Literature DB >> 24260002

Using Session RPE to Monitor Different Methods of Resistance Exercise.

Alison D Egan1, Jason B Winchester, Carl Foster, Michael R McGuigan.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare session rating of perceived exertion for different resistance training techniques in the squat exercise. These techniques included traditional resistance training, super slow, and maximal power training. Fourteen college-age women (Mean ± SD; age = 22 ± 3 years; height = 1.68 ± 0. 07 m) completed three experimental trials in a randomized crossover design. The traditional resistance training protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of squats using 80% of 1-RM. The super slow protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions using 55% of 1-RM. The maximal power protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions using 30% of 1-RM. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) measures were obtained following each set using Borg's CR-10 scale. In addition, a session RPE value was obtained 30 minutes following each exercise session. When comparing average RPE and session RPE, no significant difference was found. However, power training had significantly lower (p < 0.05) average and session RPE (4.50 ± 1.9 and 4.5 ± 2.1) compared to both super slow training (7.81 ± 1.75 and 7.43 ± 1.73) and traditional training (7.33 ± 1.52 and 7.13 ± 1.73). The results indicate that session RPE values are not significantly different from the more traditional methods of measuring RPE during exercise bouts. It does appear that the resistance training mode that is used results in differences in perceived exertion that does not relate directly to the loading that is used. Using session RPE provides practitioners with the same information about perceived exertion as the traditional RPE measures. Taking a single measure following a training session would appear to be much easier than using multiple measures of RPE throughout a resistance training workout. However, practitioners should also be aware that the RPE does not directly relate to the relative intensity used and appears to be dependent on the mode of resistance exercise that is used. Key PointsThe present study showed that session RPE values are not significantly different from the more traditional methods of measuring RPE during exercise bouts.Power training had significantly lower average and session RPE compared to both super slow training and traditional trainingIt does appear that the resistance training mode that is used results in differences in perceived exertion that does not relate directly to the loading that is used.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Weight lifting; non-traditional resistance training

Year:  2006        PMID: 24260002      PMCID: PMC3827571     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  16 in total

1.  Evidence for restricted muscle blood flow during speed skating.

Authors:  C Foster; K W Rundell; A C Snyder; J Stray-Gundersen; G Kemkers; N Thometz; J Broker; E Knapp
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.411

2.  Standardized scaling procedures for rating perceived exertion during resistance exercise.

Authors:  R E Gearhart; F L Goss; K M Lagally; J M Jakicic; J Gallagher; R J Robertson
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Comparison of metabolic and heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional resistance training.

Authors:  Gary R Hunter; Darryl Seelhorst; Scott Snyder
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 4.  Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription.

Authors:  William J Kraemer; Nicholas A Ratamess
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.411

5.  Athletic performance in relation to training load.

Authors:  C Foster; E Daines; L Hector; A C Snyder; R Welsh
Journal:  Wis Med J       Date:  1996-06

6.  Influence of contraction velocity in untrained individuals over the initial early phase of resistance training.

Authors:  Christopher M Neils; Brian E Udermann; Glenn A Brice; Jason B Winchester; Michael R McGuigan
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resistance exercise.

Authors:  Randall F Gearhart; Fredric L Goss; Kristen M Lagally; John M Jakicic; Jere Gallagher; Kara I Gallagher; Robert J Robertson
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  Quantitation of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion method.

Authors:  Travis W Sweet; Carl Foster; Michael R McGuigan; Glenn Brice
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Effects of specific versus cross-training on running performance.

Authors:  C Foster; L L Hector; R Welsh; M Schrager; M A Green; A C Snyder
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1995

10.  Effects of different heavy-resistance exercise protocols on plasma beta-endorphin concentrations.

Authors:  W J Kraemer; J E Dziados; L J Marchitelli; S E Gordon; E A Harman; R Mello; S J Fleck; P N Frykman; N T Triplett
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  1993-01
View more
  12 in total

1.  Force-velocity, impulse-momentum relationships: implications for efficacy of purposefully slow resistance training.

Authors:  Brian K Schilling; Michael J Falvo; Loren Z F Chiu
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

Review 2.  The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance.

Authors:  Jill Borresen; Michael Ian Lambert
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Session perceived exertion and affective responses to self-selected and imposed cycle exercise of the same intensity in young men.

Authors:  Luke Haile; Fredric L Goss; Robert J Robertson; Joseph L Andreacci; Michael Gallagher; Elizabeth F Nagle
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Is hip strengthening the best treatment option for females with patellofemoral pain? A randomized controlled trial of three different types of exercises.

Authors:  Marcelo Camargo Saad; Rodrigo Antunes de Vasconcelos; Letícia Villani de Oliveira Mancinelli; Matheus Soares de Barros Munno; Rogério Ferreira Liporaci; Débora Bevilaqua Grossi
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Effect of unilateral and bilateral resistance exercise on maximal voluntary strength, total volume of load lifted, and perceptual and metabolic responses.

Authors:  Ec Costa; A Moreira; B Cavalcanti; K Krinski; Ms Aoki
Journal:  Biol Sport       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 2.806

6.  Application of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training.

Authors:  Eric R Helms; John Cronin; Adam Storey; Michael C Zourdos
Journal:  Strength Cond J       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Effects of Short-Term Dynamic Constant External Resistance Training and Subsequent Detraining on Strength of the Trained and Untrained Limbs: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Pablo B Costa; Trent J Herda; Ashley A Herda; Joel T Cramer
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2016-01-27

8.  Profiling of Junior College Football Players and Differences between Position Groups.

Authors:  Robert G Lockie; Adrina Lazar; Ashley J Orjalo; DeShaun L Davis; Matthew R Moreno; Fabrice G Risso; Matthew E Hank; Randal C Stone; Nicholas W Mosich
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2016-08-05

9.  The Use of Session RPE to Monitor the Intensity of Weight Training in Older Women: Acute Responses to Eccentric, Concentric, and Dynamic Exercises.

Authors:  Sandro S Ferreira; Kleverton Krinski; Ragami C Alves; Mariana L Benites; Paulo E Redkva; Hassan M Elsangedy; Cosme F Buzzachera; Tácito P Souza-Junior; Sergio G da Silva
Journal:  J Aging Res       Date:  2014-04-13

Review 10.  Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors.

Authors:  Monoem Haddad; Georgios Stylianides; Leo Djaoui; Alexandre Dellal; Karim Chamari
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 4.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.