Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHelms, ERen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorZourdos, Men_NZ
dc.contributor.authorStorey, Aen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorCronin, Jen_NZ
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-23T00:24:58Z
dc.date.available2019-01-23T00:24:58Z
dc.date.copyright2017-05-15en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 32(6): 1627–1636, JUN 2018, DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002032, PMID: 29786623
dc.identifier.issn1064-8011en_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/12177
dc.description.abstractRating of perceived exertion as a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. J Strength Cond Res 32(6): 1627-1636, 2018-The purpose of this investigation was to observe how a rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-based autoregulation strategy impacted volume performed by powerlifters. Twelve (26 ± 7 years, n = 9 men, n = 3 women) nationally qualified powerlifters performed the back squat, bench press, and deadlift 3x per week on nonconsecutive days in a session order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength; for 3 weeks. Each session subjects performed an initial top set for a prescribed number of repetitions at a target RPE. A second top set was performed if the RPE score was too low, then subsequent back-off sets at a reduced load were performed for the same number of repetitions. When the prescribed RPE was reached or exceeded, sets stopped; known as an "RPE stop." The percentage load reduction for back-off sets changed weekly: there were 2, 4, or 6% RPE stop reductions from the top set. The order in which RPE stop weeks were performed was counterbalanced among subjects. Weekly combined relative volume load (squat + bench press + deadlift), expressed as sets x repetitions x percentage 1-repetition maximum was different between weeks (p < 0.001): 2% = 74.6 ± 22.3; 4% = 88.4 ± 23.8; 6% = 114.4 ± 33.4. Combined weekly bench press volume (hypertrophy + power + strength) was significantly higher in accordance with load reduction magnitude (2% > 4% > 6%; p ≤ 0.05), combined squat volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% (p ≤ 0.05), and combined deadlift volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% and 4% (p ≤ 0.05). Therefore, it does seem that volume can be effectively autoregulated using RPE stops as a method to dictate number of sets performed.
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkinsen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttps://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=29786623
dc.rightsCopyright © 2018, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright in the documents ("Contents") on the Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Web Servers is owned by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW), unless otherwise indicated. LWW hereby authorizes you to copy documents published by LWW on the World Wide Web for non-commercial uses within your organization only. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that any copy of these documents which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained herein.
dc.subjectResistance training; Autoregulation; Powerlifting; Rating of perceived exertion; Training volume
dc.titleRating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Programen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccessen_NZ
pubs.elements-id283769
aut.relation.journalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Researchen_NZ


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record