Literature DB >> 30747900

Proximity to Failure and Total Repetitions Performed in a Set Influences Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion.

Michael C Zourdos1, Jacob A Goldsmith1, Eric R Helms2, Cameron Trepeck1,3, Jessica L Halle1, Kristin M Mendez1, Daniel M Cooke1, Michael H Haischer1, Colby A Sousa1, Alex Klemp4, Ryan K Byrnes1.   

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Zourdos, MC, Goldsmith, JA, Helms, ER, Trepeck, C, Halle, JL, Mendez, KM, Cooke, DM, Haischer, MH, Sousa, CA, Klemp, A, and Byrnes, RK. Proximity to failure and total repetitions performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S158-S165, 2021-The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of predicting repetitions in reserve (RIR) intraset using the RIR-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Twenty-five men (age: 25.3 ± 3.3 years, body mass: 89.0 ± 14.7 kg, height: 174.69 ± 6.7 cm, and training age: 4.7 ± 3.2 years) reported to the laboratory. Subjects performed a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat followed by one set to failure at 70% of 1RM. During the 70% set, subjects verbally indicated when they believed they were at a 5RPE (5RIR), 7RPE (3RIR), or 9RPE (1RIR), and then continued to failure. The difference between actual repetitions performed and participant-predicted repetitions was calculated as the RIR difference (RIRDIFF). The average load used for the 70% set was 123.10 ± 24.25 kg and the average repetitions performed were 16 ± 4. The RIRDIFF was lower (RPEs were more accurate) closer to failure (RIRDIFF at 9RPE = 2.05 ± 1.73; RIRDIFF at 7RPE = 3.65 ± 2.46; and RIRDIFF at 5RPE = 5.15 ± 2.92 repetitions). There were significant relationships between total repetitions performed and RIRDIFF at 5RPE (r = 0.65, p = 0.001) and 7RPE (r = 0.56, p = 0.004), but not at 9RPE (r = 0.01, p = 0.97). Thus, being farther from failure and performing more repetitions in a set were associated with more inaccurate predictions. Furthermore, a multiple linear regression revealed that more repetitions performed per set was a significant predictor of RIR prediction inaccuracy at the called 5 (p = 0.003) and 7 (p = 0.011) RPEs, while training age (p > 0.05) was not predictive of rating accuracy. These data indicate RIR predictions are improved during low to moderate repetition sets and when there is close proximity to failure.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 30747900     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002995

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


  7 in total

1.  Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Israel Halperin; Tomer Malleron; Itai Har-Nir; Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis; Milo Wolf; James Fisher; James Steele
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Exploring the acute affective responses to resistance training: A comparison of the predetermined and the estimated repetitions to failure approaches.

Authors:  Hadar Schwartz; Aviv Emanuel; Isaac Isur Rozen Samukas; Israel Halperin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  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

4.  The Influence of Muscular Strength and Local Muscular Endurance on Accuracy of Estimated Repetitions to Failure in Resistance-Trained Males.

Authors:  Daniel A Hackett; Angelo Sabag
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-21

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

6.  The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Landyn M Hickmott; Philip D Chilibeck; Keely A Shaw; Scotty J Butcher
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2022-01-15

7.  The effects of technological and traditional feedback on back squat performance in untrained women.

Authors:  N Stien; V Andersen; G H Engelsrud; T E J Solstad; A H Saeterbakken
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2022-09-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.