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

Rate of Perceived Exertion Based on Repetitions in Reserve Versus Percentage of One-Repetition Maximum for Resistance Training Prescription in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study

The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy of the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) scale based on the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) before exhaustion for the prescription of resistance training in cardiac rehabilitation and to compare it to the percentage of estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM) prescription method. Sixteen male patients (age 60 ± 8) with history of coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to two resistance training rehabilitation protocols lasting nine weeks and consisting of three sessions per week, with the same exercise selection, number of sets and repetitions, and rest periods, but different load prescription method (RPE vs. %1RM). Patients' strength was evaluated pre- and post-intervention. Patients in the RPE group showed significant increases in strength across all the exercises of the protocol (leg press 24.25 ± 17.07 kg; chest press 7.25 ± 3.41 kg; seated row 13.88 ± 7.57 kg; leg extension 14.24 ± 4.53 kg; shoulder press 5.75 ± 4.06 kg; lat pulldown 7.50 ± 4.66 kg). Post-intervention between-group analysis showed no differences in strength gains (leg press p = 0.955; chest press p = 0.965; seated row p = 0.763; leg extension p = 0.565; shoulder press p = 0.868; lat pulldown p = 0.780) and trivial effect sizes (ES) for one prescription method over the other (leg press ES = -0.03; chest press ES = 0.00; seated row ES = 0.10; leg extension ES = -0.29; shoulder press ES = 0.18; lat pulldown ES = 0.05). RPE based on RIR seems to be an effective prescription method for resistance training in cardiac rehabilitation, showing similar efficacy to the standardized practice of percentage of 1RM.

Autoregulation Does Not Provide Additional Benefits to a Mixed Session Periodized Resistance Training Program in Trained Men

ABSTRACT

Bartolomei, S, Francesco, L, Latini, D, and Hoffman, JR. Autoregulation does not provide additional benefits to a mixed session periodized resistance training program in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 38(9): 1535-1542, 2024-The aim of this investigation was to study how autoregulation impacted training volume, performance, and muscle size on a 10-week mixed session periodized (MSP) resistance training program, characterized by the inclusion of different training foci in each session. Twenty-four resistance trained men were assigned to an autoregulated mixed session periodized (AMSP group; n = 13; age = 26.2 ± 4.9 y; body mass = 82.0 ± 8.7 kg; height = 176.8 ± 6.0 cm) or into an MSP ( n = 11; age = 24.0 ± 2.6; body mass = 81.3 ± 10.5 kg; height = 174.0 ± 5.4 cm) group. Subjects in both groups trained 5 days per week for 10 weeks and performed the same exercises. The difference between the groups consisted in the use of a perceived recovery-based scale to adjust the individual training volume in the AMSP program. Maximal strength (bench press and squat 1 repetition maximum), power (bench press throw and countermovement jump), and muscle architecture (muscle thickness [MT] of biceps brachii, trapezius, vastus lateralis and vastus medialis) were collected before and after the 10-week training period. In addition, training volume and session load were calculated for each training session. A higher total training volume ( p < 0.001) was seen in AMSP program compared with MSP program, but no differences ( p > 0.05) were noted in the average session load. No significant differences between the groups were detected for MT of both upper-body and lower-body muscles ( p's > 0.05) and lean body mass ( p = 0.681). No significant differences between the groups were detected for any strength or power measurements. Results of this study indicate that a perceived recovery-based AMSP training program was not more effective than an MSP training program for increasing muscle size and performance in resistance trained men.

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

The intensity of resistance training (RT) exercise is an important consideration for determining relevant health and performance-related outcomes. Yet, current objective exercise intensity measures present concerns in terms of viability or cost. In response to these concerns, repetition-in-reserve (RIR) scales may represent an adequate method of measuring and regulating intensity. However, no recent review has focused on how RIR scales have been used for this purpose in prior research. We prepared the present scoping review to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in selecting RT intensity. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (last search date April 2023) for experimental and non-experimental studies that utilized an RIR scale to measure proximity to failure in RT activities with apparently healthy individuals of any age. We qualitatively analyzed 31 studies (N = 855 mostly male adult participants) published between 2012-2023. RIR scales appeared to be contextually feasible and useful in prescribing and adjusting RT intensity. The most common trend in this research was to prescribe a target RIR and adjust the exercise load for a desired proximity to muscle failure. Additionally, when measuring proximity to failure as an outcome of interest, the literature suggests that the RIR prediction should be made close to task failure to increase its accuracy. Future research should further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection, and muscle conditioning on the overall RIR approach.

Perception of effort and the allocation of physical resources: A generalization to upper-limb motor tasks

Purpose

The perception of effort (PE) is widely used to prescribe and monitor exercise during locomotor and resistance tasks. The present study examines the validity of PE to prescribe and monitor exercise during upper-limb motor tasks under various loads and speed requirements.

Methods

Forty participants volunteered in two experiments. In experiment 1, we used four PE intensities to prescribe exercise on a modified version of the box and block test (BBT) and a pointing task. We investigated the possibility of monitoring the exercise intensity by tracking changes in PE rating in response to three different tempos or additional weights. Experiment 2 replicated the possibility of prescribing the exercise with the PE intensity during the BBT and explored the impact of additional weights on performance and PE during the standardized version of the BBT. Muscle activation, heart rate, and respiratory frequencies were recorded.

Results

In experiment 1, increasing the PE intensity to prescribe exercise induced an increased performance between each intensity. Increasing task difficulty with faster movement tempo and adding weight on the forearm increased the rating of PE. Experiment 2 replicated the possibility to use PE intensity for exercise prescription during the BBT. When completing the BBT with an additional weight on the forearm, participants maintained performance at the cost of a higher PE. In both experiments, changes in PE were associated with changes in muscle activation.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that PE is a valid tool to prescribe and monitor exercise during upper-limb motor tasks.

The effects of velocity-based versus percentage-based resistance training on athletic performances in sport-collegiate female basketball players

Introduction: The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players. Methods: Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT (n = 8) or PBRT (n = 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM. Results: No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showed likely to very likely favorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showed likely to very likely improvements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showed unclear effects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT (p < 0.05) for the same subjects. Conclusion: Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.

The Effects of a Compensatory Training Program Adding an Isoinertial Device in the Shoulder Function on Young Tennis Players

ABSTRACT

Fernandez-Fernandez, J, Moreno-Perez, V, Cools, A, Nakamura, FY, Teixeira, AS, Ellenbecker, T, Johansson, F, and Sanz-Rivas, D. The effects of a compensatory training program adding an isoinertial device in the shoulder function on young tennis players. J Strength Cond Res 37(5): 1096-1103, 2023-The aim of this study was to analyze whether a compensatory training program, including isoinertial flywheel training, could reduce shoulder imbalances in a group of asymptomatic young tennis players. After an initial evaluation, 26 young tennis players were assigned to either a supervised flywheel training group (FTG, n = 13) or a control group (CG, n = 13). Shoulder passive internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) range of motion (ROM) as well as shoulder IR and ER maximal isometric strength were measured before and after a 12-week training intervention, performed 3 times per week. After the intervention, results showed significant changes for IR ( p < 0.001, effect size [ES] = 1.83) and ER ( p < 0.001, ES = 1.77) on the dominant (D) side, and IR on the nondominant (ND) side ( p < 0.001, ES = 2.24) in the FTG compared with the CG. Regarding the ROM values, results showed that the FTG achieved significantly greater increases for the IR ROM ( p < 0.001, ES = 3.32) and total ROM (TROM) ( p = 0.004, ES = 1.39) on the D and ND sides (IR ROM: p = 0.002, ES = 1.53; TROM: p < 0.001, ES = 2.35) than the CG. Moreover, the CG displayed larger decrements in ER ROM ( p = 0.016, ES = 1.12) on the ND side after the training period than the FTG. The conducted compensatory training program was effective to increase the ER strength and IR mobility of the FTG players, which led to a reduction in the glenohumeral imbalances.

Effects of 8 Weeks of Isoinertial vs. Cable-Resistance Training on Motor Skills Performance and Interlimb Asymmetries

ABSTRACT

Madruga-Parera, M, Bishop, C, Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A, Beato, M, Gonzalo-Skok, O, and Romero-Rodríguez, D. Effects of 8-weeks of Isoinertial vs. Cable-resistance Training on Motor Skills Performance and Interlimb Asymmetries. J Strength Cond Res 36(5): 1200-1208, 2022-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 8 weeks of isoinertial vs. cable-resistance training on motor skills performance and interlimb asymmetries in handball players. Thirty-four young male handball players (mean ± SD: age: 15.96 ± 1.39 years; height: 1.74 ± 0.73 m; body mass: 70.5 ± 13.3 kg) participated in a randomized trial. The players performed an isoinertial program using a portable flywheel device or a cable-resistance device. Performance variations and interlimb asymmetries in dominant (D) and nondominant (ND) limb means of the unilateral countermovement jump (UCMJ), the unilateral lateral jump (ULJ), the unilateral broad jump (UBJ), handball throwing (HT), change of direction speed (COD180), the linear sprint (S20), the V-CUT test, and the repeated change of direction (RCOD) were recorded. Significant interactions were shown in RCODD (p = 0.003, ηp = 0.25), HT (p = 0.015, ηp = 0.17) and UCMJASY (p = 0.037, ηp = 0.13). Post-hoc testing revealed higher effect sizes in the isoinertial group (p < 0.05) for the performance improvements in RCODD (-1.35 large vs. -0.22, small) and HT (0.88, moderate vs. 0.00, trivial), in addition to interlimb asymmetry reductions in UCMJASY (-0.70 moderate vs. -0.32, small). Significant main effects of time in COD180, RCOD, UCMJ, and UBJ for both limbs (p < 0.05, from moderate to large effect size), and in ULJND (p < 0.001, large), UCMJASY (p < 0.001, moderate), V-CUT (p = 0.014, small), and HT (p = 0.015, large) were found. The effect sizes revealed greater magnitudes in the isoinertial group. In conclusion, although both resistance training programs improve players' to physical performance and reduce interlimb asymmetries, greater improvements were recorded with the isoinertial resistance training than with the cable-resistance methodology.

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

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.

Velocity Change Estimation by Subjective Measures Over a Wide-Load Spectrum in Squat and Bench Press

ABSTRACT

Chapman, M, Larumbe-Zabala, E, Triplett, NT, and Naclerio, F. Velocity change estimation by subjective measures over a wide-load spectrum in squat and bench press. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S51-S56, 2021-This study compared whether the perception of effort measured on a repetition-by-repetition basis during continuous sets to failure is different between squat (SQ) and bench press (BP). After determining the one repetition maximum (1RM) value in both SQ and BP, 18 subjects (28.2 ± 5 years, 50% women) performed 7 sets to failure per exercise, separated by 24-48 hours, alternating SQ and BP, using the following relative load ranges: 30 < 40%, 40 < 50%, 50 < 60%, 60% < 70%, 70 < 80%, 80 < 90%, and >90%. The mean accelerative velocity (MAV) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) using the OMNI-RES (0-10) scale were measured for every repetition of each set. The ability of the OMNI-RES (0-10) scale to identify velocity changes during continuous sets to volitional failure and to distinguish loading zones divided into 10% slots, from 30 to 100% of 1RM was confirmed for both SQ and BP. The RPE values measured at (a) the first repetition; (b) the repetition where MAV peaks; (c) the repetition where MAV drops by ≤10% compared the maximum and (d) the last repetition, showed no differences (p > 0.05, d < 0.2) between exercises. In conclusion, the same RPE scores can be applied to both exercises, for either estimating the relative load or monitoring changes in MAV during continuous sets to failure.

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

Background

Maximal strength is a critical determinant of performance in numerous sports. Autoregulation is a resistance training prescription approach to adjust training variables based on the individuals’ daily fluctuations in performance, which are a result of training-induced fitness and fatigue, together with readiness from daily non-training stressors.

Objective

This review aimed to summarise the effects of different subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Google Scholar. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (1) estimation of 1-RM or a 1-RM test for both pre-test and post-test to measure progression in strength assessment during the training intervention, (2) a training comparison group, (3) participants were healthy, (4) the article had a detailed description of training intensity, training volume, and training frequency during the training intervention, (5) the training intervention lasted for more than four weeks, (6) studies with objective autoregulation methods utilised a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, (7) English-language studies.

Results

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 30 training groups and 356 participants. Effect size and percentage differences were calculated for 13 out of 14 studies to compare the effects of different training interventions. All autoregulation training protocols resulted in an increase in 1-RM, from small ES to large ES.

Conclusion

Overall, our findings suggest that using both subjective autoregulation methods for intensity, such as repetitions in reserve rating of perceived exertion and flexible daily undulation periodisation, together with objective autoregulation methods for autoregulation intensity and volume, such as velocity targets and velocity loss, could be effective methods for enhancing maximal strength. It is speculated that this is because the implementation of autoregulation into a periodised plan may take into account the athletes’ daily fluctuations, such as fluctuations in fitness, fatigue, and readiness to train. When training with a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, this may provide objective augmented intra- and interset feedback during the resistance exercise who could be beneficial for increasing maximal strength. Coaches, practitioners, and athletes are encouraged to implement such autoregulation methods into a periodised plan when the goal is to enhance maximal strength.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies

Autoregulation is a process that is used to manipulate training based primarily on the measurement of an individual's performance or their perceived capability to perform. Despite being established as a training framework since the 1940s, there has been limited systematic research investigating its broad utility. Instead, researchers have focused on disparate practices that can be considered specific examples of the broader autoregulation training framework. A primary limitation of previous research includes inconsistent use of key terminology (e.g., adaptation, readiness, fatigue, and response) and associated ambiguity of how to implement different autoregulation strategies. Crucially, this ambiguity in terminology and failure to provide a holistic overview of autoregulation limits the synthesis of existing research findings and their dissemination to practitioners working in both performance and health contexts. Therefore, the purpose of the current review was threefold: first, we provide a broad overview of various autoregulation strategies and their development in both research and practice whilst highlighting the inconsistencies in definitions and terminology that currently exist. Second, we present an overarching conceptual framework that can be used to generate operational definitions and contextualise autoregulation within broader training theory. Finally, we show how previous definitions of autoregulation fit within the proposed framework and provide specific examples of how common practices may be viewed, highlighting their individual subtleties.

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

Individualisation can improve resistance training prescription. This is accomplished via monitoring or autoregulating training. Autoregulation adjusts variables at an individualised pace per performance, readiness, or recovery. Many autoregulation and monitoring methods exist; therefore, this review’s objective was to examine approaches intended to optimise adaptation. Up to July 2019, PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies on methods of athlete monitoring useful for resistance-training regulation, or autoregulated training methods were included. Eleven monitoring and regulation themes emerged across 90 studies. Some physiological, performance, and perceptual measures correlated strongly (r ≥ 0.68) with resistance training performance. Testosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, cell-free DNA, jump height, throwing distance, barbell velocity, isometric and dynamic peak force, maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and sessional, repetitions in reserve-(RIR) based, and post-set Borg-scale ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were strongly associated with training performance, respectively. Despite strong correlations, many physiological and performance methods are logistically restrictive or limited to lab-settings, such as blood markers, electromyography or kinetic measurements. Some practical performance tests such as jump height or throw distance may be useful, low-risk stand-ins for maximal strength tests. Performance-based individualisation of load progression, flexible training configurations, and intensity and volume modifications based on velocity and RIR-based RPE scores are practical, reliable and show preliminary utility for enhancing performance.

Contemporary Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters

Shaw, MP, Andersen, V, Sæterbakken, AH, Paulsen, G, Samnøy, LE, and Solstad, TEJ. Contemporary training practices of Norwegian powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-The aim of this study was to explore the contemporary training practices of Norwegian powerlifters. One hundred twenty-four Norwegian powerlifters completed an electronic questionnaire that surveyed their current training practices with a focus on 2 areas: (a) training content and (b) training design and monitoring. One hundred seventeen respondents met the inclusion criteria, and the sample included World, European, and Norwegian champions. Where data were dichotomized, chi-square tests were used. The most frequently reported (58.1%) category of training was 5-6 times per week, with no statistically significant associations between levels of competitors (international vs. noninternational) (X(1) = 0.414, p = 0.52). The most frequently reported load used in training was 71-80% 1 repetition maximum. The majority of Norwegian (76.9%) powerlifters train with variable resistance, with those competing internationally more likely to use elastic bands (X(1) = 4.473, p = 0.034). 32.5% of respondents reported that they included weightlifting exercises in their training. Norwegian powerlifters' training differs from practices previously identified in the literature, with a higher prevalence of elastic resistance, particularly for those competing internationally, and a decreased use of weightlifting exercises at all levels. Norwegian powerlifters train frequently (5 or more times per week) and with submaximal loads.

Session Rating of Perceived Exertion as an Efficient Tool for Individualized Resistance Training Progression

Gomes, RL, Lixandrão, ME, Ugrinowitsch, C, Moreira, A, Tricoli, V, and Roschel, H. Session rating of perceived exertion as an efficient tool for individualized resistance training progression. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-The present study aimed to investigate the effects of an individualized resistance training (RT) progression model based on the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on gains in muscle mass and strength when compared with a conventional predetermined progression method (PP). Twenty previously trained young male subjects were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 groups: RPE (n = 10) or PP (n = 10). Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum dynamic strength were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks. The RPE-based progression model resulted in a lower number of high-intensity sessions compared with the PP-based model. Despite this, both groups showed significant and similar increases in CSA (p < 0.0001; RPE = 6.55 ± 5.27% and PP = 9.65 ± 3.63%) and strength (p < 0.0001; RPE = 9.68 ± 4.57% and PP = 9.28 ± 4.01%) after the intervention period. No significant between-group difference was observed for total training volume (RPE = 45,366.00 ± 10,190.00 kg and PP = 47,779.00 ± 5,685.00 kg; p = 0.52). Our results showed that an RT progression model based on session-to-session physiological response assessments resulted in fewer high-intensity training sessions while allowing for similar gains in muscle strength and mass. Thus, trainees are encouraged to adopt session RPE as a potential tool to control workload progression throughout a training period and allowing the optimization of training stimulus on an individual basis.

Rating of perceived exertion and velocity loss as variables for controlling the level of effort in the bench press exercise

There is a growing interest in the analysis of different methods for monitor fatigue during resistance training sessions. This study aimed to (1) analyse the relationships between the percentage of performed repetitions with respect to the maximum possible number (%REP), RPE and magnitude of velocity loss (VL), and (2) examine whether a multiple regression analysis with the RPE and VL as predictor variables could improve the goodness of fit to predict %REP in the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine. Seven men performed a repetition maximum test, on 3 separate testing sessions, against 3 different absolute loads based on a target mean velocity (MV) according to an individual load-velocity profile (≈1.00, ≈0.70, and ≈0.50 m/s). MV, VL, %REP and RPE were collected and used for analysis. Based upon quadratic polynomial regression analysis strong relationships were reported between the RPE and %REP (r² = 0.89 and SEE = 9.85%) and between the VL and %REP (r² = 0.91 and SEE = 9.85%). Multiple regression analysis with the RPE and VL as predictor variables improved the goodness of fit (r² = 0.94 and SEE = 7.18%) of the model to predict %REP. These results suggest that both RPE and VL are useful variables to accurately estimate %REP in the bench press exercise.

Classic Powerlifting Performance: A Systematic Review

Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all scientific publications related to able-body drug-tested classic powerlifting performance since January 1, 2012, and to regroup them into a brief narrative review. Three electronic databases were systematically searched in August 2018 using the wildcard: powerlift*. A manual search was performed from the reference list of all retained articles. The search and selection strategy permitted to gather a total of 16 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Results show that practitioners should prioritize a low-bar squat and a wide grip bench press because they generally contribute to moving greater loads, bring more attention to preventing injuries, since a fair amount of powerlifters seem to train injured and prioritize a hypertrophy-power-strength model when prescribing 3 times a week daily undulating periodization on nonconsecutive days for squat and bench. Practitioners could also introduce respiratory muscle training, use daily 1 repetition maximum training combined with down sets on experienced athletes and use a rate of perceived exertion scale based on repetitions in reserve combined with an individual velocity profile when prescribing intensity. Before competition, powerlifters seem to taper in this order: the deadlift, the squat, and lastly the bench press. The Slingshot does help to move more weight because it helps to generate more inertia, but it also deactivates the triceps. Finally, the present work was limited by the present literature but could serve as a reference in the field of powerlifting. Further research should include more details about the circumstances under which they were conducted.

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

The present study looked to examine reduced volume ‘daily max’ (near max loads) training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition. Ten competitive powerlifters were split into 2 groups (MAX group and PER group) and participated in a 10-week training intervention either following a “daily max” training protocol or a traditional periodized training protocol while preparing for competition. All participants underwent 1RM testing for squat (SQ), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) prior to the 10-week intervention. The MAX group performed single sets of single repetitions using a load equating to an RPE rating of 9–9.5 while the PER group performed higher volume periodized training with loads ranging from 70%1RM up to 93%1RM as well as a taper at the final weeks of the training intervention. Both groups were tested after the 10-week training intervention at the Greek IPF-affiliate National Championships. In the PER group, powerlifting (PL) total increased for P1 and P3 by 2% and 6.5% respectively while P2 experienced no change. In the MAX group PL total increased for P1 and P2 by 4.8% and 4.2% respectively while it decreased by 0.5%, 3.4% and 5% for P3, P4 and P5 respectively. In the MAX group peri PL total increased for P1–4 by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while it decreased by 1.2% for P5. The results of this pilot study show that single-set, single-rep, RPE based ‘daily max’ training may be a favorable strategy for some beginner-intermediate powerlifters preparing for competition while it may lead to performance decreases for others. Further, it suggests that performance may be comparable to traditional periodized training during shorter training cycles, though future work with larger samples is needed to further test this. Practically ‘daily max’ training may be useful for PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.

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

Purpose: To investigate differences between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and percentage one-repetition maximum (1RM) load assignment in resistance-trained males (19-35 years) performing protocols with matched sets and repetitions differentiated by load-assignment. Methods: Participants performed squats then bench press 3x/weeks in a daily undulating format over 8-weeks. Participants were counterbalanced by pre-test 1RM then assigned to percentage 1RM (1RMG, n = 11); load-assignment via percentage 1RMs, or RPE groups (RPEG, n = 10); participant-selected loads to reach target RPE ranges. Ultrasonography determined pre and post-test pectoralis (PMT), and vastus lateralis muscle thickness at 50 (VLMT50) and 70% (VLMT70) femur-length. Results: Bench press (1RMG +9.64 ± 5.36; RPEG + 10.70 ± 3.30 kg), squat (1RMG + 13.91 ± 5.89; RPEG + 17.05 ± 5.44 kg) and their combined-total 1RMs (1RMG + 23.55 ± 10.38; RPEG + 27.75 ± 7.94 kg) increased (p < 0.05) in both groups as did PMT (1RMG + 1.59 ± 1.33; RPEG +1.90 ± 1.91 mm), VLMT50 (1RMG +2.13 ± 1.95; RPEG + 1.85 ± 1.97 mm) and VLMT70 (1RMG + 2.40 ± 2.22; RPEG + 2.31 ± 2.27 mm). Between-group differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). Magnitude-based inferences revealed 79, 57, and 72% chances of mean small effect size (ES) advantages for squat; ES 90% confidence limits (CL) = 0.50 ± 0.63, bench press; ES 90% CL = 0.28 ± 0.73, and combined-total; ES 90% CL = 0.48 ± 0.68 respectively, in RPEG. There were 4, 14, and 6% chances 1RMG had a strength advantage of the same magnitude, and 18, 29, and 22% chances, respectively of trivial differences between groups. Conclusions: Both loading-types are effective. However, RPE-based loading may provide a small 1RM strength advantage in a majority of individuals.

Using Perceptual and Neuromuscular Responses to Estimate Mechanical Changes During Continuous Sets in the Bench Press

Chapman, M, Larumbe-Zabala, E, Gosss-Sampson, M, Triplett, NT, and Naclerio, F. Using perceptual and neuromuscular responses to estimate mechanical changes during continuous sets in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(10): 2722-2732, 2019-This study analyzed the effectiveness of the OMNI-RES (0-10) and the electromyographic signal for monitoring changes in the movement velocity during a set to muscular failure performed with different relative loads in the bench press (BP) exercise. Ten males (30.8 ± 5.7 years) were evaluated on 8 separate days with 48 hours of rest between sessions. After determining the 1 repetition maximum value, participants performed 7 sets to failure with the following relative loads ranges: 30 < 40%, 40 < 50%, 50 < 60%, 60 < 70%, 70 < 80%, 80 < 90%, and >90%. The mean accelerative velocity (MAV), the rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and the normalized root-mean-square (N-RMS) signal from the anterior deltoids were measured for every repetition of each set. The RPE expressed after the first repetition and when the maximum value of MAV was achieved over the sets was lower (p < 0.001, d > 0.80) than the RPE associated with a 10% drop in MAV and at failure. Furthermore, the initial RPE was useful to distinguish different loading zones between the light relative loads (30 < 40% vs. 40 < 50% vs. 50 < 60%) and from these 3 zones to the higher relative load ranges (60 to >90%). Similar, but less clear, differences were observed for the N-RMS. In conclusion, apart from differentiating between relative loads, the RPE and in some cases N-RMS can both reflect changes associated with the initial, maximal, 10% drop in movement velocity, and muscular failure during a continuous set in the BP.

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

‘Repetitions in Reserve’ (RIR) scales in resistance training (RT) are used to control effort but assume people accurately predict performance a priori (i.e. the number of possible repetitions to momentary failure (MF)). This study examined the ability of trainees with different experience levels to predict number of repetitions to MF. One hundred and forty-one participants underwent a full body RT session involving single sets to MF and were asked to predict the number of repetitions they could complete before reaching MF on each exercise. Participants underpredicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF (Standard error of measurements [95% confidence intervals] for combined sample ranged between 2.64 [2.36–2.99] and 3.38 [3.02–3.83]). There was a tendency towards improved accuracy with greater experience. Ability to predict repetitions to MF is not perfectly accurate among most trainees though may improve with experience. Thus, RIR should be used cautiously in prescription of RT. Trainers and trainees should be aware of this as it may have implications for the attainment of training goals, particularly muscular hypertrophy.