Module 1E Subjective Methods for Prescribing Training Load

Subjective Methods for Prescribing Training Load

  • Two popular subjective methods: Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and Repetitions in Reserve (RIR).
  • These methods have growing interest but also potential issues.

Relating RPE and RIR

  • RPE is typically on a 10 scale (1-2: very little effort, 10: maximum).
  • An RPE of 8 suggests approximately 2 repetitions remaining.
  • Dr. Zordos proposed predicting intensity based on remaining repetitions.
  • Caveat: Requires individual to accurately rate intensity; misalignment can occur if not.

Helms et al. Suggestion

  • Align RPE with training aspects:
    • 10 RPE with 15 reps targets muscular endurance.
    • 9 RPE with 7-12 reps targets hypertrophy.
  • Assumes perception of failure/RIR aligns with individual capacities.

RPE and Percentage of 1RM

  • Aligning RPE with a percentage of one rep max (1RM).
    • 10 RPE ≈ 100% of 1RM.
    • 8 RM ≈ 79% of 1RM (rated as 10 RPE).
  • Question: Can athletes (or non-athletes) accurately determine exertion level or estimate remaining reps based on feel?
  • Personal anecdotes question the accuracy of RIR even after long-term training.
  • Challenges in designing studies to test RIR without biasing results.

Scientific Dissection of RPE and RIR

  • Conceptual link: RIR and RPE are linked, with zero RIR and an RPE of 10 indicating failure.
  • A 10RM should correspond to an RPE of 10 and zero RIR.

Meta-Analysis by Dr. Israel Halperin

  • Participants underpredicted task failure by about one repetition, regardless of training background.
  • Accuracy improved when predictions were made later in ongoing sets.
  • Accuracy increases closer to failure.
  • Questionable accuracy for predicting hypertrophic training zones using RIR/RPE.

Murdoch University Study (Mansfield)

  • Performing 60% of 1RM bench press to failure & estimating RIR.
  • Accuracy in determining RIR increases closer to failure.
  • Significant difference in RIR predictions in the first set, which decreases over subsequent sets.
  • The closer to 80% of 1RM, the tighter the prediction.
  • Similar patterns observed in prone row exercises, indicating a disconnect between feeling and capacity.

Alignment of Intensity Prescription Methods

  • Traditional percentage-based methods, perception of effort, and velocity-based methods should ideally align, but often do not.
  • RPE and RIR should equate to 100%, but this is not always the case.
  • Shattuck and Tee suggest that at 75% of 1RM, one should be able to do 3-6 sets with 2-3 reps in reserve and an RPE of 7.5.

Combining Methods

  • Chadwick and Tee suggest more accurate RIR prediction by coupling perceived methods, percentage-based methods, and velocity-based bands.
  • Ormsbee's work reveals significant variability between subject's RPE estimates and velocity.
  • R2R^2 of 0.71, which means 71% of the RPE is explained by the velocity of movement.
    • Large variability between different time points.
  • Research (Armadore Garcia Ramos) shows high coefficient of variance between RIR and mean velocity.
  • Mansfield's paper indicates that mean velocity does not improve RIR estimation.
  • Velocity difference does not lead to more accurate RIR assessments.

Objective vs. Subjective Measures

  • Objective methods are superior for improving counter movement jumps, back squat maximal strength, bench press maximal strength, and sprinting times.
  • Objective measurement of training load is better than subjective measures like RIR and RPE.
  • RIR and RPE are biased by personality traits and perception of effort.
  • There are individual differences in how people perceive fatigue.

Velocity Based Methods

  • Fastest-growing trend in resistance training.
  • Requires further exploration.