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

Simple item page
aut.relation.endpage247
aut.relation.journalFrontiers in Physiologyen_NZ
aut.relation.startpage247
aut.relation.volume9en_NZ
aut.researcherStorey, Adam
dc.contributor.authorHelms, ERen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorByrnes, Ren_NZ
dc.contributor.authorCooke, Den_NZ
dc.contributor.authorHaischer, Men_NZ
dc.contributor.authorCarzoli, Jen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Ten_NZ
dc.contributor.authorCross, Men_NZ
dc.contributor.authorCronin, Jen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorStorey, Aen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorZourdos, MCen_NZ
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-14T23:57:37Z
dc.date.available2019-07-14T23:57:37Z
dc.date.copyright2018en_NZ
dc.date.issued2018en_NZ
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Physiology, 9, 247.
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fphys.2018.00247en_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10292/12661
dc.publisherFrontiers Media S.A.
dc.relation.urihttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00247/full
dc.rightsCopyright © 2018 Helms, Byrnes, Cooke, Haischer, Carzoli, Johnson, Cross, Cronin, Storey and Zourdos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccessen_NZ
dc.subjectPerceived exertion; Resistance training; Strength; Autoregulation; Powerlifting
dc.titleRPE vs Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitionsen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Article
pubs.elements-id334206
pubs.organisational-data/AUT
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/Health & Environmental Science
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/Health & Environmental Science/Sports & Recreation
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/Health & Environmental Science/SPRINZ
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/PBRF
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/PBRF/PBRF Health and Environmental Sciences
pubs.organisational-data/AUT/PBRF/PBRF Health and Environmental Sciences/HS Sports & Recreation 2018 PBRF
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Helms et al. 2018.pdf
Size:
530.29 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Journal article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
AUT Grant of Licence for Scholarly Commons Feb2017.pdf
Size:
239.25 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
School of Sport and Recreation