Cited by 100Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and Health

Self-Selected Resistance Training Intensity in Healthy Women: The Influence of a Personal Trainer

Ratamess, Nicholas A, Faigenbaum, Avery D, Hoffman, Jay R, Kang, Jie·2008·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the influence of resistance training with a personal trainer versus unsupervised resistance training on the self-selected intensities used by women during resistance exercise. Forty-six resistance-trained women (age = 26.6 +/- 6.4 years; body mass = 64.2 +/- 10.9 kg) who either trained individually (n = 27; No PT) or with a personal trainer (n = 19; PT) were carefully instructed to select a weight they used in their own resistance training workouts that enabled the completion of 10 repetitions for the chest press (CP), leg press (LP), seated row (SR), and leg extension (LE) exercises. Each participant was subsequently tested for one repetition-maximum (1RM) strength on each exercise, and the self-selected intensity was calculated based on a percent of each 1RM value. For self-selected relative intensity, the PT group selected significantly greater intensities for LP (50% vs. 41%), CP (57.4% vs. 48%), and SR (56% vs. 42%) whereas a trend (p = 0.10) was observed for LE (43% vs. 38%) compared with No PT. Overall, the average self-selected intensity for all exercises was approximately 51.4% in PT group and approximately 42.3% in the No PT group. 1RM values for LP, LE, and SR were greater in the PT than No PT group. Ratings of perceived exertion values were significantly greater in the PT compared with the No PT group for CP, LE, and SR but not LP. These results indicate that resistance training under the supervision of a personal trainer leads to greater initial 1RM strength values, self-selection of greater workout intensities, and greater ratings of perceived exertion values during resistance exercise.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31815f29cc

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sex differences in strength benefits may be related to sex differences in prior experience with resistance training and perceived exertion with resistance training sessions, and possible discrepancies between prescribed and complied resistance training dosage.

    “These results may be related to sex differences in prior experience with resistance training and perceived exertion with resistance training sessions as previously suggested (66–68), and possible discrepancies between the prescribed and complied resistance training dosage (35).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ratamess, N. A., Faigenbaum, A. D., Hoffman, J. R., & Kang, J.
Affiliations
The College of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Ratamess, Nicholas A
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2008-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
103-111
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095007277
Cited by
100
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
resistance training, unsupervised training, one-repetition maximum, rating of perceived exertion, women, chest press, leg press, seated row, leg extension
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Physical Education and Training, Physical Fitness, Probability, Sensitivity and Specificity, Weight Lifting, Cohort Studies, Exercise, Exercise Tolerance, Muscle Fatigue, Muscle Strength

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