The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Novel Resistance Training–Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve
Open accessAbstract
The primary aim of this study was to compare rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values measuring repetitions in reserve (RIR) at particular intensities of 1 repetition maximum (RM) in experienced (ES) and novice squatters (NS). Furthermore, this investigation compared average velocity between ES and NS at the same intensities. Twenty-nine individuals (24.0 ± 3.4 years) performed a 1RM squat followed by a single repetition with loads corresponding to 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM and an 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM. Average velocity was recorded at 60, 75, and 90% 1RM and on the first and last repetitions of the 8-repetition set. Subjects reported an RPE value that corresponded to an RIR value (RPE-10 = 0-RIR, RPE-9 = 1-RIR, and so forth). Subjects were assigned to one of the 2 groups: (a) ES (n = 15, training age: 5.2 ± 3.5 years) and (b) NS (n = 14, training age: 0.4 ± 0.6 years). The mean of the average velocities for ES was slower (p ≤ 0.05) than NS at 100% and 90% 1RM. However, there were no differences (p > 0.05) between groups at 60, 75%, or for the first and eighth repetitions at 70% 1RM. In addition, ES recorded greater RPE at 1RM than NS (p = 0.023). In ES, there was a strong inverse relationship between average velocity and RPE at all percentages (r = -0.88, p < 0.001), and a strong inverse correlation in NS between average velocity and RPE at all intensities (r = -0.77, p = 0.001). Our findings demonstrate an inverse relationship between average velocity and RPE/RIR. Experienced squatter group exhibited slower average velocity and higher RPE at 1RM than NS, signaling greater efficiency at high intensities. The RIR-based RPE scale is a practical method to regulate daily training load and provide feedback during a 1RM test.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Testa, M., Noakes, T. D., & Desgorces, F.-D. (2012) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e31824301d1 · Cited by 37
Cited by
Helms, E. R., Cronin, J., Storey, A., & Zourdos, M. C. (2016) · Strength & Conditioning Journal · doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000218 · Cited by 280
Self-citationBrinlee, A. W., Dickenson, S. B., Hunter-Giordano, A., & Snyder-Mackler, L. (2022) · Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · doi:10.1177/19417381211056873 · Cited by 212
Rating of perceived effort: methodological concerns and future directions
Halperin, I., & Emanuel, A. (2020) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01229-z · Cited by 149
Kemmler, W., Kohl, M., Fröhlich, M., Jakob, F., Engelke, K., von Stengel, S., & Schoene, D. (2020) · Journal of Bone and Mineral Research · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4027 · Cited by 139
Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Fisher, J. P., & Steele, J. (2020) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01236-0 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Zourdos, M. C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J. M., Schau, K. A., Jo, E., Helms, E., Esgro, B., Duncan, S., Garcia Merino, S., & Blanco, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 267-275
- ISSN
- 1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W636240543
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.