Set to fail: Affective dynamics in a resistance training program designed to reach muscle concentric failure

Abstract

Grounded in hedonic assumptions, evidence suggests that people tend to engage in activities they consider pleasurable and enjoyable, while trying to avoid pain and displeasure. This suggests that the dynamic between positive and negative affect can influence current behavior and the intentions to continue performing. Regarding resistance training (RT), research focusing on how to promote a better affective response is still scarce and much needed. Given existing limitations and theoretical suggestions, a RT program was developed and applied to recreational exercisers in a quasi-experimental design aiming to (1) explore the affective response dynamic through an assessment after the last set of each exercise; and (2) analyze possible differences of preference and tolerance profiles in affective variables (core affect and enjoyment). For that purpose, 43 participants (21 male and 22 female; M age = 34.69 ± 6.71 years; M experience = 8.32 ± 4.54 years; M BMI = 24.26 ± 2.64 kg/m 2 ) accepted to participate in this study. Descriptive statistics, correlational, and group comparisons analyses were performed to provide evidence for proposed objectives. The present study showed that measures of affective valence/arousal applied immediately after a set represents a feasible and ecologically valid approach to tap core affect. Results presented evidence that recreationally trained exercisers in a common RT program would need a minimum of one measurement to assess the affective response. However, additional assessments could refine the understanding of exercise pleasurable experience. Results also suggest that exercisers with distinct profiles of preference/tolerance depicted differentiated patterns for the affective response, possibly justifying a distinct approach when promoting affective regulation.

Affective Responses to Increasing- and Decreasing-Intensity Resistance Training Protocols

“…Recent methodological papers present evidence that affective valence across six resistance exercises can be adequately assessed with a single measurement (Andrade et al 2022;Bastos et al, 2022). A potential problem with assessing valence during the last exercise within a set is that ratings may be overly weighed upon a participant's affective response to that particular exercise (in this case, the lateral pull-down and assisted pull-up).…”

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

“…As can be observed in Table 2 , we verified an ample selection of different 1-RM intensities in the included studies, ranging from low (e.g., 50%RM in Balsalobre-Fernández et al, 2021 ) to maximum (e.g., 100%RM in Balsalobre-Fernández et al, 2021 ; Vieira et al, 2019 ). Only two studies ( Bastos et al, 2022 ; Helms, et al, 2017a ) did not apply a 1-RM test, opting instead to use the RPE-RIR scale to adjust the intensity for the desired number of repetitions. Four studies applied 1-RM testing but followed the aforementioned RPE-RIR intensity prescription strategy as well ( Androulakis-Korakakis et al, 2018 ; Arede et al, 2020 ; Lovegrove et al, 2022 ; Sinclair et al, 2022 ), using the 1-RM results for other experimental purposes.…”

“…Regarding exercise equipment, most investigators used only free weights (23 studies; 74%); six studies (19%) used only RT machines ( Armes et al, 2020 ; Buskard et al, 2019 ; Hackett et al, 2017 , 2018 , 2019 ; Remmert et al, 2023 ); and three (10%) used both machines and free weights ( Bastos et al, 2022 ; Cavarretta et al, 2022 ; Vieira et al, 2019 ). A wide array of different RT exercises was performed across the included studies, with most (25 studies; 81%) focusing exclusively on multi-joint exercises; five using both multi- and single-joint exercises ( Bastos et al, 2022 ; Buskard et al, 2019 ; Cavarretta et al, 2022 ; Remmert et al, 2023 ; Shattock & Tee, 2022 ); and only one applying a single-joint exercise ( Armes et al, 2020 ). As previously mentioned, Armes et al (2020) reported some RIR accuracy problems with the unilateral leg extension exercise.…”

“…Alternatively, RIR scales can offer a subjective but easy-to-use and low-cost option for determining exercise load. Some researchers have verified the utility of these scales for prescribing and adjusting exercise load for a single RT session (e.g., Bastos et al, 2022 ; Cavarretta et al, 2022 ; Refalo et al, 2023 ) or for multiple-week exercise programs (e.g., Androulakis-Korakakis et al, 2018 ; Arede et al, 2020 ; Graham & Cleather, 2021 ). Yet, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no recent research review that has focused on the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales for RT intensity prescription and regulation.…”

What Drives Portuguese Women to Be Physically Active? Associations between Motives and Well-Being Indicators

“…Related to limitations of the current study, participants were regular exercisers recruited from a convenience sample of health and fitness centers; we did not account for exercise intensity and duration, which appear to be associated with the affective response to exercise [ 71 ]. Future research should consider the essential problem of the timing of the measurement of affective activations [ 72 , 73 ]. The cross-sectional design used in this study should be investigated using longitudinal or prospective methods to test causal relationships in forthcoming studies.…”