using Perceptual and Neuromuscular Responses to Estimate Mechanical Changes During Continuous Sets in the Bench Press

Using Perceptual and Neuromuscular Responses to Estimate Mechanical Changes During Continuous Sets in the Bench Press

Reduced Volume ‘Daily Max’ Training Compared to Higher Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters Preparing for Competition—A Pilot Study

Ability to predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About