If I’m right, then rate of perceived exertion (RPE) might be a more important scale than people give it credit for. If something feels too hard then you are less likely to want to do it. Running is a perfect example. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me they hated running and thought it wasn’t for them for no other reason than they were simply running too fast. Slow it down, enjoy the run, and voila! Using RPE, you will actually get amazing results because you’re spending more time doing the work than dreading the work.

Researchers recently performed a study for the Journal of Strength and Conditioning to find out how RPE works in regards to weight training. Specifically, the researchers wanted to see how the rate of work affects RPE. This is different from load, of course, since a heavier weight will yield a higher RPE for any given amount of exercise. As such the researchers picked one weight for each participant, which was 60% of their one rep max.

The researchers measured three protocols. One was 3 sets of 8 reps with a 3 minute rest. The second protocol was 3 sets of 8 with a 1.5 min rest, and the third was 2 sets of 12 with a 3 minute rest. RPE was lowest for the first protocol and increased from there. Interestingly, there was a closer relationship between the last two protocols, which suggests that work rate is a more important factor than how many reps per set you do.

In other words, the more work you do in a given time impacts your perceived effort more than how much work you do in any given set. These results suggest that manipulating rest periods plays a bigger role in a resistance workout than any other factor. The benefits of this study should be clear.

Remember, if your RPE for any exercise protocol is too high, you simply won’t do it. And if it’s too low it won’t be any fun at all. You want to hit just the right zone. What the study can’t tell you, however, is which protocol to choose. Sure, some protocols may yield consistently higher or lower RPEs, but everyone’s RPE scale works a little differently. Although one protocol might yield a higher RPE for everyone else, for you it might be too high to be enjoyable, and for someone else that might be the RPE sweet spot.

Ultimately we would all benefit from being honest with ourselves and judging our preferences without prejudice. Since consistency is more important than the activity you’re doing, taking the time to find your ideal RPE zone for each exercise you do could yield years of superior benefits.

References

1. Justin A Kraft, et. al., “Session RPE Responses during Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in Work Rate,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31829b569c

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Science Examines the Relationship Between Rest Periods and Rate of Perceived Exertion appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

The use of RPE in resistance exercise is less well-established. In a study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Marc Testa, Timothy D. Noakes, and François-Denis Desgorces explained that several factors may make RPE less useful for self-regulation of resistance workouts. One is simply the nature of resistance training: strength response is non-linear, and athletes often train at substantial fractions of their maximum capacity. While a runner might be able to extend a workout from 10 miles to 11 without difficulty, most lifters would find a 10% increase in load to be much more challenging.

A second factor is that low volume, high intensity (measured by % of 1RM) resistance workouts are qualitatively different from high volume, low intensity workouts. It is not clear that comparing RPE between the two is meaningful. This point will seem obvious to CrossFitters: do five heavy clean and jerk doubles with ample rest between sets require a greater RPE than 30 light clean and jerks done as rapidly as possible? Which workout should an athlete do on an “easy” day?

As this example illustrates, a third factor is the imperfect correlation between maximum strength and strength endurance. Strength endurance – defined as maximum reps at a given fraction of 1RM – can vary widely between individuals with similar maximum strength.

In order to evaluate the factors contributing to RPE for resistance exercise, the researchers measured the strength and strength endurance of 80 college-age athletes (55 men and 25 women) from a variety of different sports. Participants had varying amounts of experience with resistance training, and were divided into three cohorts:

1. Highly trained (29 men and 10 women), with an average of 24 strength workouts in the last three months.
2. Moderately trained (26 men and 8 women), with an average of 9 strength workouts in the last three months.
3. Novices (18 men and 7 women), with no previous resistance training experience.

Before beginning the study, the novices received technical training in bench press technique. Then, researchers tested the 1RM bench press for all participants. As one would expect, training experience and gender correlated with bench press strength. In a second session, one week after the first, participants tested their maximum reps at both heavy (about 90% of 1RM) and moderate (about 67% of 1RM) loads. The results from the first two sessions were used to assign weights and repetitions for the third session, which tested RPE.

In the third session, one week after the second, participants performed a total of four bench press sets: two sets at low reps, with heavy and moderate weights, and two sets at high reps, also at heavy and moderate weights. They were asked to report their RPE based on a standard 10-point scale. Lifts were performed “blind,” in that the weights were covered with plastic bags filled with Styrofoam to obscure the amount of weight being lifted.

Low Rep Test Results

For low reps, the study found no relationship between RPE and gender, total load, or absolute intensity (% of 1RM). However, in the highly trained group, there was a correlation between RPE and relative volume (% of maximum reps at that weight). This relationship was not seen in the other groups. The authors suspect that more highly trained individuals either receive more sensory feedback or are more able to interpret the sensory signals that they receive.

High Rep Test Results

In the high rep sets, this effect was seen in all three groups. Higher relative volume led to increased RPE. From a programming standpoint, this means that the predictive value of RPE increases with volume for resistance exercise. So, using RPE as a tool for self-regulation would be more applicable in sessions involving higher numbers of reps.

Conclusion

Using the RPE 1-10 scale, while not a sufficiently accurate tool for self-regulation of low volume workouts, may have value for higher volume training. For instance, changes in RPE give one possible measure of changes in the athlete’s ability to repeat lifts. The authors emphasize, however, that RPE-based assessments cannot replace direct testing of maximal strength or strength endurance.

References:

1. Marc Testa, Timothy D. Noakes, and François-Denis Desgorces, “Training State Improves The Relationship Between Rating Of Perceived Exertion And Relative Exercise Volume During Resistance Exercises,” J. Strength and Cond. Res., 26(11), 2990-2996 (2012)

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Is Rate of Perceived Exertion a Useful Strength Training Tool? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.