Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Responses During Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in Work Rate

Kraft, Justin A.; Green, James Mathew; Thompson, Kyle R.

doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e31829b569c

Cited by 36 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings coincide with previous work from our laboratory showing a trend toward higher SRPE after completing 2 sets 3 12 reps 3 60% 1RM vs. 3 sets 3 8 reps 3 60% 1RM of the same 6 exercises (13). In this study, higher postset RPE was associated with the protocol containing a greater number of sets and lower reps per set, whereas in Kraft et al (13) greater postset RPE occurred during the protocol containing fewer sets but higher reps per set. In other words, increases in SRPE seem to be associated with higher postset RPE.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Results indicated that SRPE was linked more closely to changes in work rate than to the number of sets and reps per set (13). Additionally, authors noted a trend (p = 0.08) toward increased SRPE when performing higher reps and fewer sets despite lifting equal volumes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Additionally, authors noted a trend (p = 0.08) toward increased SRPE when performing higher reps and fewer sets despite lifting equal volumes. Authors also noted higher postset acute RPE in this condition (likely resulting from completing more total work per set) and postulated that the difficulty of individual sets may serve as a mediating factor influencing SRPE and warrants further investigation (13). One limitation was that load was held constant in the study at 60% of 1RM in all protocols.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Work Distribution Influences Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Response During Resistance Exercise Matched for Total Volume

Kraft

Green

Gast³

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Session ratings of perceived exertion (SRPE) are sensitive to changes in total work volume and work rate during resistance training. This study examined the influence of work distribution (varied load, set, and repetitions [reps]) on SRPE in 2 resistance exercise trials matched for total work volume (sets × reps × percentage of 1 repetition maximum [% 1RM]) and work rate (total work volume/time). Participants completed a low load/high rep (LLHR) trial (2 sets × 12 reps × 3-minute recovery at ∼60% 1RM) and a high load/low rep (HLLR) trial (3 sets × 6 reps × 1.5-minute recovery at ∼80% 1RM) of the bench press, lat pull-down, overhead press, upright row, triceps extension, and biceps curl. A 2-minute recovery separated each exercise in both trials. Session ratings of perceived exertion and recovery heart rate (HR) were recorded 20 minutes after exercise. Preset and postset RPE and HR were higher for HLLR vs. LLHR (3.1 ± 1.6; 104 ± 15 b·min-1 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3; 98 ± 10 b·min-1) and (5.5 ± 0.9; 139 ± 14 b·min-1 vs. 4.4 ± 0.9; 131 ± 12 b·min-1), respectively. Session RPE was higher for HLLR (5.7 ± 1.4) vs. LLHR (4.3 ± 1.4) with no difference in recovery HR. Session ratings of perceived exertion was greater with higher load despite matched total volumes and work rates. Higher preset acute RPE and HR in HLLR may indicate differences in recovery between sets. Higher postset acute RPE and HR in HLLR indicated increased difficulty of individual sets in HLLR, which likely contributed to SRPE differences. Practitioners can be confident that SRPE accurately reflects changes in training load when the number of sets, reps, and loads are altered within routine training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work Distribution Influences Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Response During Resistance Exercise Matched for Total Volume

Kraft

Green

Gast³

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While sRPE scores have been traditionally obtained ~30 minutes after the conclusion of training to limit the final phase of training impacting on the value [8], recording sRPE at 15 minutes following a session also yields reliable estimates of resistance training intensity [26].…”

Section: Srpe Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points• To quantify resistance exercise, it is important to understand the numerous factors contributing to the overall intensity of training, rather than simply the relative load being lifted.• Methods to monitor the external volume load, perceptual training intensity, subjective wellness, and physical performance during resistance exercise all appear useful methods for monitoring resistance training.• Strength coaches should identify which monitoring tools are applicable and viable for their athletes, and should take an integrative approach to resistance training monitoring to help inform their practice.3 AbstractResistance exercise is difficult to quantify due to its inherent complexity with numerous training variables contributing to the training dose (type of exercise, load lifted, training volume, inter-set rest periods and repetition velocity). In addition, the intensity of resistance training is often inadequately determined as the relative load lifted (% 1-repetition maximum), which does not account for the effects of inter-set recovery periods, repetition velocity, or the number of repetitions performed in each set at a given load. Methods to calculate the volume load associated with resistance training, as well as the perceived intensity of individual sets and entire training sessions have been shown to provide useful information regarding the actual training stimulus. In addition, questionnaires to subjectively assess how athletes are coping with the stressors of training and portable technologies to quantify performance variables such as concentric velocity may also be valuable. However, while several methods have been proposed to quantify resistance training, there is not yet consensus regarding how these methods can be best implemented and integrated to complement each other. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide practical information for strength coaches to highlight effective methods to assess resistance training, and how they can be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring program.4

show abstract

“…17 Each club was briefed on the scale and were given the same scale to use during the season. Each player had the scale explained to them by their strength and conditioning coach and players were asked to report their RPE for each session confidentially to the strength and conditioning coach without knowledge of other players' ratings.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring What Matters: A Systematic Process for Selecting Training-Load Measures

Williams

Trewartha²,

Cross³

et al. 2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Numerous derivative measures can be calculated from the simple session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), a tool for monitoring training loads (eg, acute:chronic workload and cumulative loads). The challenge from a practitioner's perspective is to decide which measures to calculate and monitor in athletes for injury-prevention purposes. The aim of the current study was to outline a systematic process of data reduction and variable selection for such training-load measures. Methods: Training loads were collected from 173 professional rugby union players during the 2013-14 English Premiership season, using the sRPE method, with injuries reported via an established surveillance system. Ten derivative measures of sRPE training load were identified from existing literature and subjected to principal-component analysis. A representative measure from each component was selected by identifying the variable that explained the largest amount of variance in injury risk from univariate generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results: Three principal components were extracted, explaining 57%, 24%, and 9% of the variance. The training-load measures that were highly loaded on component 1 represented measures of the cumulative load placed on players, component 2 was associated with measures of changes in load, and component 3 represented a measure of acute load. Four-week cumulative load, acute:chronic workload, and daily training load were selected as the representative measures for each component. Conclusions: The process outlined in the current study enables practitioners to monitor the most parsimonious set of variables while still retaining the variation and distinct aspects of "load" in the data.

show abstract

Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Responses During Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in Work Rate

Cited by 36 publications

References 19 publications

Work Distribution Influences Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Response During Resistance Exercise Matched for Total Volume

Work Distribution Influences Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Response During Resistance Exercise Matched for Total Volume

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Monitoring What Matters: A Systematic Process for Selecting Training-Load Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About