Literature DB >> 28933716

Self-Rated Accuracy of Rating of Perceived Exertion-Based Load Prescription in Powerlifters.

Eric R Helms1, Scott R Brown, Matt R Cross, Adam Storey, John Cronin, Michael C Zourdos.   

Abstract

This study assessed male (n = 9) and female (n = 3) powerlifters' (18-49 years) ability to select loads using the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for a single set for squat, bench press, and deadlift. Subjects trained 3× per week. For 3 weeks on nonconsecutive days in the weekly order of hypertrophy (8 repetitions at 8 RPE), power (2 repetitions at 8 RPE), and strength (3 repetitions at 9 RPE), using subject-selected loads intended to match the target RPE. Bench press and squat were performed every session and deadlift during strength and power only. Mean absolute RPE differences (|reported RPE-target RPE|) ranged from 0.22-0.44, with a mean of 0.33 ± 0.28 RPE. There were no significant RPE differences within lifts between sessions for squat or deadlift. However, bench press was closer to the target RPE for strength (0.15 ± 0.42 RPE) vs. power (-0.21 ± 0.35 RPE, p = 0.05). There were no significant differences within session between lifts for power and strength. However, bench press was closer (0.14 ± 0.44 RPE) to the target RPE than squat (-0.19 ± 0.21 RPE) during hypertrophy (p = 0.02). Squat power was closer to the target RPE in week 3 (0.08 ± 0.29 RPE) vs. 1 (-0.46 ± 0.69 RPE, p = 0.03). It seems that powerlifters can accurately select loads to reach a prescribed RPE. However, accuracy for 8-repetition sets at 8 RPE may be better for bench press compared with squat. Rating squat power-type training may take 3 weeks to reach peak accuracy. Finally, bench press RPE accuracy seems better closer rather than further from failure (i.e., 3-repetition 9 RPE sets vs. 2-repetition 8 RPE sets).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28933716     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  6 in total

Review 1.  Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions.

Authors:  Joshua C Pelland; Zac P Robinson; Jacob F Remmert; Rebecca M Cerminaro; Brian Benitez; Thomas A John; Eric R Helms; Michael C Zourdos
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 11.928

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

Authors:  Eric R Helms; Ryan K Byrnes; Daniel M Cooke; Michael H Haischer; Joseph P Carzoli; Trevor K Johnson; Matthew R Cross; John B Cronin; Adam G Storey; Michael C Zourdos
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 4.566

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

Authors:  James Steele; Andreas Endres; James Fisher; Paulo Gentil; Jürgen Giessing
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Reduced Volume 'Daily Max' Training Compared to Higher Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters Preparing for Competition-A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis; James P Fisher; Panagiotis Kolokotronis; Paulo Gentil; James Steele
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-29

5.  Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stian Larsen; Eirik Kristiansen; Roland van den Tillaar
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 6.  Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies.

Authors:  Leon Greig; Ben Hayden Stephens Hemingway; Rodrigo R Aspe; Kay Cooper; Paul Comfort; Paul A Swinton
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 11.136

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.