Efficacy of The Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion For The Bench Press in Experienced and Novice Benchers

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001901
EFFICACY OF THE REPETITIONS IN RESERVE-BASED RATING OF
PERCEIVED EXERTION FOR THE BENCH PRESS IN EXPERIENCED
AND NOVICE BENCHERS
Michael J. Ormsbee1, 2
D
mormsbee@fsu.edu
Joseph P. Carzoli1
jpc12b@my.fsu.edu
TE
Alex Klemp1
aok09@my.fsu.edu
Brittany R. Allman1
bra13@my.fsu.edu
EP
Michael C. Zourdos3
mzourdos@fau.edu
Jeong-Su Kim1
jkim6@fsu.edu
C
Lynn B. Panton1
lpanton@fsu.edu
1
Institute of Sports Sciences and Medicine, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise
Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306
C
2
Discipline of Biokinetics, Exercise and Leisure Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Durban, South Africa
3
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 33433
A
Corresponding Author:
Michael J. Ormsbee, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Food, Nutrition and Exercise Sciences
Florida State University
120 Convocation Way
430 Sandels Building
Tallahassee, FL 32306
Tel: (484) 802-6852
Fax: (850) 645-5000
E-mail: mormsbee@fsu.edu
Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

Jackson Junio Andrade dos santos - selva365consultoriadesportiva@gmail.com - CPF:and Conditioning
092.323.825-55 Association
1
2 ABSTRACT
3 Autoregulation (AR) is the practice of adjusting training variables in response to athlete
4 feedback. One component of AR postulated to enhance resistance training adaptations involves
5 implementing a resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale measuring
6 repetitions in reserve (RIR). The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of this
D
7 method using the bench press exercise. METHODS: Twenty-seven college-aged men were
8 assigned to one of two groups based upon training age: experience benchers (EB) (n=14, training
TE
9 age: 4.7±2.0 yrs) and novice benchers (NB) (n=13, training age: 1.1±0.6 yrs). Subjects
10 performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) followed by single-repetition sets with loads
11 corresponding to 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM and an 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM. Subjects reported
EP
12 a corresponding RPE, based on RIR, for every set. Average velocity was recorded for each
13 single-repetition set along with the first and last repetitions of the 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM.
14 RESULTS: Average velocity at 100% of 1RM in EB was slower (0.14±0.04 m·s-1) compared to
15 NB (0.20±0.05 m·s-1) (p<0.001). EB recorded greater RPE than NB at 1RM (EB: 9.86±0.14 vs.
C
16 NB: 9.35±0.36) (p=0.011). No between-group differences existed for average velocity or RPE at
C
17 any other intensity. Both EB (r=0.85, p<0.001) and NB (r=0.85, p<0.001) had strong inverse
18 significant correlations between average velocity and RPE at all intensities. CONCLUSION: Our
A
19 findings suggest that the RIR-based RPE scale may be an efficacious approach for AR of bench
20 press training load and volume in college-aged men.
21 Key words: Autoregulation; velocity; strength; one-repetition maximum; bench press

1
1 INTRODUCTION
2 Resistance training load is often determined as a percentage of one-repetition maximum
3 (1RM) based upon an initial 1RM test (5). Thus, when utilizing percentage of 1RM for load
4 assignment, it is important that the 1RM test is accurate. However, obtaining a true 1RM value
5 can be problematic due to numerous factors including administrator errors and abnormal lifting
D
6 performance (5). Consequently, an erroneous 1RM can lead to a training load, which is too light
7 or too heavy to achieve desired adaptations, when using a percentage of the 1RM model (17).
TE
8 Additionally, the ability of an individual to successfully perform a fixed daily training load is
9 influenced by physiological fluctuations (e.g., sleep patterns and recovery), which are not
10 traditionally accounted for when designing resistance training programs (18). Since previous data
11 support that recovery from exercise (4) and the rate of adaptation (26) to training is athlete-
EP
12 specific, an individualized feedback-regulated model could allow for alteration of training load
13 based upon daily readiness rather than load prescription solely based on an initial 1RM test.
14 Indeed, an athlete feedback model for load prescription, termed autoregulation (AR) has
C
15 been previously utilized to individually adjust weekly load progression more effectively than a
16 fixed progression in collegiate football players (17); however this study did not investigate intra-
C
17 training load alteration based upon daily readiness. Altering intra-session training load can be
18 accomplished utilizing athlete feedback (30) from rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales, in
A
19 that if an RPE is above the desired threshold load can be reduced for the subsequent set, while
20 load can be increased if an RPE is below the desired threshold. The two most common RPE
21 scales within the literature are the Borg 15-point (6-20) and a Borg category ratio (CR-10) 10-
22 point (1-10) scale, with lower numbers indicating less perception of effort. Originally, RPE
23 scales were developed to monitor aerobic exercise intensity, and as such, RPE scales may not be

2
24 appropriate to effectively gauge resistance training intensity. Indeed, several studies have
25 reported individuals to record non-maximal RPE values during resistance exercise despite the
26 occurrence of muscular failure or maximal muscular exertion (8, 22). Specifically, Hackett et al.
27 (2012) compared the CR-10 scale to one based upon the concept of repetitions in reserve (RIR)
28 and reported that subjects did not record maximal RPE values with the CR-10 scale even when
D
29 achieving muscular failure (6); subsequently concluding that a scale focused on RIR may be
30 better suited to gauge resistance trianing intensity. Due to the limitations of traditional RPE for
TE
31 resistance training, a new RIR-based RPE scale has been suggested to enhance the traditional
32 RPE scale configuration (10, 11, 30). In this scale, a RPE value corresponds to the additional
33 number of repetitions individuals perceive they could perform after completion of repetitions
34 within a set. For example, an RPE 10 corresponds to 0 RIR, an RPE 9 corresponds to 1 RIR, an
EP
35 RPE 8 corresponds to 2 RIR, and an RPE 7 corresponds to 3 RIR.
36 Currently, only two studies have examined the efficacy of the RIR-based RPE scale
37 during 1RM testing and various sets of submaximal intensities in resistance exercise (11, 30).
C
38 Zourdos et al. had experienced and novice squatters record RPEs after single repetition sets at
39 60, 75, 90, and 100% 1RM and after an 8-repetition set at 70% of 1RM (30). Helms et al. also
C
40 examined this scale at 1RM and ≥ 80% of predicted 1RM in the squat, bench press, and deadlift
41 in powerlifters in single repetition sets only (11). Both studies reported a strong inverse
A
42 relationship between RPE and average velocity at increasing intensities (i.e., higher RPE
43 corresponded with lower velocity) (11, 30); thus validating the relationship between RPE and
44 intensity with the RIR-based RPE scale. Furthermore, examination of velocity along with RPE
45 is important since RPE ratings are subjective; thus these ratings can be validated with the
46 objective measurement of velocity and velocity/RPE profiles can be created at various

3
47 intensities. Moreover, Zourdos et al. also reported slower average velocity in experienced versus
48 novice squatters at 90 and 100% of 1RM (30). This slower velocity at high intensities may signal
49 greater neuromuscular efficiency (i.e., quicker recruitment of high-threshold motor units) as
50 previous data have indicated average velocity at 1RM to decrease as strength increases with
51 more lifting experience (24). Importantly, to our knowledge, no study has examined the
D
52 resistance training-specific RPE scale for efficacy during multiple repetition sets in the bench
53 press.
TE
54 Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the application of the RPE/RIR scale and
55 corresponding average concentric velocities during a bench press 1RM test and at single
56 repetition sets of 60, 75, and 90% 1RM, and an 8-repetition set at 70% of 1RM in experienced
57 (EB) and novice benchers (NB). It was hypothesized that the RPE/RIR scale would be effective
EP
58 at quantifying bench press intensity, indicated by an inverse relationship between RPE (i.e.,
59 lower RIR) and concentric velocity. In addition, it was hypothesized that EB would perform
60 slower average velocities at 90 and 100% of 1RM than NB.

C
61
62 METHODS
C
63 Experimental Approach to the Problem
64 Subjects were recruited from the Florida State University (FSU) weightlifting club,
A
65 campus gyms, by word of mouth, and posted flyers. All data collection took place during one
66 laboratory visit. Subjects were informed to refrain from consuming caffeine 24 hours prior to
67 testing as caffeine has been shown to have analgesic effects, which could interfere with accurate
68 RPE ratings (14). No other dietary restrictions were required (e.g., fasting). Additionally,
69 subjects were asked to refrain from doing any chest-dominant exercise for 48 hours prior to

4
70 testing and to refrain from any exercise prior to testing on the same day. Upon arriving to the
71 laboratory, subjects signed the informed consent form, and completed health history and physical
72 activity questionnaires, which were followed by anthropometric measurements. Subjects were
73 then assigned to either experienced bencher (EB, n=14) or novice bencher (NB, n=13) based
74 upon bench press experience obtained from the training history questionnaire. The testing
D
75 protocol began with a dynamic warm-up and simple resistance band movements to ensure
76 adequate physical preparation before lifting. Subjects were then explained the protocol and
TE
77 familiarized with the RPE/RIR scale and began 1RM testing in accordance with USA
78 powerlifting specifications (27). Immediately after 1RM testing, subjects completed single
79 repetition sets of 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM followed by an 8-repetition set at 70%. During 1RM
80 testing and all subsequent sets, subjects were asked to provide RPE/RIR values (Figure 1).
EP
81 Additionally, average concentric velocity (m·s-1) was measured for each repetition to analyze if
82 correlations existed between velocity and RPE.
83
C
84 Subjects
85 Twenty-seven college-aged, active males, 19-27 years old (age, 22.4 ± 2.3 years; body
C
86 mass, 86.4 ± 13.4 kg; height, 177.9 ± 6.7 cm) were recruited for this study. Subjects performed
87 testing sessions at the Institute of Sports Sciences and Medicine (ISSM) FSU. All procedures
A
88 were approved by the FSU Human Subjects Institutional Review Board in accordance with the
89 Helsinki Declaration. Prior to testing, subjects’ height (SECA, Hamburg, Germany) and weight
90 (Detecto 6127 High Capacity Digital Physician Scale, Brooklyn, NY) were recorded. Subjects
91 were assigned to one of two groups based upon the inclusion criteria obtained from the
92 questionnaire: 1) EB (n=14; resistance training for >2 years, bench-pressing ≥1x/week for the

5
93 previous 2 years and test-determined Wilks coefficient of ≥70); and 2) NB (n=13; resistance
94 training for ≥3 months and ≤2 years and bench pressing on average ≥1x/2 weeks to ensure
95 familiarization with the bench press exercise). Subjects were excluded if they or the
96 questionnaires revealed any recent skeletal muscle injury or contradictions to exercise (e.g., heart
97 disease), cigarette smoking, or steroid use.
D
98
99 Wilks Coefficient. Wilks coefficient is used by the (United States of American
TE
100 Powerlifting) (USAPL) to calculate relative strength and has been validated within the literature
101 (28). This value is calculated by multiplying a bodyweight coefficient number by the total load
102 lift, which in this study was the 1RM bench press value. We chose to include Wilks coefficient
103 to further differentiate between EB and NB, as more experienced lifters should have higher
EP
104 values.
105 Procedures
106 Warm-up. Prior to 1RM testing, all subjects completed a dynamic warm-up consisting of
C
107 40 jumping jacks, 16 jumping backslaps, 8 push-ups, and simple resistance band movements. For
108 the resistance band movements, subjects held the band with their hands a comfortable width
C
109 apart and rotated their arms at the shoulder until the band had been moved from the front of their
110 hips, overhead, and to the back of their hips, keeping their elbows extended throughout the
A
111 movement. This motion was reversed until the band was placed back into the starting position.
112 Subjects completed four repetitions of this movement and then completed four repetitions each
113 of clockwise and counterclockwise motions in a similar fashion.
114

6
115 One-Repetition Maximum (1RM). For 1RM testing subjects performed the bench press-
116 specific warm-up, which consisted of lifting a 20.4-kg barbell for 8 repetitions, 5 repetitions at
117 20%, 3 repetitions at 50%, 2 repetitions at 75%, and 1 repetition at 85% of estimated 1RM.
118 Subjects completed the warm-up sets with ad libitum rest periods. A 3-minute rest period (1) was
119 administered between each 1RM attempt and between each single repetition set at 60, 75, and
D
120 90% 1RM, as well as the 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM. The sets at submaximal intensities were
121 implemented to examine the perceived amount of repetitions allowed in both populations at
TE
122 various intensities. Ultimately all attempts were selected by the researchers; however, subjects’
123 estimated 1RM and feedback from the RPR/RIR scale were considered for attempt selection.
124 This procedure generally consisted of a 1st attempt at 95%, 2nd attempt at 97.5%, and 3rd attempt
125 at 100% of estimated 1RM. To ensure an accurate 1RM assessment, one of three situations was
EP
126 required to be satisfied: 1) recording of a 10-RPE by the subject, and also the investigator
127 determining an increased load for the ensuing attempt would not be successfully completed; 2)
128 recording of an RPE of 9-9.5 followed by the subject failing on the next attempt with a load
C
129 increase of ≤2.5 kg; or 3) recording of an RPE of <9 and the subject failing on the next attempt
130 with a load increase of ≤5 kg.

C
131 For each 1RM attempt and following submaximal sets, subjects were required to adhere
132 to strict procedural instructions. At the start of each repetition, subjects waited for an audible
A
133 “start” command from the investigator before lowering the barbell to their chest in a controlled
134 manner, followed by extending their arms completely to return the weight to the starting
135 position. Lastly, a “rack” command was given before re-racking the barbell was permitted.
136 Violation of any of these commands resulted in a failed attempt. Additionally, lifting standards
137 followed the USA Powerlifting rules, which required subjects to keep their hips, shoulders, and

7
138 head in contact with the bench throughout the entire movement (27). Each session was
139 supervised by a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) and/or a USA
140 Powerlifting Club Coach (USAPL-CC) to ensure proper performance and safety.
141
142 Rating of Perceived Exertion and Repetitions in Reserve. Prior to 1RM testing, the RPE
D
143 scale was shown and explained to each subject in the same manner described as Zourdos et al.
144 (30). Immediately following each 1RM attempt, as well as the 60, 75, 90, and 70% 1RM sets,
TE
145 subjects were asked to provide a RPE value.
146 INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
147
148 Average Velocity. Average concentric velocity for all 1RM attempts and subsequent
EP
149 single repetition sets were recorded, as well as the first and eighth repetitions of the 70% 1RM
150 set using a Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer (TENDO Sports Machines, Trencin, Slovak Republic),
151 which has previously been demonstrated to have high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation
C
152 coefficient-ICC=0.982) for average velocity (6). The Tendo unit is composed of two parts, a
153 velocity sensor and display unit. The velocity sensor was placed on the floor with the Tendo cord
C
154 attached to the barbell just inside of the ‘sleeve’ with a velcro strap. The Tendo unit was
155 positioned to achieve a perpendicular angle between the cord and the barbell for the beginning of
A
156 the bench press movement. Velocities were kept confidential from subjects until the completion
157 of their testing.
158
159
160

8
161 Statistical Analyses
162 Independent-sample t-tests were used to analyze differences in subject characteristics
163 between EB and NB at baseline. A two-tailed independent t-test was used to analyze differences
164 in age, body mass, and height, while a one-tailed independent t-test was utilized to examine
165 training age, 1RM and Wilks coefficient. To demonstrate the range of reported RPE values
D
166 within our sample size, mean values and 95% confidence limits (CLs) for all bench press
167 intensities were calculated. Additionally, to express the spread of the data the median and
TE
168 interquartile ranges were calculated. Furthermore, since the RPE values have a natural limit of
169 10, the mean RPE values at all intensities were not normally distributed, which was determined
170 via the Shapiro-Wilk test. Therefore, the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test was used to
171 examine differences of non-normally distributed mean RPE values between EB and NB.
EP
172 Differences in average velocities between EB and NB for single repetition sets were analyzed
173 using a two–tail independent-sample t-test. Correlation coefficient r scores and their associated p
174 values were calculated between average velocities of all single repetition sets and their
C
175 corresponding RPE values for both EB and NB. Correlations were interpreted and reported as
176 “weak” if they were less than or equal to 0.35, “moderate” if they fell between 0.36 to 0.67,
C
177 “strong” if they fell between 0.68 to 0.89, and “very strong” if they were equal to or greater than
178 0.90 (24). The coefficient of determination r2 scores were also calculated to describe the
A
179 explained variance of the correlation coefficients. Repeated measures analyses of variance were
180 used to analyze changes in average velocities at 70% 1RM between the first and last repetitions
181 in EB and NB. All analyses were performed using SPSS statistics (IBM SPSS Statistics for
182 Macintosh, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.), and significance was set at p≤0.05.
183

9
184 RESULTS
185 Subject Characteristics
186 Five subjects were dropped from the study for various reasons (e.g., muscle irritation (n=1 NB;
187 n=1 EB), exercising the day prior to testing (n=1 EB), and for not following lifting commands
188 (n=1 NB)). Baseline characteristics of height, weight, and age did not differ significantly
D
189 between EB and NB. As anticipated, EB had significantly (p<0.001) greater training age, bench
190 press 1RM, and Wilks coefficient compared to NB. Means and standard deviations of all
TE
191 descriptive characteristics are displayed in Table 1.
192 INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
193

EP
195
196 Rating of Perceived Exertion and Repetitions in Reserve
197 Table 2 presents RPE means, standard deviations, 95% confidence intervals, median, and
C
198 interquartile ranges. Significant group interactions were noted for mean RPE values at 1RM
199 between EB and NB. However, no group differences (p>0.05) for mean RPE at any other
C
200 intensities were detected. Table 3 illustrates 95% confidence limits (CLs) of reported RPE values
201 and the associated RIR, cross referenced with the “Percent of 1RM and Repetitions Allowed”
A
202 guidelines (1). It was observed that 71.43% of EB (10 of 14) and 23.08% of NB (3 of 13)
203 recorded an RPE value of 10 at 1RM. All EB (14 of 14) selected an RPE ≥9.5 at 1RM whereas
204 30.77% of NB (4 of 13) selected an RPE ≤9 at 1RM.
206

10
207 Average Concentric Velocity
208 Mean values and standard deviations of average concentric velocities (m·s-1) for EB and
209 NB at 60, 75, 90, and 100% of 1RM are shown in Figure 2. EB recorded significantly slower
210 average velocity compared with NB at 100% 1RM (EB, 0.14 ± 0.04 m·s-1; NB, 0.20 ± 0.05 m·s-1;
211 p<0.001). There were no significant differences (p>0.05) between groups for average velocities
D
212 at 60% (EB, 0.61 ± 0.13 m·s-1; NB, 0.56 ± 0.12 m·s-1), 75% (EB, 0.47 ± 0.10 m·s-1; NB, 0.50 ±
213 0.11 m·s-1) and 90% (EB, 0.29 ± 0.07 m·s-1; NB, 0.32 ± 0.09 m·s-1) of 1RM. Additionally, there
TE
214 was no group differences (p>0.05) in average velocities of the first (EB, 0.49 ± 0.11 m·s-1; NB,
215 0.52 ± 0.08 m·s-1) or final repetition (EB, 0.38 ± 0.12 m·s-1; NB, 0.41 ± 0.09 m·s-1) of the 8-
216 repetition set at 70% of 1RM. No difference was observed between groups (p>0.05) in the
217 change in average velocity between the first and final repetition of the 8-repetition set at 70% of
EP
218 1RM (data not shown).
220
C
221 Correlation of Average Velocity with Rating of Perceived Exertion
222 When all single repetition set velocity data were pooled, EB had a strong inverse
C
223 correlation between RPE and average velocity at all percentages of 1RM (r = –0.85, p < 0.001).
224 In NB, a strong inverse correlation between RPE and average velocities at all percentages of
A
225 1RM was also observed (r = –0.85, p < 0.001). In both EB and NB, 71% (r2 = 0.71) of this
226 inverse correlation between relative load and average velocity can be explained by the
227 relationship between velocity at all percentages of 1RM and RPE (Figure 3).
229

11
230
231 DISCUSSION
232 The primary findings from this investigation demonstrated that RIR-based RPE scale
233 values were significantly and strongly inversely correlated with average concentric velocity in
234 both EB (r=–0.85, p<0.001) and NB (r=–0.85, p<0.001). Our hypotheses were supported in that:
D
235 1) there was a strong inverse correlation between RPE and average velocity (r=–0.72) across all
236 intensities in both EB and NB; and 2) EB produced slower average velocities (EB: 0.14 ± 0.04
TE
237 m·s-1 vs. NB: 0.20 ± 0.05 m·s-1) and higher RPE (EB: 9.86 ± 0.14 vs. NB: 9.35 ± 0.36) compared
238 to NB at 100% 1RM. However, one hypothesis was not supported in that EB did not record
239 significantly slower average velocities than NB at 90% 1RM. Furthermore, RPE/RIR values at
240 75% and 60% suggested fewer repetitions could be performed than the traditionally purposed
EP
241 repetitions allowed at these intensities. Additionally, this finding also demonstrated large
242 variation among perceived repetitions allowed, further indicating that the ability to perform
243 repetitions at various intensities is individualized. Overall, our results are in agreement with
C
244 previous findings which suggest the RIR-based RPE scale is an effective tool to aid in a 1RM
245 test and can assist in AR of training load within a resistance training program (11, 30).
C
246 While the RPE scale was originally designed for aerobic exercise, it has been investigated
247 previously in resistance training to quantify intensity (3, 19), power (23), and total session
A
248 exertion (16). Hackett et al. had subjects estimate repetitions to failure while also recording
249 traditional 1-10 RPE; however, subjects still reported submaximal RPE values on the traditional
250 scale despite reaching volition failure (8), thus warranting a combined RPE/RIR scale as used
251 presently. To date, few studies have utilized the RIR-based RPE scale during 1RM testing (11,
252 15, 29, 30), even though RIR may improve accurate RPE selection by providing a more tangible

12
253 measurement of exertion. Furthermore, traditional RPE scales have only used integers to
254 measure exertion, which is inappropriate for the RIR-based scale. For example, a RPE value of 9
255 would indicate one more repetition could be completed, while a 9.5 suggests more weight could
256 be added (e.g., 2.5-5 kg), but an additional repetition could not be performed. Moreover, an RPE
257 of 8.5 indicates definitely 1, and possibly 2 additional repetitions could be performed, while an
D
258 RPE of 7.5 represents that 2 and possibly 3 more repetitions could be performed. This inclusion
259 of non-integer values, especially near 1RM, may aid the selection of load attempts and improve
TE
260 the accuracy of obtaining true 1RM values, by allowing for increased precision in reporting RPE.
261 Specifically, if an individual calls an RPE of 9 during a 1RM test a load increase of 5 kg may be
262 taken for the next attempt, and if an RPE of 8 is called then a load increase of 10 kg may be
263 implemented. However, if an individual is unsure whether 1 or 2 additional repetitions could be

EP
264 performed an RPE of 8.5 can be recorded, which might translate to a 7.5 kg increase for the next
265 attempt. Consequently, a scale with only integer values might cause the individual to fail the
266 subsequent 10 kg increase, and while the 5 kg increase might be successful, it may also fatigue
C
267 the individual for any subsequent attempts; however, the 7.5 kg load increase, which occurs due
268 to the 8.5 RPE, could allow the lifter to achieve the most accurate 1RM. Therefore, non-integer
C
269 values allow coaches and athletes to be as precise as possible with attempt selection during a
270 1RM test. Importantly, Pageaux (2016) has suggested the use of decimals on the CR-10 scale,
A
271 indicating that the existing CR-10 does not allow for sufficient ratings to detect small changes in
272 effort (20); however, this is rectified in resistance training on the RIR-based RPE scale as
273 described above.
274 When comparing the traditional repetitions allowed purposed by Baechle and Earle (1) to
275 the current values, we found both similarities and discrepancies. At higher intensities (100%,

13
276 90% 1RM), the traditional recommendations and RPE scale suggest a similar number of allowed
277 repetitions. However, when examining this comparison at 75%, our data suggest 5-7+ repetitions
278 could be completed, while the traditional recommendation would allow for 10 repetitions. This
279 pattern is also seen at 60%, where our data suggest 8+ repetitions and traditional
280 recommendations propose 15+ repetitions. These results suggest that RIR becomes more
D
281 inaccurate the farther a lifter is from failure (i.e., the greater number of repetitions remaining)
282 Further, there was a considerable range observed for RPE/RIR values at 90% (5-9), 75% (3-8),
TE
283 and 60% (1-7.5), indicating a large degree of variation in the perceived ability to perform
284 additional repetitions at various intensities. Indeed, it does seem that large individual variation
285 exists regarding repetitions allowed at specific percentages of 1RM (7), which could be
286 influenced by a myriad of factors (i.e. personality traits and experience). Therefore, it seems that
EP
287 the RPE/RIR scale is a plausible method to account for this individual variation and allow for
288 proper adjustments to training programs for desired goals.
289 Only two studies to our knowledge have examined the RPE scale based upon RIR in the
C
290 resistance exercises (11, 30). Helms et al. examined differences in RPE and average velocity at
291 100% of 1RM in the squat, bench, and deadlift in powerlifters, along with the relationship
C
292 between RPE and velocity for single repetition sets between 80-100% 1RM (11). Similar to
293 Helms et al., the EB in the current study had a mean RPE of 9.86 vs. 9.7 in the previous study;
A
294 both studies reported a strong inverse correlation between velocity and RPE. However, for
295 average bench press velocity at 100% 1RM, Helms and colleagues reported a mean of 0.10 m·s-1
296 vs. 0.14 m·s-1 among EB in the present study. This slight difference in velocity may be explained
297 by the use of strictly powerlifters by Helms et al., thus it is likely that this population was more
298 efficient at the 1RM test than the present population. It should also be noted that Helms and

14
299 colleagues utilized a GymAware PowerTool for velocity assessment compared to the Tendo
300 Weightlifting Analyzer used in the present study. While, both devices have high test-rest
301 reliability for velocity (6, 12), different devices may still have varying measurements from each
302 other, which may be another reason for the slightly different average velocities at 1RM between
303 studies. On the other hand, Izquierdo et al. (13) and Gonzalez-Badillo et al. (Error! Hyperlink
D
304 reference not valid.) reported similar average velocities to the present investigation of 0.15
305 m·s-1 and 0.16 m·s-1 at 100% 1RM in active, but not powerlifting population. Moreover,
TE
306 Izquierdo et al. reported a significant decline in average concentric velocity during a bench press
307 set to failure at 70% of 1RM with the first significant decline occurring on average at the 5th
308 repetition of a 14 repetition set, and average velocity at the last repetition being 0.18 m·s-1. We
309 also observed a significant decline from first to last repetition at 70% of 1RM (0.49 m·s-1 to 0.38
EP
310 m·s-1) in EB and the faster last repetition velocity can be attributed to our 8-repetition set vs. the
311 failure set from Izquierdo et al. Therefore, average concentric velocity does seem to be a valid
312 assessment of neuromuscular fatigue during multiple repetition sets in the bench press.
C
313 Currently, EB recorded slower velocities at 100% of 1RM compared to NB. In
314 agreement, Zourdos et al. demonstrated slower velocities of back squat 1RM in experienced
C
315 compared to novice squatters, suggesting enhanced neuromuscular efficiency among experienced
316 lifters (30). Moreover, it has been previously suggested that there is an improved maintenance of
A
317 neuromuscular efficiency after the onset of fatigue with adequate levels of testosterone (2).
318 Importantly, positive changes in resting testosterone to cortisol ratio over 2 years of training have
319 been associated with positive neuromuscular adaptations (9); thus it seems reasonable that the
320 EB (4.7 yrs of training) had improved rate coding at 1RM compared to NB (1.1yrs of training)
321 allowing for higher RPE and slower velocity at 1RM. However, Zourdos and colleagues also

15
322 demonstrated slower velocities at 90% of 1RM with experienced versus novice squatters (30),
323 whereas the present study showed no difference in average bench press velocity at 90% of 1RM
324 between populations. A possible explanation for the difference is that overall average bench
325 press velocity is quite slower than average squat velocity. Additionally, both Zourdos et al. and
326 the present investigation reported significantly higher RPE vales at 100% of 1RM in the
D
327 experienced group to coincide with the slower velocities; suggesting that EB were closer to a
328 true 1RM.
TE
329 Velocity based training (VBT), in which a set of resistance training ceases when there is a
330 certain percentage of velocity drop off during a set, is a recent variant of AR (21). While VBT
331 can be used to autoregulate training load, it requires purchase of a linear position transducer, thus
332 for the individual monetary constraints often preclude VBT from becoming practical.
EP
333 Specifically, since the RPE/RIR scale has been strongly correlated with repetition velocities at
334 various intensities (30), athletes could be prescribed a target RPE range and cease exercise once
335 the recorded RPE value exceeds that range, which would provide a practical alternative to VBT.
C
336 For example, if the focus of the program is intensity based, a RPE range of 9-9.5 (RIR of ~1)
337 could be assigned allowing athletes to perform a number of repetitions until the desired RPE
C
338 range is achieved.
339 Perhaps, the most important usage of this RPE scale is to autoregulate training load to
A
340 accommodate an athlete’s daily readiness. Specifically, if an athlete is in a volume-type training
341 block and scheduled to perform 4 sets of 8 repetitions at 70% of 1RM, which would typically
342 result in submaximal RPEs between 5-8 (10); however, if fatigue is present due to previous
343 training or non-training factors (i.e., sleep, anxiety, etc.) the pre-determined sets and repetitions
344 may not be feasible at the pre-determined training load. In this case the lifter may simply adjust

16
345 training load to fall between a 5-8 RPE for 4 sets of 8 repetitions. With this strategy the lifter has
346 now achieved the desired stress per set (i.e., number of RIR) rather than failing to complete the
347 desired relative volume. Conversely, if rate of adaptation is more rapid than expected and a lifter
348 records an RPE of <5 during the first set during the same training session, this individual could
349 increase training load for subsequent sets to reach the desired stress per set. Thus, RPE can be a
D
350 valuable tool to adjust intra-session training load to achieve the wanted adaptation despite
351 variability in daily readiness.
TE
352 In summary, the results of the present study support previous findings that the RIR-based
353 RPE scale is effective to gauge resistance training intensity (11, 30). Furthermore, there were
354 discrepancies in regards to traditional repetitions allowed in the bench press at lower intensities
355 compared to current recommendations. Moreover, considerable variation exists among perceived
EP
356 ability to perform repetitions (i.e. recorded RPEs at specific intensities); thus universal load
357 assignment via 1RM likely provides various levels of physiological stress across a population of
358 lifters.
C
359 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
360 Practically, the RPE/RIR scale is a tool to implement AR into resistance training program
C
361 design. Indeed several studies have demonstrated that incorporation of AR as efficacious to
362 improve strength (21), and in some instances is more advantageous for strength compared to
A
363 traditional designs (17, 18). Therefore, due to the limitations of the percentage based model for
364 load assignment, the RPE/RIR scale can be effectively used to assign load and progress load for
365 the bench press. Specifically, performing a certain number of repetitions at a given intensity is
366 not universal, thus, athletes can use a RPE/RIR scale to achieve the desired physiological stress
367 during a training session. Further, load can be increased or decreased during or prior to a session

17
368 to coincide with varying rates of adaptation among athletes and to accommodate daily
369 fluctuations in training readiness. Additionally, since the RPE/RIR scale is strongly and inversely
370 correlated with velocity (11, 30), it can be used as an alternative to VBT in the absence of an
371 objective velocity calculator. Lastly, in accordance with previous findings (25, 30), our findings
372 suggest that RPE accuracy has a direct relationship with training experience, thus a learning
D
373 curve likely exists with novice trainees. Ultimately, the resistance training specific RPE/RIR
374 scale seems to be a viable option to assign and autoregulate training load in the bench press.
TE
375
376
377 References
378
379 1. Baechle TR and R.W. E. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning Champaign,
EP
380 IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
381 2. Bosco C, Colli R, Bonomi R, von Duvillard SP, and Viru A. Monitoring Strength
382 Training: Neuromuscular and Hormonal Profile. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 202-208,
383 2000.
384 3. Day ML, McGuigan MR, Brice G, and Foster C. Monitoring Exercise Intensity During
C
385 Resistance Training Using the Session Rpe Scale. J Strength Cond Res 18: 353-358,
386 2004.
387 4. Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, and Smith D. Evidence-Based Resistance Training

C
388 Recommendations. Sports Med 15: 147-162, 2011.
389 5. Fleck SJ and Kraemer WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL:
390 Human Kinetics 2004.
A
391 6. Garnacho-Castaño MV, López-Lastra S, and Maté-Muñoz JL. Reliability and Validity
392 Assessment of a Linear Position Transducer. J Sports Sci Med 14: 128-136, 2015.
393 7. González-Badillo J and Sánchez-Medina L. Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading

394 Intensity in Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347-352, 2010.
395 8. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Halaki M, and Chow CM. A Novel Scale to Assess
396 Resistance-Exercise Effort. J Sports Sci 30: 1405-1413, 2012.

18
397 9. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kauhanen H, and Komi P. Neuromuscular and

398 Hormonal Adaptations in Athletes to Strength Training in Two Years. J Appl Physiol 65:
399 2406-2412, 1988.
400 10. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, and Zourdos MC. Application of the Repetitions in
401 Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training. Strength
402 Cond J 38, 2016.
403 11. Helms ER, Storey A, Cross MR, Brown SR, Lenetsky S, Ramsay H, Dillen C, and
404 Zourdos MC. Rpe and Velocity Relationships for the Back Squat, Bench Press, and
D
405 Deadlift in Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res "In Press", 2016.
406 12. Hori N and Andrews W. Reliability of Velocity, Force and Power Obtained from the
407 Gymaware Optical Encoder During Countermovement Jump with and without External
TE
408 Loads. J Aust Strength Cond 17: 12-17, 2009.
409 13. Izquierdo M, González-Badillo J, Häkkinen K, Ibanez J, Kraemer W, Altadill A, Eslava

410 J, and Gorostiaga EM. Effect of Loading on Unintentional Lifting Velocity Declines
411 During Single Sets of Repetitions to Failure During Upper and Lower Extremity Muscle
412 Actions. Int J Sports Med 27: 718-724, 2006.
EP
413 14. Killen LG, Green JM, O'Neal EK, McIntosh JR, Hornsby J, and Coates TE. Effects of
414 Caffeine on Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion. Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 721-727,
415 2013.
416 15. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, and Zourdos MC.
417 Volume-Equated High-and Low-Repetition Daily Undulating Programming Strategies
418 Produce Similar Hypertrophy and Strength Adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 1-
C
419 7, 2016.
420 16. Kraft JA, Green JM, and Thompson KR. Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion
421 Responses During Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in
C
422 Work Rate. J Strength Cond Res 28: 540-545, 2014.
423 17. Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, and Sayers SP. The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive
424 Resistance Exercise Vs. Linear Periodization on Strength Improvement in College
A
425 Athletes. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1718-1723, 2010.
426 18. McNamara JM and Stearne DJ. Flexible Nonlinear Periodization in a Beginner College
427 Weight Training Class. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2012-2017, 2010.
428 19. Naclerio F, Rodriguez-Romo G, Barriopedro-Moro MI, Jimenez A, Alvar BA, and
429 Triplett NT. Control of Resistance Training Intensity by the Omni Perceived Exertion
430 Scale. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1879-1888, 2011.
431 20. Pageaux B. Perception of Effort in Exercise Science: Definition, Measurement and
432 Perspectives. Eur J Sport Sci 16: 885-894, 2016.

19
433 21. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L, Sanchis-Moysi J, Dorado C,

434 Mora-Custodio R, Yanez-Garcia JM, Morales-Alamo D, Perez-Suarez I, Calbet JA, and
435 Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effects of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training on Athletic
436 Performance, Strength Gains and Muscle Adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2016.
437 22. Pritchett RC, Green JM, Wickwire PJ, and Kovacs M. Acute and Session Rpe Responses
438 During Resistance Training: Bouts to Failure at 60% and 90% of 1rm. S Afr J Sports Med
439 21, 2009.
440 23. Row BS, Knutzen KM, and Skogsberg NJ. Regulating Explosive Resistance Training
D
441 Intensity Using the Rating of Perceived Exertion. J Strength Cond Res 26: 664-671,
442 2012.
443 24. Taylor R. Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: A Basic Review. J Diagn Med
TE
444 Sonog 6: 35-39, 1990.
445 25. Testa M, Noakes TD, and Desgorces F-D. Training State Improves the Relationship
446 between Rating of Perceived Exertion and Relative Exercise Volume During Resistance
447 Exercises. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2990-2996, 2012.
448 26. Timmons JA. Variability in Training-Induced Skeletal Muscle Adaptation. J Appl Physiol
EP
449 110: 846-853, 2011.
450 27. USAPL and Administrators. I. Usapl Rulebook and by-Laws., 2001.
451 28. Vanderburgh PM and Batterham AM. Validation of the Wilks Powerlifting Formula.
452 Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 1869-1875, 1999.
453 29. Zourdos MC, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Klemp A, Jo E, Loenneke JP, Blanco R, and
C
454 Whitehurst M. Efficacy of Daily 1rm Training in Well-Trained Powerlifters and

455 Weightlifters: A Case Series. Nutr Hosp 33: 437-433, 2016.
456 30. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B,
C
457 Duncan S, Garcia Merino S, and Blanco R. Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of
458 Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve. J Strength Cond Res 30:
459 267-275, 2016.
A
460
461
462 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
463 The authors thank the participants for their time and effort in participating in this study. The
464 results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the authors or the NSCA.
465
466
467

20
468
469 FIGURE LEGENDS
470 Figure 1. Experimental scale for rating of perceived exertion (RPE) for resistance exercise.
471 Values in the rating column correspond to the repetitions in reserve (RIR) or perceived level of
472 exertion indicated in the adjacent description column. Descriptions of perceived exertion are
473 associated with the number of RIR. Adapted with permission from Zourdos et al. (25).
474
475 Figure 2. Mean average bench press velocities at 60% 1RM, 75% 1RM, 90% 1RM, and 1RM
476 for experienced benchers and novice benchers.
D
477 EB= Experienced Benchers; NB= Novice Benchers; 1RM= One-Repetition Maximum; RPE=
478 Rating of Perceived Exertion
479 *Significantly (p<0.001) faster mean average velocity at 1RM compared to EB.
480
TE
481 Figure 3. Correlation of RPE and velocity across all single repetition sets in both experienced
482 and novice benchers. * Significant correlation (p<0.001). RPE= Rating of Perceived Exertion.
483
EP
C
C
A

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics (N=27)
EB (n = 14) NB (n = 13) p-value
Age (yrs) 22.1 ± 2.1 22.6 ± 2.5 0.599
Body mass (kg) 90.2 ± 16.5 82.3 ± 7.7 0.547
Height (cm) 177.1 ± 6.3 178.7 ± 7.2 0.131
D
Training years
4.7 ± 2.0 1.1 ± 0.6 <0.001*
TE
(yrs)
1RM (kg) 133.0 ± 23.6 89.5 ± 18.9 <0.001*
Wilks coefficient 86.1 ± 12.3 60.1 ± 10.7 <0.001*

EP
EB = experienced bench group; NB = novice bench group; RM = repetition maximum
*Significantly (p<0.001) different between groups.
Values presented as means ± standard deviations.

C
C
A

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, confidence intervals, median, and interquartile ranges for
RPE values.
Mean ± 95% confidence interval Median (interquartile range)
EB (n=14) NB (n=13) EB (n=14) NB (n=13)
RPE at 1RM‡* 9.86 ± 0.14 9.35 ± 0.36 10 (9.50-10) 9.5 (9-9.75)
D
RPE at 90% 1RM‡ 7.54 ± 0.58 7.65 ± 0.78 7.75 (7.38- 8) 8 (7.25-8.50)
RPE at 75% 1RM‡ 4.57 ± 0.49 5.15 ± 0.69 5 (4-5) 5 (5-5.50)
TE
RPE at 60% 1RM‡ 2.86 ± 0.64 3.19 ± 1.15 3 (2-3.25) 3 (2-4)
RPE = rating of perceived exertion; EB = experienced benchers; NB = novice benchers
*Significantly (p=0.011) greater mean RPE recorded for EB at 1RM.

EP
‡Data not normally distributed
C
C
A

Table 3. Repetitions allowed at different percentages of 1RM: traditional vs. proposed
relationships.
Traditional Proposed Relationship
relationship EB (n = 14) NB (n = 13)
D
% 1RM Repetitions 95% CL Total RPE 95% CL Total RPE
TE
allowed† RPE Repetitions range RPE Repetitions range
allowed allowed
100 1† 9.72-10 1 9.5-10 8.99-9.71 2 8-10
90 4† 6.96-8.12 3-4 5-9 6.87-8.44 3-4 5-9

EP
75 10† 4.08-5.06 5-7+ 3-6 4.46-5.84 5-7+ 3-8
60 15+† 2.22-3.50 8+ 1-5 2.04-4.34 8+ 1-7.5
RM = repetition maximum; RPE = rating of perceived exertion; EB = experienced benchers;

C
NB = novice benchers.
† From Baechle et al., 2008 (1)

C
CL= Confidence limit

A

Figure 1.
D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Figure 2.
D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Figure 3.
D
TE
EP
C
C
A


Efficacy of The Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion For The Bench Press in Experienced and Novice Benchers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efficacy of The Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion For The Bench Press in Experienced and Novice Benchers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

EFFICACY OF THE REPETITIONS IN RESERVE-BASED RATING OF

PERCEIVED EXERTION FOR THE BENCH PRESS IN EXPERIENCED

AND NOVICE BENCHERS

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

3 Autoregulation (AR) is the practice of adjusting training variables in response to athlete

4 feedback. One component of AR postulated to enhance resistance training adaptations involves

5 implementing a resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale measuring

10 performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) followed by single-repetition sets with loads

20 press training load and volume in college-aged men.

21 Key words: Autoregulation; velocity; strength; one-repetition maximum; bench press

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

2 Resistance training load is often determined as a percentage of one-repetition maximum

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

46 objective measurement of velocity and velocity/RPE profiles can be created at various

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

49 greater neuromuscular efficiency (i.e., quicker recruitment of high-threshold motor units) as

60 slower average velocities at 90 and 100% of 1RM than NB.

63 Experimental Approach to the Problem

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

72 activity questionnaires, which were followed by anthropometric measurements. Subjects were

82 correlations existed between velocity and RPE.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

97 disease), cigarette smoking, or steroid use.

99 Wilks Coefficient. Wilks coefficient is used by the (United States of American

113 of clockwise and counterclockwise motions in a similar fashion.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

130 with a load increase of ≤5 kg.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

146 INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

157 of their testing.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

161 Statistical Analyses

162 Independent-sample t-tests were used to analyze differences in subject characteristics

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

185 Subject Characteristics

192 INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

194 INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

196 Rating of Perceived Exertion and Repetitions in Reserve

204 30.77% of NB (4 of 13) selected an RPE ≤9 at 1RM.

205 INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

207 Average Concentric Velocity

219 INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

221 Correlation of Average Velocity with Rating of Perceived Exertion

228 INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

263 implemented. However, if an individual is unsure whether 1 or 2 additional repetitions could be

273 described above.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

288 proper adjustments to training programs for desired goals.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

313 Currently, EB recorded slower velocities at 100% of 1RM compared to NB. In

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

328 true 1RM.

338 range is achieved.

340 accommodate an athlete’s daily readiness. Specifically, if an athlete is in a volume-type training

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

351 variability in daily readiness.

359 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength

387 4. Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, and Smith D. Evidence-Based Resistance Training