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

Abstract

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)

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

“…In comparison with traditional rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales, RIR scales appear more likely to offer valid representations of effort when training to, or close to, MF ( Helms et al, 2016 ) whereas traditional RPE often yields far less accurate ratings under such conditions ( Hackett et al, 2012 ). Indeed, even when training to MF, traditional RPE is often less than maximal ( Steele et al, 2017b ). This in combination with the considerable inter- and intra-individual variations in number of repetitions possible prior to MF at the same relative loads suggests that RIR scales may offer an improvement in control of effort during RT compared with either use of %1RM or traditional RPE.…”

Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions of set endpoints in resistance training

“…Future research using tools to differentiate effort and discomfort in combination with these definitions may also permit better examination of the validity and efficacy of using subjective perceptions of effort to direct RT using practically applicable set endpoint criteria in different populations. In our laboratory we have begun to examine these areas of interest . Of course, we should note that even training to MF could be considered in some way subjective and, as such, we have clarified in our definition that trainees should consider this as a set endpoint only when they cannot complete the repetition despite attempting to do so.…”

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

“…RIR scales have been argued to be a more valid method of representing effort in close proximity to MF when compared to traditional RPE scales or the use of relative demands from a test of strength (i.e % of one repetition maximum [1RM]; Hackett et al, 2012;Helms et al, 2016;Steele, Endres, Fisher, Gentil & Giessing, 2017a). Indeed, traditional RPE scales often result in submaximal ratings even at MF (Steele, Fisher, McKinnon & McKinnon, 2017c). Further, the numbers of possible repetitions prior to MF at the same relative loads (%1RM) vary between attempts and individuals (Steele, 2014;Steele et al, 2017a;Steele et al, 2017b).…”