© National Strength and Conditioning Association
Volume 26, Number 6, pages 42–47
Keywords: exercise intensity; perceived exertion; periodization
A New Approach to Monitoring
Resistance Training
Michael R. McGuigan, PhD
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
Carl Foster, PhD
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La-Crosse, Wisconsin
summary
Monitoring the training load during
resistance training is problematic.
There is no universally accepted
method of monitoring resistance
training. Session rating of perceived
exertion (RPE) can delineate intensi-
ties and may be a useful tool for
strength coaches and athletes.
ne of the problems facing
O strength athletes, coaches, and re-
searchers is how to monitor the
intensity of the training. Unlike en-
durance training, where researchers have
consistently used measures such as per-
cent V˙ O2max (8), blood lactate concen-
tration (15), and percent of max heart
rate (15) to monitor intensity, there has
been no single accepted method to moni-
tor how hard subjects are working during
a resistance-training session. This is very
important because optimal periodization
plans have not been created with resis-
tance-training programs. Resistance
42 December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
training is a high-intensity exercise that
cannot readily be quantified using objec-
tive measurements.
For athletes training for strength or
power, the use of volume of training is
an inadequate tool because of the over-
riding importance of training intensity
(3). Monitoring exercise training load
and intensity during resistance training
is an integral part of a successful peri-
odized exercise plan because careful ma-
nipulation of intensity, volume, and re-
covery phases is vital for optimal results
(7, 16). The effects of resistance training
are related to the type of exercise used,
its intensity, and its volume (4). This
problem supports the need for a valid
and reliable method of monitoring
training intensity. Resistance training
represents a complex milieu of perceptu-
al signals including muscle mass recruit-
ed in an exercise, type of exercise used,
metabolic acidosis, and loading, all of
which interact with the type of resis-
tance-exercise protocol that is used.
In this article, we outline the session rat-
ing of perceived exertion (RPE) method
that can be used to monitor the intensity
of resistance training. This method allows
for easy and reliable resistance-training
program manipulations required for con-
tinued increases in strength. We suggest
that the session RPE is a practical and ac-
curate assessment tool that can be used in
training and competitive settings for ath-
letes and coaches.
Defining Intensity and Volume
Training volume in resistance exercise is
a composite of the number of sets, repe-
titions, and the amount of mass lifted
(4). This is an important difference from
other types of training where the total
duration of exercise in minutes is the ap-
propriate volume measure. This has
been expanded to account for various
physiological zones based on relative in-
tensity (7). With the use of a differential
multiplier based on time in zone, a sin-
gle number representing the provocative
stimulus provided by that training ses-
sion can be derived. Because of the long
periods of recovery required in resis-
tance training, particularly in high-in-
tensity resistance training, time per se is
clearly an inappropriate measure of
training volume. Monitoring the inten-
sity of a resistance-training workout can
be accomplished in a number of ways.
Percentage of one repetition maximum
(1RM) is one of the most common
methods. Varying methods are also pro-
posed that involve calculating intensity
and volume. However, if we consider in-
tensity to be a measure of how hard the
exercise or workout is, we also need to
consider other factors, such as rest peri-
ods between sets, number of repetitions
completed in each set, and speed of the
exercise. The combination of all these
factors will impact on how hard the ex-
ercise is perceived to be. When we also
add in other variables such as the train-
ing status of the exerciser and the impact
of residual fatigue during hard periods
of training, it becomes an even more
complex situation.
In practical terms, intensity of resistance
training has been defined as the magni-
tude of the load used in a training ses-
sion or the rate of work performed (2).
As previously stated, percentage of 1RM
is often used for program design. For
athletes doing resistance training with
weights, an important measure of rela-
tive intensity is the RM; for example,
80% of 1RM is 80% of the weight that
an athlete can only lift once. The use of
relative intensity simplifies description
or prescription of intensity for athletes
who differ in ability. This is analogous to
a runner who has a prescription of run-
ning a certain number of repetitions at a
certain pace. RM ranges can be pre-
scribed for most exercises, and lifters can
alter the resistances based on their per-
ception of effort, just as runners can
speed up or slow down as needed. It is
important for coaches to have a singular
method for measuring the entire work-
load. This is particularly important
when developing effective periodization
plans where variation of rest and loading
are critical (16). Whereas there is not a
clearly agreed upon physiological signal
that turns on protein synthesis and leads
to hypertrophic responses, the total
magnitude of stimulus is obviously very
critical to the response.
It has been suggested that in strength and
power exercises, total workload is the
sum of the number of repetitions per-
formed and the loads used for each exer-
cise (21). Workload intensity can then be
calculated as a percentage of workload
December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
volume in the high-load exercises (sug-
gested as 90–100%) divided by the total
workload. Examples of other approaches
include calculating intensity as the aver-
age load (volume load and repetitions),
which provides an estimate of the work
rate across a training session (16). This
can then be calculated as an average
daily, weekly, or monthly measure and
also be expressed relative to 1RM. These
approaches are somewhat unsatisfying
simply because they are too complicated.
RPE
It has been proposed that RPE may be a
practical way of monitoring the intensi-
ty of resistance training. The Borg 15-
category scale has been widely used to
evaluate exercise intensity in clinical and
sporting settings (15). The application
has mainly been during aerobic exercise,
but recently a number of investigators
have studied its use with resistance
training. Several studies have demon-
strated the Borg scale to be an effective
method of quantifying resistance train-
ing (9, 11). The results of these studies
show that performing few repetitions
with a heavier weight is perceived as
being more difficult than lifting lighter
weights for more repetitions and that
RPE is related to the percentage of
1RM. Kraemer et al. (11) used the Borg
CR-10 scale to monitor the perceptual
responses of trained bodybuilders and
power lifters during high-intensity exer-
cise. A recent article outlines the differ-
ent RPE scales that are in use and specif-
ic strategies for their effective use (19).
Gearhart et al. (9) examined the RPE in
active muscle (RPE-AM) during a high-
intensity (HIP) and low-intensity (LIP)
strength-training protocol. Each proto-
col consisted of performing one set of
each of 7 exercises. The HIP involved
lifting 90% of 1RM for 5 repetitions,
with RPE-AM values obtained after each
repetition. The LIP involved lifting 30%
of 1RM for 15 repetitions, with RPE-
AM values obtained after every third rep-
etition. The authors of this study showed
that performing fewer repetitions using
heavier weights was perceived as more
difficult than performing more repeti-
tions of a lighter weight when total exter-
nal work was held constant.
During aerobic exercise, researchers
often anatomically differentiate RPE to
the involved body regions, in addition to
measuring the undifferentiated signal
from the whole body (19). Several inves-
tigations have also used this approach for
resistance exercise (12, 17). Lagally et al.
(12) examined the RPE during resistance
training in women by having subjects
perform 3 sets of the biceps curl exercise.
Each subject was randomly assigned to
the intensity she would complete first
(30, 60, or 90% of 1RM), performing
12, 6, and 4 repetitions, respectively.
This combination of intensity and repe-
titions allowed for total work to be held
constant. Data for the RPE-AM and
overall RPE (RPE-O) were collected
upon the completion of each set. Results
of this study indicated corresponding in-
creases in RPE-AM and RPE-O with in-
creases in exercise-training intensity.
Another study examined the concurrent
validity of a OMNI-Resistance Exercise
Scale to measure RPE in women and
men performing leg extensions and
bicep curls at 65% of 1RM (17). This
scale uses both verbal and pictorial de-
scriptors to rate the intensity of the exer-
cise. RPE for the active muscles and the
overall body were directly related to the
total weight lifted (0.79–0.91). There
were no sex differences in RPE. Clearly,
RPE is a valid measure with resistance
exercise, but it is important that stan-
dardized instructions are provided for
the subjects (19). Further research is also
required with more compound exercis-
es, because the majority of studies have
used isolation exercises such as curls and
leg extensions.
Session RPE
Recently, the session RPE has been pro-
posed as a method for monitoring exer-
cise intensity (6, 7, 8). The session RPE
allows the subject to provide a global rat-
43

Table 1
Modification of the category ratio
rating of perceived exertion (RPE)
scale. The athlete is shown the scale
approximately 30 minutes after the
conclusion of the training bout and
asked “How was your workout?”
Rating Descriptor
0 Rest
1 Very, Very Easy
2 Easy
3 Moderate
4 Somewhat Hard
5 Hard
6 –
7 Very Hard
8 –
9 –
10 Maximal
ing of how hard the exercise session was,
rather than reporting a series of RPE
measures throughout the session. The
goal of the session RPE is to encourage
the athlete to view the training session
globally and to simplify the myriad of ex-
ercise intensity cues during the exercise
bout. This allows researchers or the coach
to evaluate trends in training, injury, and
illness in relation to the session RPE and
the global intensity of the exercise session
(1, 5). It has been demonstrated to be a
valid measure of both aerobic and anaer-
obic exercise (7). The session RPE rating
is taken 30 minutes after completion of
the workout so that particularly difficult
or particularly easy segments towards the
end of the exercise bout would not domi-
nate the subjects rating (Table 1). This
use of the RPE method is different from
the conventional approach that asks sub-
jects to rate, with highly standardized
verbal instructions, how difficult they
perceive the exercise to be at that particu-
lar moment. The research has suggested
44 December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
that session RPE also provides a valid
(20) and reliable (3, 14) indicator of re-
sistance-training intensity, and the effec-
tiveness of session RPE crosses a variety
of resistance-training intensities and
modes of training (3, 14, 20). This
method could be used to provide the
quantitative basis for describing the peri-
odization of training plans. Although the
session RPE seems a relatively simple
concept, it does seem that this method
can be used to monitor intensity of resis-
tance exercise. However, as stated earlier,
resistance training provides a complex
model of exercise where factors such as
sets, repetitions, rest periods, and type of
exercise performed will affect the percep-
tual signal.
Foster et al. (7) examined the session RPE
method as a tool to quantify exercise in-
tensity during entire sessions of aerobic
training. The study compared the session
RPE method to the summated heart rate
zone method of quantifying aerobic exer-
cise. Subjects either performed steady-
state and interval aerobic exercises on an
electrically braked cycle ergometer or
practiced basketball. For each type of ex-
ercise, the session RPE method was
found to give a numerically higher score
than the summated heart rate zone
method. However, regression analyses re-
vealed that the pattern of differences was
highly consistent among the different ex-
ercise bouts. The results suggested that
either method can be used successfully to
quantify training intensities for various
modes of aerobic exercise.
On the basis of these findings, the session
RPE method can be considered a valid
technique to prescribe work intensities
and provide for progressive increases in
resistance. The existence of a session RPE
scale would be of great significance to all
those involved in resistance training.
Through the use of a session RPE scale,
one could choose intensities at which to
work (e.g., RPE 7) before the start of a
workout and be confident that work in-
tensities will stay within the “very hard”
range. This would be much easier than
having to use multiple measures of RPE
throughout a workout. The session RPE
scale seems to be an easy and effective
method to prescribe work intensities for
resistance-training sessions and to provide
for progressive increases in intensity that
have been found to be necessary for con-
tinued increases in strength (4).
This approach has also been used to ex-
amine competitive athletic settings. A
study was performed using RPE during a
Judo competition (18). Serrano et al. (18)
measured the intensity of Judo competi-
tion using RPE. The standard RPE and
Borg CR-10 scale values were collected 10
and 30 minutes after the fighting. Each
participant completed 2–3 fights during
the competition. The 10-minute RPE
value was used to describe the intensity of
the last fight, whereas the 30-minute RPE
value was used to describe the intensity of
the entire competition, which is concep-
tually similar to the session RPE method.
The 30-minute RPE values for the entire
competition correlated to maximal blood
lactate levels 1 and 3 minutes after fight-
ing. Judo is high-intensity exercise, as is
resistance training. The correlation be-
tween RPE 30 minutes after fighting and
maximal blood lactate levels supports the
concept that session RPE represents glob-
al exercise intensity and that it may accu-
rately reflect the demands of high-intensi-
ty exercises.
Session RPE has been shown to be reli-
able at quantifying resistance training at
different intensities (r = 0.88–0.95) (3,
14). Higher-intensity protocols pro-
duced higher session RPE measure-
ments despite a decrease in the number
of repetitions performed. Repetition of
each training session supported session
RPE as a reliable method for quantifying
resistance-training intensity (3, 14).
Session RPE during easy, moderate, and
high-intensity resistance training has
been compared with session RPE during
comparable intensities of steady-state
aerobic exercise on a cycle ergometer
(20). The session RPE seems to be a
valid method for calculating the intensi-
ty of resistance training and is generally Table 2
Schematic Training Diary Demonstrating the Calculation of Training Load,
comparable to aerobic training. As with
Monotony, and Strain—Duration Can Either Be Calculated for
previous studies, the ratings were consis- Resistance Training Using Repetitions or Sets
tent in the pattern that RPE values were
given, showing their ability to perceive Session Duration (min or
slight changes in intensity (3, 7). Be- Day Training activity RPE repetitions) Load
cause long rest periods between sets
Practice 6 120 720
could bias the results, subjects were also Monday
Weights 6 64 384
asked to provide an RPE for the lifting
only (20). The lifting-only value asked Tuesday Practice 5 120 600
the subjects to provide an RPE that de-
scribed the difficulty of the actual Wednesday Match 7 180 1,260
weight that they had to lift during the Practice 3 60 180
session. Session RPE and session RPE Thursday
Run 3 40 120
(lifting only) all increased as the percent
1RM increased, despite a decrease in Practice 5 120 600
Friday
repetitions and total workload (20). Weights 7 72 504
These results support other studies that
Saturday Practice 6 120 720
have shown RPE to be a valid method to
quantify the intensity of resistance Sunday Run 2 25 50
training (3, 9).
Weekly load 5,138
Previous studies have shown that RPE is Monotony (× SD) 1.43
mostly influenced by exercise intensity Strain (load × monotony) 3,200
and not by the volume of exercise being
performed (3, 9, 14, 19). Despite the
complex nature of resistance exercise
that involves a range of physiological
cues depending on the type of training
undertaken, there does seem to be a fun-
damental similarity to the use of session
RPE with monitoring aerobic exercise.

Practical Application of Session

RPE Method
Within an overall training plan, there
seems to be a potential for session RPE to
provide an accurate monitoring tool for
calculation of training load. By simply
asking the athlete to rate the global inten-
sity of the workout and then multiplying
by the duration of the workout, a daily
exercise score can be created. This is the Figure 1. Daily load versus time. Schematic training plan over a 3-month period.With
type of information that can be included this scheme of monitoring training, the coach can gain an objective view of
in a training diary, which can show the how well the athlete executes a designed periodization plan.
coach and athlete the weekly pattern of
exercise (Table 2). This information can been defined as the session load (5). The divided by the standard deviation of the
then be presented graphically, allowing session load can then be averaged over training load over a 1-week period. Mo-
the coach to have a visual impression of each week of training and plotted with notony is defined as the variability of
the periodization plan as experienced by the corresponding weeks of the season training for the training period. Then the
the athlete (Figure 1). The product of the (Figures 2 and 3). Training monotony is product of training load and training mo-
session RPE and session duration has calculated from the mean training load notony can be used to yield training

December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal 45


Figure 2. Mean daily load versus time.
Figure 3. Weekly load versus time.
strain (5). Strain represents the overall
stress imposed on the athlete. These fac-
tors are important because research has
shown that strategies designed to mini-
mize training monotony and strain are ef-
fective for avoiding overtraining in ath-
letes (5). The calculation of resistance
exercise seems to be problematic because
duration in itself would not seem to be an
accurate reflection of training load. An
example of how the session RPE could be
used is RPE × total repetitions. However,
as training intensity tends to vary inverse-
46
ly with the number of repetitions within
a set, it would seem that the most reason-
able marker of exercise duration would be
the number of sets performed. Training
load would then be the global RPE con-
sisting of only the time actually spent lift-
ing multiplied by the total number of sets
performed.
Other Approaches to Monitor-
ing of Resistance Exercise
Recording information with question-
naires and training diaries provides valu-
December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
able information regarding resistance-
training sessions. This area of study has
received little attention from exercise
scientists, particularly in regard to resis-
tance exercise. One study has validated a
general training questionnaire that can
be used with athletes from different
sports (13). However, further research is
required in this area to validate a specific
strength-training questionnaire that
could be used with strength- and power-
based sports. It is logical that keeping
some form of training diary or record of
ones training is an effective practice, but
little empirical data exist on what a
training diary should contain. High-in-
tensity exercise, such as resistance train-
ing, is particularly difficult to quantify
because this type of exercise cannot be
objectively evaluated using heart rate
measurements. Other methods investi-
gated to assess intensity of resistance
training include blood lactate (11, 12,
15), heart rate (15), electromyography
(12), and a variety of hormonal mea-
sures (10, 20). The efficacy of these
methods for determining intensity has
varied with different research studies.
One method that has received little at-
tention from researchers is the use of
questionnaires. This line of research
could provide a useful tool for strength
coaches and athletes. There needs to be
systematic research conducted deter-
mining which methods of monitoring
resistance training are valid and reliable.
Conclusion
There are a number of different methods
that can be used to monitor resistance-
training sessions. It seems that RPE pro-
vides a valid and reliable method of mon-
itoring resistance-training intensity. The
use of session RPE seems promising and
can delineate different training intensi-
ties. However, further research is re-
quired to determine its effectiveness
across different methods of resistance ex-
ercise. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is
no universally accepted method of moni-
toring resistance training. The most
common tool used for determining rela-
tive intensity of resistance training is per-
centage of the 1RM. RPE has also been
investigated by researchers and has been
shown to correlate well with intensity of
effort. Recent studies have demonstrated
that the session RPE can delineate inten-
sities and provides a global rating of ses-
sion intensity. This method is easy to use
and requires a single measure of the
workout intensity. This suggests that the
session RPE approach is a valid method
for evaluating resistance exercise and
could be used to provide a quantitative
basis for describing the periodization of
training plans. ♦
References
1. Anderson, L., T. Triplett-McBride, C.
Foster, S. Doberstein, and G. Brice.
Impact of training patterns on inci-
dence of illness and injury during a
women’s collegiate basketball season.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 17:734–738.
2003.
2. Bosco, C., R. Colli, R. Bonomi, S.P.
von Duvillard, and A. Viru. Monitor-
ing strength training: Neuromuscular
and hormonal profile. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 32:202–208, 2000.
3. Day, M.L., M.R. McGuigan, G. Brice,
and C. Foster. Monitoring exercise in-
tensity during resistance training using
the session RPE scale. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 18:353–358, 2004.
4. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Design-
ing Resistance Training Programs (2nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1997.
5. Foster, C. Monitoring training in ath-
letes with reference to overtraining
syndrome. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
30:1164–1168. 1998.
6. Foster, C., E. Daines, L. Hector, A.
Snyder, and R. Welsh. Athletic perfor-
mance in relation to training load. Wis.
Med. J. 95:370–374. 1996.
7. Foster, C., J.A. Florhaug, J. Franklin, L.
Gottschall, L. Hrovatin, S. Parker, P.
Doleshal, and C. Dodge. A new ap-
proach to monitoring exercise training.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:109–115. 2001.
8. Foster, C., L.L. Hector, R. Welsh, M.
Schrager, M.A. Green, and A.C. Sny-
der. Effects of specific vs cross training
December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
on running performance. Eur. J. Appl. perceived exertion scale for resistance
Physiol. 70:367–372, 1995. training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
9. Gearhart, R.F. Jr., F.L. Goss, K.M. La- 35:333–341. 2003.
gally, J.M. Jakicic, J. Gallagher, K.I. 18. Serrano, M., A. Salvador, E. Bono, C.
Gallagher, and R.J. Robertson. Ratings Sanchis, and F. Suay. Relationships be-
of perceived exertion in active muscle tween recall of perceived exertion and
during high-intensity and low-intensi- blood lactate concentration in a judo
ty resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. competition. Percept. Mot. Skills.
Res. 16:87–91. 2002. 92:1139–1148. 2001.
10. Hakkinen, K., A. Pakarinen, M. Alen, 19. Swank, A.M., L. Steinel, and A.
H. Kauhanen, and P.V. Komi. Rela- Moore. Strategies for effectively using
tionships between training volume, ratings of perceived exertion. Strength.
physical activity capacity, and serum Cond. J. 25(4):23–25. 2003.
hormone concentrations during pro- 20. Sweet, T.W., C. Foster, M.R.
posed training in elite weight lifters. McGuigan, and G. Brice. Quantifica-
Int. J. Sports. Med. 1(Suppl.):61–65. tion of resistance training using the ses-
1987. sion RPE method. J. Strength. Cond.
11. Kraemer, W.J., B.J. Noble, M.J. Clark, Res. In press.
and B.W. Culver. Physiologic respons- 21. Viru, A., and M. Viru. Biochemical
es to heavy-resistance exercise with Monitoring of Sport Training. Cham-
very short rest periods. Int. J. Sports. paign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2001.
Med. 8:247–252. 1987.
12. Lagally, K.M., R.J. Robertson, K.I.
Gallagher, F.L. Goss, J.M. Jakicic,
S.M. Lephart, S.T. McCaw, and B.
Goodpaster. Perceived exertion, elec-
tromyography, and blood actate dur-
ing acute bouts of resistance exercise.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34:552–559.
2001.
13. Liow, D.K., and W.G. Hopkins. Train-
ing practices of athletes with disabili-
ties. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 13:372–381.
1996. McGuigan
14. McGuigan, M.R., A.D. Egan, and C.
Foster. Salivary cortisol responses and Michael McGuigan is a lecturer at Edith
perceived exertion during high inten- Cowan University.
sity and low intensity bouts of resis-
tance exercise. J. Sports Sci. Med.
3:8–15. 2004.
15. Noble, B.J., G. Borg, I. Jacobs, R.
Ceci, and P. Kaiser. A category-ratio
perceived exertion scale: Relationship
to blood and muscle lactate and heart
rate. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 15:523–
528. 1983.
16. Plisk, S.S., and M.H. Stone. Periodiza-
tion strategies. Strength Cond. J.
25(6):19–37. 2003. Foster
17. Robertson, R.J, F.L.Goss, J. Rutkows-
ki, B Lenz, C. Dixon, J. Timmer, K. Carl Foster is a professor and director of
Frazee, J. Dube, and J. Andreacci. the Human Performance Laboratory at
Concurrent validation of the OMNI the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
47