See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/24171812

Monitoring Different Types of Resistance Training Using Session Rating of

Perceived Exertion

Article  in  International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · April 2007

DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2.1.34 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
101 2,339

4 authors, including:

Favil Singh Carl Foster

Edith Cowan University University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
30 PUBLICATIONS   519 CITATIONS    654 PUBLICATIONS   23,808 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Tod
Liverpool John Moores University
103 PUBLICATIONS   2,797 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exercise Evaluation and Prescription View project

Effects of Motor Imagery Practice on Neuromusular Function Recovery following Total Knee Arthroplasty View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Favil Singh on 10 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2007;2:34-45
© 2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Monitoring Different Types of Resistance

Training Using Session Rating
of Perceived Exertion
Favil Singh, Carl Foster, David Tod,
and Michael R. McGuigan

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of session rating of perceived exertion

(RPE) to measure effort during different types of resistance training. Method:
Fifteen male subjects (age 26.7 ± 4.3 years) performed 3 protocols. All protocols
consisted of same 5 exercises but with different intensities, rest periods, and num-
bers of repetitions. One-repetition maximum (1-RM) was defined as the maximal
amount of weight that an individual could lift 1 time without support. The strength
protocol included 3 sets of 5 repetitions at 90% of 1-RM with 3 minutes rest
between. The hypertrophy session included 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% with
1 minute of rest, and the power session included 3 sets of 5 repetitions at 50%
with 3 minutes of rest. Session RPE is a modification of the standard RPE scale.
Session and standard RPE were measured after the completion of each set and 30
minutes postexercise, respectively. Results: Results showed a difference between
both the 2 RPE values of the strength and hypertrophy protocols (P ≤ .05) but no
difference between mean and session RPE values for the power protocol. During
the familiarization session, session RPE was measured at 5-minute intervals for
30 minutes postexercise. There was a significant difference (P ≤ .05) between the
mean RPE values at the fifth and tenth minutes postexercise when compared with
30 minutes postexercise. All other session RPE values showed no significant differ-
ence. Conclusion: The session RPE method appears to be effective in monitoring
different types of resistance training, and session RPE after 30 minutes was a better
indicator of the overall resistance sessions than average RPE.

Key Words: RPE, hypertrophy, power

Resistance training is a well-established mode of exercise conditioning for

many different populations wishing to increase physical fitness and the primary
method for increasing muscle strength, power, and hypertrophy.1-3 Resistance-
training protocols designed to increase strength, power, or hypertrophy differ in

Singh and McGuigan are with the School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan
University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia. Foster is with the Dept of Exercise and Sports Science,
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601. Tod is with the Dept of Sport and Exercise
Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK SY23 2AX.

34
 Session RPE and Resistance Exercise 35

their organization relative to variables such as intensity, number of repetitions,

total work, and rest intervals.1,4-6 One problem facing strength athletes, coaches,
and researchers is how to monitor the intensity of different modes and phases of
resistance training. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is no universally accepted method
of monitoring resistance-training exertion.7
The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) has been investigated as a marker of
exercise intensity and has been shown to correlate well with intensity of effort.3,7-12
RPE is defined by the intensity of discomfort or fatigue felt at a particular moment.12-14
Session RPE is a modification of the standard RPE scale, developed by Foster et
al,15 that is used to rate the perceived exertion of the entire workout. The session
RPE scale is an easy, simple, and effective method of quantifying a workout ses-
sion. The session RPE scale has been shown to be a reliable and valid method of
quantifying aerobic-exercise intensities16 and has been used to rate the perception of
effort of individuals during a resistance-exercise session.7,10,17,18 Studies have found
a higher average RPE for high-intensity exercises performed with a lower number
of repetitions and a lower average rating for lower-intensity exercises performed
with a high number of repetition.10,17 These studies have found RPE averaged across
the workout to be comparable to the session RPE.10,17
It is known that monitoring exercise-training load and exertion during resistance
training is vital for a successful periodized exercise plan.1,10 Before a successful
periodized plan with different exercise protocols can be developed, a measure-
ment of exertion is required. Different types of resistance-training exercises and
training approaches induce different responses from the muscles and neurological
system,2,19 so it is critical that these differences be measured appropriately. This
study examined the use of session RPE after different types of resistance-training
programs. This would benefit athletes and coaches by providing a reliable method
of assessing and monitoring different types of resistance-training workouts in
their periodized plan. The session RPE method provided after each session would
allow coaches to assess the perceived exertion levels for each athlete. Furthermore,
coaches can always follow up on the previous data collected to look for signs of
fatigue or even overtraining. There is clearly a need for a valid and reliable method
of monitoring the different types of resistance-training exercises. Accordingly, the
purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the session RPE
scale to measure effort during different types of resistance-training protocols and
to examine the validity of this scale in rating different types of resistance-training
sessions. A secondary purpose was to track the session RPE after the exercise ses-
sions to learn whether there were changes up to 30 minutes postexercise.

Methods
Subjects
Fifteen male subjects were recruited for the study. They all had at least 1 year of
resistance-training experience and were familiar with the squat and bench-press
exercises. All subjects were required to refrain from other resistance-training ses-
sions during the course of the study. All subjects provided informed consent before
participation, and the protocol had been approved by the university human subjects
ethics committee. Table 1 displays the subjectsʼ characteristics.
36 Singh et al

Design
A randomized, crossover experimental design was used, with each subject perform-
ing 3 different whole-body workouts requiring approximately 60 minutes. Strength-,
power-, and hypertrophy-training sessions took place on separate days, performed
at least 48 hours apart. Subjects completed a familiarization session before data
collection. This session included instructions on how to use the category-ratio-10
(CR-10) RPE scale (Table 2), demonstration of all 5 resistance-training exercises
(bench press, squats, bench pull, shoulder press, leg extension), and the measure-
ment of each individualʼs 1-repetition maximum (1-RM). Session RPE was also
recorded at 5-minute time intervals for 30 minutes after the 1-RM testing. Each
1-RM was determined using previously described methods.3,20

Methodology
The following procedure for determining the 1-RM was the same for all 5 exercises.
Multiple warm-up trials were performed before 1-RM testing (percentages are given
of subjectsʼ estimated 1-RM), 10 repetitions at 30% followed by 2 minutes rest, 7
repetitions at 50% followed by 2 minutes rest, 4 repetitions at 70% followed by 3
min rest, 1 repetition at 90% followed by 3 minutes rest. From the last warm-up
set, the loading was increased based on subject feedback so that 1-RM could be

Table 1 Subject Physical Characteristics (mean ± SD)

Number of
Subjects Age Height Body mass training years
(N = 15) (y) (cm) (kg) (1–15 y)

University students 26.7 ± 4.3 177.7 ± 8.6 82.1 ± 12.9 4.7 ± 3.9

Table 2 Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale

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
 Session RPE and Resistance Exercise 37

achieved within 3 additional trials. The reliability of this method of 1-RM testing
in our laboratory is high (ICC = .98). Session RPE was also recorded during the
familiarization session. RPE recording was started at the fifth minute after the
completion of the 1-RM exercise bout and recorded at 5-minute intervals until 30
minutes postexercise.
The results from 1-RM testing for the 5 different resistance exercises were
then used to calculate the required exercise intensity for the 3 different training
sessions. Each subject was required to perform the same 5 resistance exercises
for all the 3 training sessions. The order of the sessions was randomized. In this
study, the workouts were split between upper body and lower body exercises,
with the multiple-joint larger-muscle-group exercises performed first. Protocols
for all 3 exercises are summarized in Table 3. Strength sessions are characterized
by heavy resistance with a 3-minute rest period between sets. The hypertrophy
session included the same exercises done at a lighter resistance with a shorter rest
period of 1 minute. The strength- and hypertrophy-training sessions were typical
weight-training protocols used for strength development and to increase muscle size,
respectively.2,21 The power session required each resistance exercise to be performed
at a fast lifting speed, with rest periods similar to the strength workout. During
all training protocols, a 6-minute rest interval was allocated between exercises.
The power workout was composed of exercises done at a rapid pace to maximize
muscle power.2,20 This workout was different from the standard strength workout
because both strength and velocity were emphasized during lifts.2 The subjects were
required to execute the concentric phase rapidly and the eccentric phase slowly.
Before commencing the workloads, subjects performed a warm-up set on each
resistance exercise consisting of 6 repetitions at <30% of their 1-RM.
Stretching exercises for the selected muscle groups were also performed before
the workout. Body positionings including grip width used by subjects were relative
to their height and standardized for each exercise. All exercises were done with
free weights except for leg extension.

RPE Measures
For assessing averaged RPE during the exercise sessions, standard instructions
and anchoring procedures were explained during the familiarization session.10,22,23
Subjects were asked to rate their perceived exertion after the completion of each
lifting set based on the CR-10 RPE scale. A series of anchoring tests was used as
explained by Gearhart et al24 to establish high and low perceptual anchors. Thirty
minutes after each training session, the subjects rated their perceived exertion

Table 3 Exercise Protocol

Exercise Load Number Number of Rest interval
protocol (% of 1-RM) of sets repetitions (min)
Strength 90 3 5 3
Hypertrophy 70 3 100 1
Power 50 3 5 3
38 Singh et al

based on the CR-10 RPE scale by answering the following question: “How was
your workout?”16 The subjects would verbally indicate a number. Numbers from 0
to 10 on the scale were used to rate the intensity of the entire workout session.12,25
A rating of 0 was associated with rest, and the highest rating, 10, referred to maxi-
mal effort.12 This use of rating the perceived exertion of the whole session was
different from the more standard approach of asking subjects to rate how difficult
they perceived a particular exercise or set to be. The aim of the session RPE was
to provide an RPE for the overall resistance-training sessions and to integrate the
myriad of exercise-intensity cues.

Statistical Analysis
A 2-way, within-subjects, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
used to test for differences in RPE among the different types of training protocols.
Each subjectʼs 5 mean RPE values from 3 sets of each exercise during each protocol
were further averaged and compared with his session RPE rating. These values were
tested for significant differences as part of the within-subjects, repeated-measures
ANOVA. Averages of each exercise were also compared with the session RPE
to identify any significant differences. Selected bivariate relationships were ana-
lyzed using Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients. The average RPEs
at different time intervals were compared with the session RPE at 30 minutes to
identify any significant difference. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. The
magnitude of the differences between values was also interpreted using effect size.
Effect size was calculated as (M2–M1)/s, where M2 = within-group average of 1
group, M1 = within-group average of 1 group, and s = pooled standard deviation
for all subjects combined.

Results
Session RPE Versus Average RPE
Descriptive characteristics of subjects are presented in Table 3. The average length
of training background was 4.7 ± 3.9 years. The correlation between the average
and session RPEs was r = .74. The average RPE and session RPE for all 3 differ-
ent types of resistance training are shown in Figure 1. The average RPE values
for the strength, hypertrophy, and power workouts were 7.9 ± 0.9 (mean ± SD),
7.5 ± 1.0, and 3.8 ± 0.9, respectively. The session RPE values for the 3 workouts
were 5.9 ± 1.8, 6.4 ± 1.6, and 3.2 ± 1.4, respectively. A 2-way, within-subjects,
repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences among the average RPE
and the session RPE values of both the strength and hypertrophy protocols (P ≤
.05). There was a significant difference (P ≤ .05) for both average and session RPE
values between the strength and hypertrophy protocols compared with the power
protocol. No difference was found between the strength and hypertrophy protocol
for either RPE value, as shown in Figure 1.
Effect sizes for the differences between exercise protocols were calculated as
follows: Session RPE – strength and power 1.29, strength and hypertrophy 0.22,
and power and hypertrophy 1.51; average RPE – strength and power 1.94, strength
and hypertrophy 0.16, and power and hypertrophy 1.78.
 Session RPE and Resistance Exercise 39

Average RPE values for each of the 5 exercises for all 3 modes of resistance-
training workouts were compared with the session RPE. Both the strength and
hypertrophy RPE training sessions resulted in higher values for RPE than did the
power-training session (Figure 2). The strength and hypertrophy protocols had
similar ratings for the bench pull and leg extension, but the bench press and squat

Figure 1 — Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) for the different types of resistance train-
ing. *Significant difference (P ≤ .05) between RPE values. **Significant difference (P ≤ .05)
between session RPE values of strength and hypertrophy to power. ***Significant difference
(P ≤ .05) between average RPE values of strength and hypertrophy to power.

Figure 2 — Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during resistance exercises for different
types of resistance training. *Significant difference (P ≤ .05) between average RPE values
of exercises and session RPE.
40 Singh et al

exercise had higher RPE ratings in the strength workout. Subjects perceived the
shoulder-press exercise to be harder in the hypertrophy workout. A significant
difference (P ≤ .05) was evident in the average RPE values of all exercises in the
strength protocol compared with session RPE values. No difference was found in
average bench-press RPE for hypertrophy and power. Average RPE values for the
squat exercise showed no difference for hypertrophy but had a significant differ-
ence (P ≤ .05) versus the power protocol. A significant difference (P ≤ .05) was
observed for all other exercises in the hypertrophy protocol. No significant differ-
ence was revealed in any other exercises except for the leg-extension exercise for
the power protocol.

Session RPE Over Time

The within-subjects, repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference
(P ≤ .05) between the average session RPE values at 5 and 10 minutes postexercise
compared with 30 minutes postexercise (Figure 3). All other session RPE values
had no significant difference compared with the 30-minute mark.

Discussion
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the session
RPE scale to measure physical effort during different types of resistance-training
exercises and to examine the validity of this scale in rating the entire resistance-
training session of different workouts and intensities. Differences were found
between the session RPE values of the strength and hypertrophy protocols compared
with the power protocol. These results are comparable to those of other studies

Figure 3 — Session ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) at different time intervals.

*Significant difference (P ≤ .05) between average RPE values.
 Session RPE and Resistance Exercise 41

using resistance-training models.10,17 Several studies have found the Borg scale to
be an effective method of quantifying resistance training.10,17,18,26-29 The results of
the present study further support this concept in that higher-load training such as in
the strength and hypertrophy protocols is perceived to be more difficult and require
more effort than lower-load training such as power workouts.
The present study did not keep the total exercise work performed constant
between the workouts. Variation was allowed in the amount of work performed for
all the different training protocols, but all protocols were consistent with normal
resistance-training practices. The hypertrophy protocol, in which participants per-
formed 10 repetitions at 70% of their 1-RM, had the most total work performed,
followed by the strength protocol performed at 90% of 1-RM with 5 repetitions,
and the power protocol performed with 5 repetitions at 50% of 1-RM had the least
work performed. The lowest-load protocol (ie, power protocol) produced the lowest
RPE values, but the other 2 protocols had similar RPEs. This supports the concept
that the absolute intensity of training influences RPE when one considers that the
strength protocol had a higher load and it was completed with lower repetitions than
the hypertrophy protocol. Many studies have found that greater tension develop-
ment, which requires an increase in motor-unit recruitment and firing frequency, is
required for a muscle force to overcome a heavy load.2,12,24 As explained by Gearhart
et al,26 to achieve greater motor-unit recruitment, the motor cortex sends stronger
signals to the sensory cortex, giving rise to an increase in perception of effort. It is
been agreed in various studies that these corollary signals could be the main cause
of the variation in RPE of changing intensities.10,12,26,27,29,30
It has previously been shown that there is no significant difference between
the average RPE and the session RPE.10,17 The findings in this study showed a dif-
ference between the 2 RPE values for both the strength and hypertrophy protocols,
but no difference was found for the power protocol. The correlation between the
2 measures across all modes of exercise, however, was quite high (r = .74). This
study differed from similar studies in certain aspects. Day et al10 and McGuigan et
al17 found no difference between the average and session RPE values. Both studies
concluded that the session RPE was a reliable and valid method for quantifying
resistance-training intensity. Both studies concluded that the session RPE mea-
surements that were provided 30 minutes after an entire workout were as precise
at measuring effort as the sum of actual RPE measurements, taken after each set
of each exercise. During the present study, we found that only the RPE values of
the power protocol had similar results, but results were different for the other 2
protocols. Despite the large experience with the RPE scale during various modes of
exercise, the session RPE method is still a relatively new instrument. The session
RPE values were consistently lower than the average RPE values for the strength
and hypertrophy workouts. Another study, by Sweet et al,18 investigated the ability
of the session RPE method to quantify aerobic and resistance training. Those find-
ings were comparable to the present results in that there was a difference between
the 2 RPE values for strength and hypertrophy protocols.
Several factors could have influenced these differences. In the present study,
RPE values were taken after each of the 3 sets (per exercise) as compared with
only 2 sets in the study of McGuigan et al17 and 1 set in the study of Day et al.10
As explained by Sweet at el,18 the second set of exercise was often perceived
42 Singh et al

to be more difficult than the first set. Subsequently, the third set would be more
difficult than the second set, contributing to a higher perceived exertion. Woods et
al25 found similar results despite manipulating the rest intervals between the sets.
Their results showed a significant increase in the average RPE between all 3 sets
of each exercise. Measuring RPE for the third set increased the average RPE for
any given resistance-training intensity. Rhea et al31 compared the number of sets of
equal intensity for eliciting strength and found that 3 sets of weight training were
superior to 1 set. They concluded that because multiple sets elicit greater strength
gains, weight training with multiple sets puts a greater stress on the neuromuscular
system. The increase on stress in the neuromuscular system would in turn increase
the perception of effort.
The training status of the subjects used could also affect the results. Compared
with the study of Day et al,10 who included individuals with only 6 months experi-
ence, the present study had a subject criterion requiring at least 1 year of resistance-
training experience. Subjects in the current study might have perceived both the
strength and hypertrophy protocols to be more difficult during the workouts them-
selves. Because these subjects have been training longer, however, their recovery
from these workouts might have been faster, leading to lower session RPE values.
Because of the adaptations resulting from overloading over the months of consistent
training,2 their recovery from the intense loading of the 2 protocols might have
been faster than that of the subjects in the study of Day et al.10 The same subjects
performed all 3 protocols, but as explained earlier no difference between average
and session RPE was found for the power protocol. This protocol was completed
with a lower absolute intensity and volume, although the exercises were performed
explosively. Linnamo et al32 indicated that these exercises seem to facilitate the
function of the neuromuscular system rather than produce fatigue. The subjects
perceived this protocol to be the easiest among the three. Linnamo et al32 also noted
that a power protocol produced less fatigue than a strength protocol.
The RPE measurements taken after each exercise varied widely depending on
the type of exercise performed during the protocol. These results were similar to
previous findings by Day et al,10 McGuigan et al,17 and Sweet et al.18 All resistance-
training exercises were perceived to be more difficult than the session RPE across
all protocols, but not all exercises for all 3 protocols had significant differences.
Many factors could have influenced differences in RPE measurements, such as
motor-unit recruitment, muscle groups, order of exercises, and energy expenditure.
Resistance-training exercises such as squats and bench presses use larger-muscle
groups than shoulder press and leg extensions. These large-muscle groups require a
larger number of motor units to be recruited.1,2,5 Larger muscles have higher energy
expenditure and metabolic needs, thus making the perception of effort more evi-
dent.18 Exercises that use a range of motion through multiple joints might increase
RPE. Single-joint large-muscle exercises such as leg extensions2 can also increase
RPE, as shown in Figure 2. This could result from the pH disturbance associated
with high-intensity, isolated muscle exercise1 and influences the perception of
effort.30 The order of exercise could also alter the RPE. If the squat exercise were
performed first rather than last in a training session, the session and average RPE
values might have been lower. Muscle fatigue would increase closer to the end
of a training session than at the start.4,28 As mentioned by Kraemer and Ratamess2
 Session RPE and Resistance Exercise 43

and Tan,33 it is recommended that these multiple-joint large-muscle exercises be

performed early in the workout for strength training.
In this study, session RPE was measured at 5-minute time intervals for 30
minutes after the familiarization session. The results indicated a significant dif-
ference between the first 2 time intervals compared with 30 minutes postexercise.
These results confirm the suggestion of Foster34 that session RPE should be taken
30 minutes after the end of a workout so as to prevent particularly difficult or easy
elements near the end of the exercise session from distorting the entire rating of the
session. The aim of the session RPE is to provide an RPE for the overall resistance-
training workout sessions and to simplify the myriad of exercise-intensity cues. Many
factors could have influenced variations in the RPE measurements, such as motor-unit
recruitment, energy expenditure, recovery, and the type of resistance-training exercise
performed—that is, large-muscle group versus small-muscle group.17,26

Practical Application
To obtain optimal results from a successful periodized exercise plan, monitoring
exercise training load and perception of effort during resistance training is vital.1,10
Before designing and completing a successful periodized plan with different
exercise protocols, an accurate measurement of the intensity of testing protocols
is required. The results from this study complement the results from previous
research and suggest that using the session RPE method after each testing session
would allow coaches to assess the intensity levels that correspond to the level
of the training program. Coaches would also be able to compare the previous
sessionʼs RPE values to determine whether there were increases or decreases in
the perception of effort. Collecting session RPE once, after 30 minutes, would
appear to be easier than taking multiple measures of RPE throughout the workout
and rest period. Ideally this information should be obtained 30 minutes after the
completion of the workout, but obviously this is not practical in all situations,
and it could be obtained after completion of the cool-down, which could be
approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the last exercise bout. Practitioners should
also be aware that the RPE does not always directly relate to the relative intensity
used during resistance training and appears to depend on the mode of resistance
exercise that is used.

Conclusion
The results of this study have shown that the session RPE is a useful tool of mea-
suring the different intensities of different resistance-training sessions. The power
protocol had the lowest session RPE values compared with the hypertrophy session
and the strength protocol. It was also found in this study that the session RPE values
did not correspond with the average RPE values for the strength and hypertrophy
protocols, but both RPE values did correspond for the power protocol. Furthermore,
there was a significant difference between the session RPE values at different time
intervals and session RPE values at the 30-minute mark. For future studies on session
RPE, it would be of interest to investigate other modes of training and manipulation
of acute training variables to see how sensitive this measure is.
44 Singh et al

References
1. Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign,
Ill: Human Kinetics; 2000.
2. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and
exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:674-688.
3. Simpson SR, Rozenek R, Garhammer J, Lacourse M, Storer T. Comparison of one
repetition maximums between free weight and universal machine exercises. J Strength
Cond Res. 1997;11:103-106.
4. Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training programmes to
enhance muscular fitness. Sports Med. 2005;35:841-851.
5. Fry AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fiber adaptations. Sports
Med. 2004;34:663-679.
6. Zafeiridis A, Smilios I, Considine RV, Tokmakidis SP. Serum leptin responses after
acute resistance exercise protocols. J Appl Physiol. 2003;94:591-597.
7. McGuigan MR, Foster C. A new approach to monitoring resistance training. Nat Strength
Cond Assoc. 2004;26:42-47.
8. Anderson L, Triplett-McBride T, Foster C, Doberstein S, Brice G. Impact of training
patterns on incidence of illness and injury during a womenʼs collegiate basketball
season. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17:734-738.
9. Corder KP, Potteiger JA, Nau KL, Figoni SF, Hershberger SL. Effects of active and
passive recovery conditions on blood lactate, rating of perceived exertion, and perfor-
mance during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14:151-156.
10. Day ML, McGuigan MR, Brice G, Foster C. Monitoring exercise intensity during resis-
tance training using the session RPE scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:353-358.
11. Glass SC, Chvala AM. Preferred exertion across three common modes of exercise
training. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:474-479.
12. Noble BJ, Robertson RJ. Perceived Exertion. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics;
1996.
13. Gearhart RF, Becque MD, Palm CM, Hutchins MD. Ratings perceived exertion during
short duration, very high intensity cycle exercise. Percept Mot Skill. 2005;100:767-
773.
14. Hollander DB, Durand RJ, Trynicki JL, Larock D, Castracane VD, Hebert EP, Kraemer
RR. RPE, pain, and physiological adjustment to concentric and eccentric contractions.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1017-1025.
15. Foster C, Hector LL, Welsh R, Schrager M, Green MA, Snyder AC. Effects of specific
versus cross-training on running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
1995;70:367-372.
16. Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, Gottschall L, Hrovatin LA, Parker S, et al. A new
approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:109-115.
17. McGuigan MR, Egan AD, Foster C. Salivary cortisol responses and perceived exertion
during high intensity and low intensity bouts of resistance exercise. J Sports Sci Med.
2004;3:8-15.
18. Sweet TW, Foster C, McGuigan MR, Brice G. Quantitation of resistance training using the
session rating of perceived exertion method. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:796-802.
19. Kraemer WJ, Dziados JE, Marchitelli LJ, Gordon SE, Harman EA, Mello R, et al. Effects
of different heavy-resistance exercise protocols on plasma β-endorphin concentrations.
J Appl Physiol. 1993;74:450-459.
20. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a
mixed methods training strategy. Nat Strength Cond Assoc. 1994;16:20-31.
21. Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K. Muscular
adaptation to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises. J Strength
Cond Res. 2004;18:730-737.
 Session RPE and Resistance Exercise 45

22. Borg G, Hassmen P, Lagerstrom M. Perceived exertion in relation to heart rate and
blood lactate during arm and leg exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1987;65:679-685.
23. Noble BJ, Borg GAV, Jacobs I, Ceci R, Kaiser P. A category-ratio perceived exertion
scale: relationship to blood and muscle lactates and heart rate. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1983;15:523-528.
24. Gearhart RF, Goss FL, Lagally KM, Jakicic JM, Gallagher J, Robertson RJ. Standardized
scaling procedures for rating perceived exertion during resistance exercise. J Strength
Cond Res. 2001;15:320-325.
25. Woods S, Bridge T, Nelson D, Risse K, Pincivero DM. The effects of rest interval length
on ratings of perceived exertion during dynamic knee extension exercise. J Strength
Cond Res. 2004;18:540-545.
26. Gearhart RF, Goss FL, Lagally KM, Jakicic JM, Gallagher J, Gallagher KI, Robertson,
RJ. Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscles during high-intensity and low-
intensity resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:87-91.
27. Lagally KM, Robertson RJ, Gallagher KI, Goss FL, Jakicic JM, Lephart SM, et al.
Perceived exertion, electromyography, and blood lactate during acute bouts of resistance
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:552-559.
28. Simao R, Farinatti PDTV, Polito MD, Maior AS, Fleck SJ. Influence of exercise order
on the number of repetitions performed and perceived exertion during resistance exer-
cises. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:152-156.
29. Suminski RR, Robertson RJ, Arslanian S, Kang J, Utter AC, DaSilva SG, et al. Percep-
tion of effort during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:261-265.
30. Lagally KM, McCaw ST, Young GT, Medema HC, Thomas DQ. Ratings of perceived
exertion and muscle activity during the bench press exercise in recreational and novice
lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:359-364.
31. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, Burkett LN. Three sets of weight training superior to 1
set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:525-529.
32. Linnamo V, Newton RU, Hakkinen K, Komi PV, Davie A, McGuigan M, Triplett-
McBride T. Neuromuscular responses to explosive and heavy resistance loading. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10:417-424.
33. Tan B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum
strength in men: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13:289-304.
34. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:1164-1168.

View publication stats