Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Program

Abstract

Helms, ER, Cross, MR, Brown, SR, Storey, A, Cronin, J, and Zourdos, MC. Rating of perceived exertion as a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. J Strength Cond Res 32(6): 1627-1636, 2018-The purpose of this investigation was to observe how a rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-based autoregulation strategy impacted volume performed by powerlifters. Twelve (26 ± 7 years, n = 9 men, n = 3 women) nationally qualified powerlifters performed the back squat, bench press, and deadlift 3x per week on nonconsecutive days in a session order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength; for 3 weeks. Each session subjects performed an initial top set for a prescribed number of repetitions at a target RPE. A second top set was performed if the RPE score was too low, then subsequent back-off sets at a reduced load were performed for the same number of repetitions. When the prescribed RPE was reached or exceeded, sets stopped; known as an "RPE stop." The percentage load reduction for back-off sets changed weekly: there were 2, 4, or 6% RPE stop reductions from the top set. The order in which RPE stop weeks were performed was counterbalanced among subjects. Weekly combined relative volume load (squat + bench press + deadlift), expressed as sets x repetitions x percentage 1-repetition maximum was different between weeks (p < 0.001): 2% = 74.6 ± 22.3; 4% = 88.4 ± 23.8; 6% = 114.4 ± 33.4. Combined weekly bench press volume (hypertrophy + power + strength) was significantly higher in accordance with load reduction magnitude (2% > 4% > 6%; p ≤ 0.05), combined squat volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% (p ≤ 0.05), and combined deadlift volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% and 4% (p ≤ 0.05). Therefore, it does seem that volume can be effectively autoregulated using RPE stops as a method to dictate number of sets performed.

Field-Based and Lab-Based Assisted Jumping: Unveiling the Testing and Training Implications

“…In recent years, a steady flow of research has been investigating the relationships between how athletes perceive training and the presence of physiological, neuromuscular, and performance fatigue ( Foster et al, 2001 ; Morishita et al, 2014 ; Haddad et al, 2017 ; Tufano et al, 2017 ). In many cases, an athlete’s RPE correlates so well to these different measures of fatigue, that some coaches and researchers go so far as to prescribe training based on how an athlete feels ( Helms et al, 2018a , b ), a decision that more traditional periodization-driven strength and conditioning coaches may find astounding. Nevertheless, the application of RPE during resistance training is becoming more commonplace, but to our knowledge, this is the first study to implement an RPE scale during assisted training.…”

RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions

“…In all weeks, when the reported RPE score for a completed set fell outside of the target RPE range, an automatic adjustment to the load was made for the subsequent set. Based on previous research (Helms et al, 2017a ), for every 0.5 RPE above or below the upper or lower RPE threshold, respectively, load was decreased or increased by 2% in an attempt to bring the subsequent set's RPE closer to the assigned range. An example of how this load adjustment protocol was implemented for an RPE range of 6–8 is displayed in Table 3 .…”

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies

“…For example, Zourdos et al [30] introduced and subsequently validated a modified RPE scale that has been used to regulate both the intensity and volume of exercise based on an athlete's perceived readiness [30]. To date, this method remains one of the most prevalent autoregulation strategies and has been shown to be an effective tool for multiple participant groups [16].…”

“…In contrast, some authors have used readiness to refer to anticipated changes in performance that are more closely related to concepts such as adaptation and fatigue [45]. In addition, constructs such as adaptation [7,30,46], readiness [16,47], and fatigue [45] are frequently used interchangeably when discussing the autoregulation of training. This has led to ambiguity and confusion regarding the relatedness of these constructs and whether adjustments to training should be made on the basis of one, multiple or all of these.…”

“…Periods of mismatch between the desired training stimulus and that which is received may be due to both day to day fluctuations in an individual's performance and short-term adaptations causing improvements to be substantially greater (or lesser) than expected [15]. It has, therefore, been suggested that adjusting the training received to coincide with more current estimations of an individual's performance-as is the case with autoregulation-may be advantageous to ensure sessions more closely align with an individual's current performance level and the overarching training goals [16]. Whilst the main purported advantages of autoregulation relate to a better alignment of the intended training stimulus from a physiological standpoint, it has also been suggested that the framework may enhance psychological outcomes such as exercise adherence [17].…”