How One Feels During Resistance Exercises: A Repetition-by-Repetition Analysis Across Exercises and Loads

Context: The Feeling Scale (FS) is a unique and underexplored scale in sport sciences that measures affective valence. The FS has the potential to be used in athletic environments as a monitoring and prescription tool. Purpose: To examine whether FS ratings, as measured on a repetition-by-repetition basis, can predict proximity to task failure and bar velocity across different exercises and loads. Methods: On the first day, 20 trained participants (10 females) completed 1-repetition-maximum (1-RM) tests in the barbell bench and squat exercises and were introduced to the FS. In the following 3 sessions, participants completed 3 sets to task failure with either (1) 70% 1-RM bench press, (2) 70% 1-RM squat (squat-70%), or (3) 80% 1-RM squat (squat-80%). Sessions were completed in a randomized, counterbalanced order. After every completed repetition, participants verbally reported their FS ratings. Bar velocity was measured via a linear position transducer. Results: FS ratings predicted failure proximity and bar velocity in all 3 conditions (P < .001, R2 .66–.85). Based on the analysis, which included over 2400 repetitions, a reduction of 1 unit in the FS corresponded to approaching task failure by 14%, 11%, and 11%, and to a reduction in bar velocity of 10%, 4%, and 3%, in the bench, squat-70%, and squat-80%, respectively. Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate whether the FS can be used in resistance-training environments among resistance-trained participants on a repetition-by-repetition basis. The results indicate that the FS can be used to monitor and prescribe resistance training and that its benefits should be further explored.

Download Full-text

How one feels during resistance exercises: A repetition by repetition analysis across exercises and loads

10.31236/osf.io/4qbgj ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Aviv Emanuel ◽

Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽

Israel Halperin

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Bench Press ◽

Affective Valence ◽

Trained Subjects ◽

Task Failure ◽

Position Transducer ◽

Feeling Scale ◽

Resistance Exercises ◽

Bar Velocity

Purpose: The feeling scale (FS) is a unique and underexplored scale in sport sciences that measures affective valence. FS has the potential to be used in athletic environments as a monitoring and prescription tool. We sought to examine whether FS ratings, as measured on a repetition-by-repetition basis, can predict proximity to task-failure and bar velocity across different exercises and loads. Methods: On the first day, 20 trained subjects (10 females) completed 1RM tests in the barbell bench and squat exercises and were introduced to the FS. On the following three sessions, subjects completed three sets to task-failure with either 1) 70%1RM bench-press, 2) 70%1RM squat (squat-70%), or 3) 80%1RM squat (squat-80%). Sessions were completed in a randomized, counter-balanced order. After every completed repetition, subjects verbally reported their FS ratings. Bar velocity was measured via linear position transducer. Results: FS ratings predicted failure-proximity and bar velocity in all three conditions (p<0.001, R2 range: 0.66-0.85). Specifically, a reduction of one unit in the FS corresponded to approaching task-failure by 14%, 11% and 11%, and to a reduction in bar velocity of 10%, 4% and 3%, in the bench, squat-70% and squat-80%, respectively. Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate if the FS can be used in RT environments among trained subjects, on a repetition-by-repetition basis. The results show strong predictive abilities of the FS, indicating that the scale can be used to monitor and prescribe resistance training, and that its benefits should be further explored.

Download Full-text

The Effects of Lifting Lighter and Heavier Loads on Subjective Measures

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance ◽

10.1123/ijspp.2020-0065 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Aviv Emanuel ◽

Isaac Isur Rozen Smukas ◽

Israel Halperin

Keyword(s):

Perceived Exertion ◽

Bench Press ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Subjective Measures ◽

Affective Valence ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Task Failure ◽

Reaching Task ◽

Bar Velocity ◽

Load Conditions

Background: Despite the progress made in the study of subjective measures in resistance training, some questions remain unanswered. Here the authors investigated if ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) can predict task failure and bar velocity across exercises and loads as a primary outcome and whether a battery of subjective measures differ as a function of the lifted loads as a secondary outcome. Methods: In this preregistered study, 20 resistance-trained subjects (50% female) first completed a 1-repetition-maximum test of the barbell squat and bench press. In the second and third sessions, they completed 2 sets of squats followed by 2 sets of bench press to task failure, using 70% or 83% of 1-repetition maximum, while bar velocity was recorded. RPE scores were recorded after every repetition. In addition to RPE, rating of fatigue, affective valence, enjoyment, and load preferences were collected after set and session completion. Results: Across conditions, RPE was strongly correlated with reaching task failure (r = .86) and moderately correlated with bar velocity (r = −.58). The model indicates that an increase in 1 RPE unit is associated with an 11% shift toward task failure and a 4% reduction in bar velocity, with steeper slopes observed in the heavier condition. Negligible differences were observed between the load conditions in rating of fatigue, affective valence, enjoyment, and load preference. Conclusion: RPE scores, collected on a repetition-by-repetition basis, accurately reflected reaching task failure across loads and conditions. Hence, RPE can be used to prescribe repetition numbers during ongoing sets. The negligible differences between load conditions in rating of fatigue, affective valence, enjoyment, and load preference indicate that when sets are taken to task failure, loads can be selected based on individual preferences.

Download Full-text

The effects of lifting lighter and heavier loads on subjective measures

10.31236/osf.io/r5ces ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Aviv Emanuel ◽

Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽

Israel Halperin

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Subjective Measures ◽

Affective Valence ◽

Task Failure ◽

Reaching Task ◽

Perceived Effort ◽

Failure Loads ◽

Bar Velocity ◽

Load Conditions

Background: Despite the progress made in the study of subjective measures in resistance-training, some questions remain unanswered. Here we investigated if ratings of perceived effort (RPE) can predict task-failure and bar-velocity across exercises and loads as a primary outcome, and whether a battery of subjective measures differ as a function of the lifted loads as a secondary outcome. Methods: In this preregistered study, twenty resistance-trained subjects (50%-females) first completed one repetition-maximum (RM) tests of the barbell-squat and bench-press. On the second and third sessions, subjects completed two sets of squats followed by two sets of bench-press to task-failure, using 70% or 83% of 1RM, while bar-velocity was recorded. RPE scores were recorded after every repetition. In addition to RPE, Rating-of-fatigue, affective-valence, enjoyment, and load-preferences were collected after sets- and sessions-completion. Results: Across conditions, RPE was strongly correlated with reaching task-failure (r= .86) and moderately correlated with bar-velocity (r= -.58). Our model indicates that an increase in one RPE unit is associated with an 11% shift towards task-failure, and a 4% reduction in bar-velocity, with steeper slopes observed in the heavier condition. Negligible differences were observed between the load-conditions in rating-of-fatigue, affective-valence, enjoyment, and load-preference. Conclusion: RPE scores, collected on a repetition-by-repetition basis, accurately reflected reaching task-failure across loads and conditions. Hence, RPE can be used to prescribe repetition numbers during ongoing sets. The negligible differences between load conditions in rating-of-fatigue, affective-valence, enjoyment, and load-preference indicate that when sets are taken to task-failure, loads can be selected based on individual preferences.

Download Full-text

An analysis of the perceived causes leading to task-failure in resistance-exercises

10.31236/osf.io/v3d9q ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Aviv Emanuel ◽

Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽

Israel Halperin

Keyword(s):

Logistic Regression ◽

Muscular Strength ◽

Bench Press ◽

Limiting Factors ◽

Trained Subjects ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Task Failure ◽

Reaching Task ◽

Resistance Exercises ◽

Cardiovascular Strain

Background: While reaching task-failure in resistance-exercises is a topic that attracts scientific and applied interest, the underlying reasons leading to task-failure remain underexplored. Here, we examined the reasons subjects attribute to task-failure as they performed resistance-exercises using different loads.Methods: First, twenty-two resistance-trained subjects (11-females) completed one Repetition-Maximum (RM) tests in the barbell squat and bench-press. In the next two sessions, subjects performed two sets to task-failure in both exercises, using either 70% or 83% of 1RM. Immediately after set-completion, subjects verbally reported the reasons they perceived to cause task-failure. Their answers were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. The differences between the frequencies of the identified categories were then tested using a mixed logistic regression model.Results: The most commonly reported reason was muscle fatigue (54%, p<.001), mostly of the target muscles involved in each exercise. However, remote muscles involved to a lesser extent in each exercise were also reported. Approximately half of the remaining reasons included general fatigue (26%), pain (12%), cardiovascular strain (11%), and negative affect (10%), with the latter reported more often in the squat (p=.022).Conclusions: In contrast to our expectations, task-failure was perceived to be caused by a range of limiting factors other than fatigue of the target muscles. It now remains to be established whether different perceived limiting factors of resistance-exercises lead to different adaptations, such as muscular strength and hypertrophy.

Download Full-text

“Just One More Rep!” – Ability to Predict Proximity to Task Failure in Resistance Trained Persons

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565416 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Cedrik Armes ◽

Henry Standish-Hunt ◽

Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis ◽

Nick Michalopoulos ◽

Tsvetelina Georgieva ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Maximum Voluntary Contraction ◽

Voluntary Contraction ◽

Separate Experiment ◽

Training Experience ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Task Failure ◽

Analytic Estimate ◽

Maximum Effort ◽

Single Repetition

In resistance training, the use of predicting proximity to momentary task failure (MF, i.e., maximum effort), and repetitions in reserve scales specifically, is a growing approach to monitoring and controlling effort. However, its validity is reliant upon accuracy in the ability to predict MF which may be affected by congruence of the perception of effort compared with the actual effort required. The present study examined participants with at least 1 year of resistance training experience predicting their proximity to MF in two different experiments using a deception design. Within each experiment participants performed four trials of knee extensions with single sets (i.e., bouts of repetitions) to their self-determined repetition maximum (sdRM; when they predicted they could not complete the next repetition if attempted and thus would reach MF if they did) and MF (i.e., where despite attempting to do so they could not complete the current repetition). For the first experiment (n = 14) participants used loads equal to 70% of a one repetition maximum (1RM; i.e., the heaviest load that could be lifted for a single repetition) performed in a separate baseline session. Aiming to minimize participants between day variability in repetition performances, in the second separate experiment (n = 24) they used loads equal to 70% of their daily isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Results suggested that participants typically under predicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF with a meta-analytic estimate across experiments of 2.0 [95%CIs 0.0 to 4.0]. Participants with at least 1 year of resistance training experience are likely not adequately accurate at gauging effort in submaximal conditions. This suggests that perceptions of effort during resistance training task performance may not be congruent with the actual effort required. This has implications for controlling, programming, and manipulating the actual effort in resistance training and potentially on the magnitude of desired adaptations such as improvements in muscular hypertrophy and strength.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Recovery Time on Strength Performance Following a High-Intensity Bench Press Workout in Males and Females

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance ◽

10.1123/ijspp.5.2.184 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 184-196 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Lawrence W. Judge ◽

Jeanmarie R. Burke

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Training Program ◽

Recovery Time ◽

Bench Press ◽

Recovery Period ◽

Strength Development ◽

Resistance Training Program ◽

Strength Performance ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Recovery Times

Purpose:To determine the effects of training sessions, involving high-resistance, low-repetition bench press exercise, on strength recovery patterns, as a function of gender and training background.Methods:The subjects were 12 athletes (6 males and 6 females) and age-matched college students of both genders (4 males and 4 females). The subjects completed a 3-wk resistance training program involving a bench press exercise, 3 d/wk, to become familiar with the testing procedure. After the completion of the resistance training program, the subjects, on three consecutive weeks, participated in two testing sessions per week, baseline session and recovery session. During the testing sessions, subjects performed fve sets of the bench press exercise at 50% to 100% of perceived fve repetition maximum (5-RM). Following the weekly baseline sessions, subjects rested during a 4-, 24-, or 48-h recovery period. Strength measurements were estimates of one repetition maximum (1-RM), using equivalent percentages for the number of repetitions completed by the subject at the perceived 5-RM effort of the bench press exercise.Results:The full-factorial ANOVA model revealed a Gender by Recovery Period by Testing Session interaction effect, F(2, 32) = 10.65; P < .05. Among male subjects, decreases in estimated 1-RM were detected at the 4- and 24-h recovery times. There were no differences in muscle strength among the female subjects, regardless of recovery time.Conclusions:For bench press exercises, using different recovery times of 48 h for males and 4 h for females may optimize strength development as a function of gender.

Download Full-text

Acute Effects of High Doses of Caffeine on Bar Velocity during the Bench Press Throw in Athletes Habituated to Caffeine: A Randomized, Double-Blind and Crossover Study

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10194380 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (19) ◽

pp. 4380

Author(s):

Aleksandra Filip-Stachnik ◽

Michal Krzysztofik ◽

Juan Del Coso ◽

Michal Wilk

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Experimental Session ◽

Acute Effects ◽

Mean Velocity ◽

Double Blind ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Randomized Experimental Design ◽

Bar Velocity ◽

High Doses ◽

Acute Intake

Chronic intake of caffeine may produce a reduction in the potential performance benefits obtained with the acute intake of this substance. For this reason, athletes habituated to caffeine often use high doses of caffeine (≥9 mg/kg) to overcome tolerance to caffeine ergogenicity due to chronic intake. The main objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the effects of high caffeine doses on bar velocity during an explosive bench press throw in athletes habituated to caffeine. Twelve resistance-trained athletes, with a moderate-to-high chronic intake of caffeine (~5.3 mg/kg/day) participated in a randomized double-blind and randomized experimental design. Each participant performed three identical experimental sessions 60 min after the intake of a placebo (PLAC) or after the intake of 9 (CAF-9) or 12 mg/kg (CAF-12) of caffeine. In each experimental session, the athletes performed five sets of two repetitions of the bench press throw exercise with a load equivalent to 30% of their one-repetition maximum. In comparison to PLAC, the intake of caffeine increased peak and mean velocity (p < 0.01) during the five sets of the bench press throw exercise. There were no significant differences in peak and mean bar velocity between the two doses of caffeine (CAF-9 vs. CAF-12; p = 0.91, = 0.96, respectively). The ingestion of high doses of caffeine was effective in producing an increase in mean and peak bar velocity during the bench press throw in a group of habitual caffeine users. However, using CAF-12 did not offer additional benefits for performance with respect to CAF-9.

Download Full-text

The effect of self-selecting the number of repetitions on motor performance and psychological outcomes

10.31236/osf.io/en3wx ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Aviv Emanuel ◽

Itai Har-Nir ◽

Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽

Israel Halperin

Keyword(s):

Motor Performance ◽

Bench Press ◽

Force Production ◽

Psychological Outcomes ◽

The Self ◽

Considerable Variability ◽

Trained Subjects ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Bar Velocity

In resistance-training, the number of repetitions can be either fixed and predetermined (e.g., 3 sets of 10 repetitions), or selected by the trainee during ongoing sets (e.g., 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions). The first approach is more goal-focused while the latter is more autonomy-focused. Here we compared between these two approaches on motor performance and psychological outcomes. Nineteen resistance-trained subjects (10-males) first completed one repetition-maximum (RM) tests in the barbell-squat and bench-press, and were familiarized with the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). In the next two counterbalanced sessions, subjects completed two sets of the squat and bench-press using 70%1RM, and two sets of the IMTP. In the predetermined session, subjects completed 10 repetitions in all sets, and in the self-selected session, subjects chose how many repetitions to complete out of an 8-12 range. Bar-velocity was measured in the squat and bench-press, and force production in the IMTP. Enjoyment, perceived-autonomy, and approach-preferences were collected post-sessions. We observed comparable bar-velocity, force production, and enjoyment in both conditions (all BF01>2.1), and an even approach-preferences split. However, in the self-selected condition, subjects demonstrated considerable variability in the number of repetitions and reported greater perceived-autonomy. Given the similarities between approaches, both can be used with this cohort based on their personal-preference. Yet, we note that the self-selected approach has two distinct benefits: the variability in the number of repetitions completed suggests that subjects regulated their efforts, and the higher perceived autonomy could lead to long-term improvements in motor and psychological outcomes.

Download Full-text

Exploring the acute affective responses to resistance training: A comparison of the predetermined and the estimated repetitions to failure approaches

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0256231 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (8) ◽

pp. e0256231

Author(s):

Hadar Schwartz ◽

Aviv Emanuel ◽

Isaac Isur Rozen Samukas ◽

Israel Halperin

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Knee Extension ◽

Affective Responses ◽

Affective Valence ◽

Task Failure ◽

Leg Press ◽

Effort Regulation ◽

The Mean ◽

Age Range ◽

Repetitions To Failure

Background In resistance-training (RT), the number of repetitions is traditionally prescribed using a predetermined approach (e.g., three sets of 10 repetitions). An emerging alternative is the estimated repetitions to failure (ERF) approach (e.g., terminating sets two repetitions from failure). Despite the importance of affective responses experienced during RT, a comparison between the two approaches on such outcomes is lacking. Methods Twenty women (age range: 23–45 years) without RT experience completed estimated one repetition maximum (RM) tests in four exercises. In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants performed the exercises using 70%1RM. Participants completed ten repetitions in all three sets (predetermined condition) or terminated the sets when perceived to be two repetitions away from task-failure (ERF condition). Primary outcomes were affective-valence, enjoyment, and approach-preference and secondary outcomes were repetition-numbers completed in each exercise. Results We observed trivial differences in the subjective measures and an approximately even approach-preference split. Under the ERF condition, we observed greater variability in repetition-numbers between participants and across exercises. Specifically, the mean number of repetitions was slightly lower in the chest-press, knee-extension, and lat-pulldown (~1 repetition) but considerably higher in the leg-press (17 vs. 10, p<0.01). Conclusions Both approaches led to comparable affective responses and to an approximately even approach preference. Hence, prior to prescribing either approach, coaches should consider trainee’s preferences. Moreover, under the ERF condition participants completed a dissimilar number of repetitions across exercises while presumably reaching a similar proximity to task-failure. This finding suggests that ERF allows for better effort regulation between exercises.

Download Full-text

The Effects of the Movement Tempo on the One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press Results

Journal of Human Kinetics ◽

10.2478/hukin-2020-0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 72 (1) ◽

pp. 151-159 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Michal Wilk ◽

Artur Golas ◽

Piotr Zmijewski ◽

Michal Krzysztofik ◽

Aleksandra Filip ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Bench Press ◽

Trial And Error ◽

Training Experience ◽

Test Procedures ◽

Test Protocol ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

One Year ◽

The One

AbstractDifferent tempos of movement can be used during resistance training, but programming them is often a trial-and-error practice, as changing the speed at which the exercise is performed does not always correspond with the tempo at which the 1-repetition-maximum occurred. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of different movement tempos during the bench press (BP) exercise on the one-repetition maximum (1RM) load. Ninety men (age = 25.8 ± 5.3 years, body mass = 80.2 ± 14.9 kg), with a minimum one year of resistance training experience took part in the study. Using a randomized crossover design, each participant completed the BP 1RM test with five different movement tempos: V/0/V/0, 2/0/V/0, 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0. Repeated measures ANOVA compared the differences between the 1RM at each tempo. The 1RM load was significantly greater during V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 compared to 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0, and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the 1RM load was significantly greater during 5/0/V/0 compared to 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01), but there were no differences between either V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 (p = 0.92) or between 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p = 0.08). Therefore, different movement tempos used during training should be accompanied by their own tempo-specific 1RM testing, as slower eccentric phases significantly decrease maximal concentric performance. Furthermore, 1RM test procedures should include information about the movement tempo used during the test protocol. In addition, the standardization of the tempo should be taken into account in investigations that use the 1 RM test to assess the effects of any treatment on maximal muscle strength.

Download Full-text