scholarly journals The Effects of Lifting Lighter and Heavier Loads on Subjective Measures

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The effects of lifting lighter and heavier loads on subjective measures

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.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Isaac Rozen Smukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Affective Valence ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Position Transducer ◽  
Feeling Scale ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Bar Velocity

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.

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

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&lt;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.

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

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&lt;.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.

scholarly journals 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

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.

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

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&gt;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.

scholarly journals Predicting Power Output of Upper Body using the OMNI-RES Scale

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iker J. Bautista ◽  
Ignacio J. Chirosa ◽  
Ignacio Martín Tamayo ◽  
Andrés González ◽  
Joseph E. Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Strong Correlation ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Prediction Equation ◽  
Maximum Power ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Bar Velocity

Abstract The main aim of this study was to determine the optimal training zone for maximum power output. This was to be achieved through estimating mean bar velocity of the concentric phase of a bench press using a prediction equation. The values for the prediction equation would be obtained using OMNI-RES scale values of different loads of the bench press exercise. Sixty males ( voluntarily participated in the study and were tested using an incremental protocol on a Smith machine to determine one repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press exercise. A linear regression analysis produced a strong correlation (r = -0.94) between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and mean bar velocity (Velmean). The Pearson correlation analysis between real power output (PotReal) and estimated power (PotEst) showed a strong correlation coefficient of r = 0.77, significant at a level of p = 0.01. Therefore, the OMNI-RES scale can be used to predict Velmean in the bench press exercise to control the intensity of the exercise. The positive relationship between PotReal and PotEst allowed for the identification of a maximum power-training zone.

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

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e9611
Author(s):  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Isaac Isur Rozen Smukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Muscular Strength ◽  
Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Limiting Factors ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Reaching Task ◽  
Resistance Exercises ◽  
Perceived Reasons ◽  
Cardiovascular Strain

Background While reaching task-failure in resistance-exercises is a topic that attracts scientific and applied interest, the underlying perceived 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 Twenty-two resistance-trained subjects (11-females) completed one Repetition-Maximum (RM) tests in the barbell squat and bench-press. Then, in the next two counterbalanced sessions, subjects performed two sets to task-failure in both exercises, using either 70% or 83% of 1RM. Approximately 30 seconds after set-completion, subjects verbally reported the reasons they perceived to have caused them to reach 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 < 0.001), 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 three reported more often in the squat (p = 0.022). 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 establishedwhether different perceived limiting factors of resistance-exercises lead to different adaptations, such as muscular strength and hypertrophy.

Relationship Between Throwing Velocity, Muscle Power, and Bar Velocity During Bench Press in Elite Handball Players

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mário C. Marques ◽  
Roland van den Tillaar ◽  
Jason D. Vescovi ◽  
Juan José González-Badillo
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Muscle Power ◽  
Dynamic Strength ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Team Handball ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Maximal Dynamic Strength

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between ball-throwing velocity during a 3-step running throw and dynamic strength, power, and bar velocity during a concentric-only bench-press exercise in team-handball players.Methods:Fourteen elite senior male team-handball players volunteered to participate. Each volunteer had power and bar velocity measured during a concentric-only bench-press test with 26, 36, and 46 kg, as well as having 1-repetition-maximum (1-RMBP) strength determined. Ball-throwing velocity was evaluated with a standard 3-step running throw using a radar gun.Results:Ball-throwing velocity was related to the absolute load lifted during the 1-RMBP (r = .637, P = .014), peak power using 36 kg (r = .586, P = .028) and 46 kg (r = .582, P = .029), and peak bar velocity using 26 kg (r = .563, P = .036) and 36 kg (r = .625, P = .017).Conclusions:The results indicate that throwing velocity of elite team-handball players is related to maximal dynamic strength, peak power, and peak bar velocity. Thus, a training regimen designed to improve ball-throwing velocity in elite male team-handball players should include exercises that are aimed at increasing both strength and power in the upper body.

scholarly journals Acute effects of different rest period between sets on neuromuscular bench press performance

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
Estêvão Rios Monteiro ◽  
Victor Gonçalves Corrêa Neto ◽  
Jefferson Da Silva Novaes
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Rest Period ◽  
Rest Interval ◽  
Acute Effects ◽  
Fatigue Index ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Press Performance ◽  
Rest Intervals

Introduction: Manipulation of resistance training variables allows the maintenance the performance of the proposed exercise. Objetctive: To evaluation the acute effects of different rest intervals on maximum repetition performance, perceived exertion, and fatigue index on bench press. Methods: Following ten-repetition maximum testing and retesting, four experimental sessions involved seven bench press sets to concentric failure with the goal of completing the maximum number of repetitions, which included: 1) one-minute rest interval between sets (P1), 2) two-minute rest interval between sets (P2), three-minute rest interval between sets (P3), and five-minute rest interval between sets (P5). Results: A main result was observed in maximum repetition performance for all sets (p0.001). In the fatigue index, only P3 and P5 showed significant differences compared to all other protocols (p0.001). Besides, the perceived exertion shows a similar trend to fatigue index for longer rest intervals. Conclusion: Reducing the maximum repetition performance in shorter intervals is an important tool for reducing the total workout time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document