The perception of effort is not a valid tool for establishing the strength-training zone

Abstract

The main purpose was to investigate whether the perception of effort during the two first repetitions of strength exercises could be an adequate strategy for estimating the strength-training zone. The sample comprised 11 women (18 to 35 years-old). In the first week, the volunteers performed a 1-RM test in seven exercises on strength machines, and the load was calculated to reach 50%, 70% and 90% of the 1-RM. Over the next three weeks, the volunteers were required to perform randomly the exercises at these three intensities. After the two first repetitions, the volunteers were questioned about how many repetitions they believed they could achieve until failure (self-estimated). Additionally, volunteers were asked to indicate their exertion according Borg scale. After volunteers performed every exercise until concentric failure to complete the repetition maximum test (RMs test). The data were analyzed using linear regression, Pearson correlation and paired t-test. The results showed that the self-estimated number of repetitions underestimated 44% and 30% of the mean values of repetition maximum obtained directly at intensities of 50% and 70% (p < 0.05), respectively. Although repetition maximum were correlated with Borg scale (r = -0.23 to -0.41; p < 0.05) and self-estimated number of repetitions (r = 0.25 to 0.41; p < 0.05), the standard errors of estimate obtained by linear regression were very high (40% to 49%), which prevented any estimation equations. In conclusion, the perception of effort during the two first repetitions is not a satisfactory strategy for estimating the strengthtraining zone.

“Just one more rep!” – Ability to predict proximity to task failure in resistance trained persons

“…The internal meta-analysis echoed the results of Experiment 2, excluding a zero effect and suggesting that participants under predicted. These results are mostly in line with previous findings (Steele et al, 2017a;Hackett et al, 2012;Hackett et al, 2016;Giessing et al, 2016a;Giessing et al, 2016b;Altoé Lemos et al, 2017;Zourdos et al, 2019). In contrast with prior research however, this study to our knowledge is the first to examine this predictive ability during the gestalt experience of RT task performance (where participants attempted to get as close to, but not reach MF i.e.…”

“…In the current study as well as in previous studies (Steele et al, 2017a;Hackett, et al, 2012;Hackett et al, 2016Giessing et al, 2016aGiessing et al, 2016b;Altoé Lemos et al, 2017;Zourdos et al, 2019), it might have been the case that participants anchored their rating of perceived effort based on other perceptions such as discomfort, leading to an overestimation of effort and thus under prediction of how close they were to MF. As outlined by Steele et al (2017a), without clear instructions anchoring of effort based on other perceptions such as discomfort seems to happen during RT.…”

“…Many authors have examined the accuracy of participants' predictions of how many repetitions they could perform to MF in different exercises involving both single sets (Altoé Lemos et al, 2017;Steele et al, 2017a) and multiple sets (Hackett et al, 2012;Hackett et al, 2016 Lemos et al, 2017), and whilst performing multiple sets after 10 repetitions (mean difference between estimated and actual repetitions to MF 0.8-1.3 and 0.4-1.9…”

“…They reported that participants under predicted with standard error of measurements (SEMs) between predicted and actual repetitions ranging from 2.36 to 3.83 (Steele et al, 2017a). Altoé Lemos et al (2017) examined participant's ability to predict repetitions to MF after they had performed an initial 2 repetitions of a set to MF across multiple sets with descriptive data suggesting that participants tended to under predict, though this improved with increased loads. Hackett et al (2012;2016) have conducted studies examining participant's predictive abilities during multiple sets after they had performed an initial 10 repetitions of each set.…”

“…MF) a person is. Indeed, there is some suggestion that prediction might be greater when using heavier loads, and thus where fewer repetitions are possible such that any given repetition is closer to MF than with lighter loads (Altoé Lemos et al, 2017;Steele et al, 2017a). However, only one study has examined varying proximities to failure (Zourdos et al, 2019), and indeed predictive ability when participants are attempting to get as close to, but not reach, MF.…”