RATINGS OF PERCEIVED EXERTION ARE A VALID METHOD OF ESTIMATING THE INTENSITY OF A RESISTANCE TRAINING EXERCISE OR SESSION. SCORES ARE GIVEN AFTER COMPLETION OF AN EXERCISE OR TRAINING SESSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ATHLETE MONITORING. HOWEVER, A NEWLY DEVELOPED SCALE BASED ON HOW MANY REPETITIONS ARE REMAINING AT THE COMPLETION OF A SET MAY BE A MORE PRECISE TOOL. THIS APPROACH ADJUSTS LOADS AUTOMATICALLY TO MATCH ATHLETE CAPABILITIES ON A SET-TO-SET BASIS AND MAY MORE ACCURATELY GAUGE INTENSITY AT NEAR-LIMIT LOADS. THIS ARTICLE OUTLINES HOW TO INCORPORATE THIS NOVEL SCALE INTO A TRAINING PLAN.

/pdf/application-of-the-repetitions-in-reserve-based-rating-of-2i4iujtx6l.pdf

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

Helms, ER, Storey, A, Cross, MR, Browm, SR, Lenetsky, S, Ramsay, H, Dillen, C, and Zourdos, MC RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 292-297, 2017-The purpose of this study was to compare average concentric velocity (ACV) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) based on repetitions in reserve on the squat, bench press, and deadlift Fifteen powerlifters (3 women and 12 men, mean age 284 ± 85 years) worked up to a one repetition maximum (1RM) on each lift Rating of perceived exertion was recorded on all sets, and the ACV was recorded for all sets performed at 80% of estimated 1RM and higher, up to 1RM Rating of perceived exertion at 1RM on squat, bench press, and deadlift was 96 ± 05, 97 ± 04, and 96 ± 05, respectively and was not significantly different (p > 005) The ACV at 1RM on squat, bench press and deadlift was 023 ± 005, 010 ± 004, and 014 ± 005 m·second, respectively Squat was faster than both bench press and deadlift (p > 0001), and deadlift was faster than bench press (p = 005) Very strong relationships (r = 088-091) between percentage 1RM and RPE were observed on each lift The ACV showed strong (r = -079 to -087) and very strong (r = -090 to 92) inverse relationships with RPE and percentage 1RM on each lift, respectively We conclude that RPE may be a useful tool for prescribing intensity for squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters, in addition to traditional methods such as percentage of 1RM Despite high correlations between percentage 1RM and ACV, a "velocity load profile" should be developed to prescribe intensity on an individual basis with appropriate accuracy

RPE and Velocity Relationships for the Back Squat, Bench Press, and Deadlift in Powerlifters.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity, reliability, and accuracy of new wearable and smartphone-based technology for the measurement of barbell velocity in resistance training exercises. To do this, 10 highly trained powerlifters (age = 26.1 ± 3.9 years) performed 11 repetitions with loads ranging 50-100% of the 1-Repetition maximum in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises while barbell velocity was simultaneously measured using a linear transducer (LT), two Beast wearable devices (one placed on the subjects' wrist -BW-, and the other one directly attached to the barbell -BB-) and the iOS PowerLift app. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and BW (r = 0.94-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.07 m•s-1), BB (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.05 m•s-1), and the PowerLift app (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.03-0.05 m•s-1) for the measurement of barbell velocity in the three exercises. Paired samples T-test revealed systematic biases between the LT and BW, BB and the app in the hip-thrust, between the LT and BW in the full-squat and between the LT and BB in the bench-press exercise (p < 0.001). Moreover, the analysis of the linear regression on the Bland-Altman plots showed that the differences between the LT and BW (R2 = 0.004-0.03), BB (R2 = 0.007-0.01), and the app (R2 = 0.001-0.03) were similar across the whole range of velocities analyzed. Finally, the reliability of the BW (ICC = 0.910-0.988), BB (ICC = 0.922-0.990), and the app (ICC = 0.928-0.989) for the measurement of the two repetitions performed with each load were almost the same than that observed with the LT (ICC = 0.937-0.990). Both the Beast wearable device and the PowerLift app were highly valid, reliable, and accurate for the measurement of barbell velocity in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises. These results could have potential practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches who wish to measure barbell velocity during resistance training.

/pdf/analysis-of-wearable-and-smartphone-based-technologies-for-1j3kpy543k.pdf

Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises.

Global health organizations have provided recommendations regarding exercise for the general population Strength training has been included in several position statements due to its multi-systemic benefits In this narrative review, we examine the available literature, first explaining how specific mechanical loading is converted into positive cellular responses Secondly, benefits related to specific musculoskeletal tissues are discussed, with practical applications and training programmes clearly outlined for both common musculoskeletal disorders and primary prevention strategies

/pdf/the-benefits-of-strength-training-on-musculoskeletal-system-4fsivwg8oq.pdf

The Benefits of Strength Training on Musculoskeletal System Health: Practical Applications for Interdisciplinary Care

Purpose: To examine the reliability of peak velocity (PV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and mean velocity (MV) in the development of load–velocity profiles (LVP) in the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Eighteen resistance-trained men performed a baseline 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) back-squat trial and 3 subsequent 1-RM trials used for reliability analyses, with 48-h intervals between trials. 1-RM trials comprised lifts from 6 relative loads including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% 1-RM. Individualized LVPs for PV, MPV, or MV were derived from loads that were highly reliable based on the following criteria: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) >.70, coefficient of variation (CV) ≤10%, and Cohen d effect size (ES) <0.60. Results: PV was highly reliable at all 6 loads. MPV and MV were highly reliable at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 90% but not 100% 1-RM (MPV: ICC = .66, CV = 18.0%, ES = 0.10, SEM = 0.04 m·s−1; MV: ICC = .55, CV = 19.4%, ES = 0.08, SEM...

The reliability of individualized load–velocity profiles

The primary aim of this study was to compare rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values measuring repetitions in reserve (RIR) at particular intensities of 1 repetition maximum (RM) in experienced (ES) and novice squatters (NS). Furthermore, this investigation compared average velocity between ES and NS at the same intensities. Twenty-nine individuals (24.0 ± 3.4 years) performed a 1RM squat followed by a single repetition with loads corresponding to 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM and an 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM. Average velocity was recorded at 60, 75, and 90% 1RM and on the first and last repetitions of the 8-repetition set. Subjects reported an RPE value that corresponded to an RIR value (RPE-10 = 0-RIR, RPE-9 = 1-RIR, and so forth). Subjects were assigned to one of the 2 groups: (a) ES (n = 15, training age: 5.2 ± 3.5 years) and (b) NS (n = 14, training age: 0.4 ± 0.6 years). The mean of the average velocities for ES was slower (p ≤ 0.05) than NS at 100% and 90% 1RM. However, there were no differences (p > 0.05) between groups at 60, 75%, or for the first and eighth repetitions at 70% 1RM. In addition, ES recorded greater RPE at 1RM than NS (p = 0.023). In ES, there was a strong inverse relationship between average velocity and RPE at all percentages (r = -0.88, p < 0.001), and a strong inverse correlation in NS between average velocity and RPE at all intensities (r = -0.77, p = 0.001). Our findings demonstrate an inverse relationship between average velocity and RPE/RIR. Experienced squatter group exhibited slower average velocity and higher RPE at 1RM than NS, signaling greater efficiency at high intensities. The RIR-based RPE scale is a practical method to regulate daily training load and provide feedback during a 1RM test.

/pdf/novel-resistance-training-specific-rating-of-perceived-509hkzo2fi.pdf

Ben Esgro

Papers

Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve.