Repetitions In Reserve Research Articles

Effect Of Proximity To Failure During Resistance Training On Bench Press Strength

PURPOSE: To compare changes in bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) between training programs with different proximities to failure using the repetitions in reserve (RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. METHODS: Fourteen males (height: 175.77 ± 5.72 cm, body mass: 80.15 ± 13.12 kg, bench press one-repetition maximum-1RM relative to body mass: 1.27 ± 0.12) with ≥2 yrs of bench press experience were assigned to one of two groups: 1) 4-6 RPE, n = 7 (4-6 RIR) or 2) 7-9 RPE, n = 7 (1-3 RIR) for 8wks. Pre and post 1RM strength testing was performed 48 hours before the first training session and 48 hours after the last training session, respectively. Both groups performed the bench press 3x/wk on non-consecutive days (e.g., Mon., Wed., Fri.) using the same number of sets and repetitions on an undulating resistance training program, which linearly decreased repetitions throughout. Weeks 1-3 consisted of 10, 8, and 6 repetitions on sessions 1, 2, and 3, respectively; weeks 4-5 consisted of 9, 7, and 5 repetitions; and weeks 6-7 consisted of 8, 6, and 4 repetitions. Week 1 served as an introductory week in which fewer sets were performed at a lower RPE. Week 8 served as a taper with 4 and 2 repetition days on session 1 and session 2, respectively, followed by post-testing in session 3. In weeks 2-7 (i.e., main training period), 10 weekly sets were performed. Subjects were instructed to select a load in which the set ended with 4-6 RPE or 7-9 RPE. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess 1RM changes and independent t-tests compared relative intensity (% of 1RM) and relative volume (% of 1RM × reps). RESULTS: Significant increases in 1RM bench press strength were observed in both the 4-6 RPE group (104.79 ± 27.90 to 114.93 ± 24.35 kg; p < 0.01; +10.91%; g = 0.30) and 7-9 RPE group (103.07 ± 19.58 to 112.86 ± 18.39 kg; p < 0.01; +9.98%; g = 0.29); however, no significant group × time interactions were observed (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the 4-6 RPE and 7-9 RPE groups for relative intensity (80.1 ± 4.23 vs. 83.9 ± 3.15% of 1RM; p = 0.083) or relative volume (377.0 ± 18.24 vs. 393.5 ± 15.34 kg; p = 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that resistance training with 4-6 RPE and 7-9 RPE produce similar bench press strength improvements.

Effect Of Proximity To Failure During Resistance Training On Pectoralis Major Muscle Thickness

PURPOSE: To compare changes in pectoralis major muscle thickness (chest MT) between training programs with different proximities to failure using the repetitions in reserve (RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. METHODS: Fourteen males (height: 175.77 ± 5.72 cm, body mass: 80.15 ± 13.12 kg, bench press one-repetition maximum-1RM relative to body mass: 1.27 ± 0.12) with ≥2 yrs of bench press experience were assigned to one of two groups: 1) 4-6 RPE, n = 7 (4-6 RIR) or 2) 7-9 RPE, n = 7 (1-3 RIR) for 8wks. Pre and post chest MT via ultrasound was performed 48 hours before the first training session and 48 hours after the last training session, respectively. Both groups performed the bench press 3x/wk on non-consecutive days (e.g., Mon., Wed., Fri.) using the same number of sets and repetitions on an undulating resistance training program, which linearly decreased repetitions throughout. Weeks 1-3 consisted of 10, 8, and 6 repetitions on sessions 1, 2, and 3, respectively; weeks 4-5 consisted of 9, 7, and 5 repetitions; and weeks 6-7 consisted of 8, 6, and 4 repetitions. Week 1 served as an introductory week in which fewer sets were performed at a lower RPE. Week 8 served as a taper with 4 and 2 repetition days on session 1 and session 2, respectively, followed by post-testing in session 3. In weeks 2-7 (i.e., main training period), 10 weekly sets were performed. Subjects were instructed to select a load in which the set ended with 4-6 RPE or 7-9 RPE. Equivalence testing and 90% confidence intervals were used to compare changes in chest MT. Independent t-tests were used to compare relative intensity (% of 1RM) and relative volume (% of 1RM × reps). RESULTS: Equivalence testing confidence intervals crossed both g = 0.0 and g = ±0.20 thresholds; suggesting changes in chest MT did not statistically differ between 4-6 RPE and 7-9 RPE groups but were also inconclusive (24.21 ± 5.75 to 25.00 ± 5.51 mm; +7.89% vs. 22.50 ± 6.46 to 22.73 ± 4.30 mm; +4.05%). No significant differences were observed between the 4-6 RPE and 7-9 RPE groups for relative intensity (80.1 ± 4.23 vs. 83.9 ± 3.15% of 1RM; p = 0.083) or relative volume (377.0 ± 18.24 vs. 393.5 ± 15.34 kg; p = 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not conclusively indicate whether chest MT changes were statistically similar or statistically different between resistance training with 4-6 RPE and 7-9 RPE.

Femoral Neuropathy Following Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) Procedure: A Case Report

Background The extreme lateral interbody fusion approach (XLIF) is a surgical technique introduced two decades ago for spinal fusions. However, little has been published on the particular complications associated with this surgical technique and the rehabilitation. The purpose of this report is to describe a case of post-operative complication of retroperitoneal hematoma following XLIF with subsequent femoral neuropathy and the physical therapy intervention approach applying the repetitions in reserve (RIR) concept. Case Presentation A 60-year-old female presented with severe right hip flexor and quadriceps weakness from a retroperitoneal hematoma following a right-sided XLIF procedure for severe right L4-5 radiculopathy. Post-surgical physical therapy treatment and 6-month outcomes are described. Outcome and Follow Up By post-operative week 12, the patient obtained a knee brace that eliminated her falls due to quadriceps weakness. At 6 months post-operatively, she demonstrated significantly improved quadriceps and hip flexor strength (from 1/5 and 2+/5, respectively, to 3+/5), and improved lower extremity functional scale score, from 30 to 58. She was also able to complete a 6-minute walk test and ambulated 128 m. Discussion Significant improvement in motor function and functional outcomes was noted by post-operative month six. The role of physical therapy was to focus on the timing of muscle reactivation using electrical stimulation and progressive resistance exercises using the RIR concept as nerve function returned. JOSPT Cases 2022;2(3):162–165. Epub: 21 June 2022. doi:10.2519/josptcases.2022.10895

Effects of Resistance Training in Hypobaric vs. Normobaric Hypoxia on Circulating Ions and Hormones.

Hypobaric hypoxia (HH) seems to lead to different responses compared to normobaric hypoxia (NH) during physical conditioning. The aim of the study was to analyze the hormonal and circulating ion responses after performing high-intensity resistance training with different inter-set rest under HH and NH condition. Sixteen male volunteers were randomly divided into two training groups. Each group completed two counterbalanced resistance training sessions (three sets × ten repetitions, remaining two repetitions in reserve), with both one- and two-minute inter-set rest, under HH and NH. Blood samples were obtained to determine hormones and circulating ions (Ca2+, Pi, and HCO3−) at baseline and after training sessions (5, 10, and 30 min). Resistance training with one-minute rest caused greater hormonal stress than with two-minute rest in cortisol and growth hormone, although the hypoxic environmental condition did not cause any significant alterations in these hormones. The short inter-set rest also caused greater alterations in HCO3− and Pi than the longer rest. Additionally, higher levels of Ca2+ and Pi, and lower levels of HCO3−, were observed after training in HH compared to NH. Metabolic and physiological responses after resistance training are mediated by inter-set rest intervals and hypoxic environmental condition. According to the alterations observed in the circulating ions, HH could cause greater muscular fatigue and metabolic stress than NH.

Estimating Repetitions in Reserve in Four Commonly Used Resistance Exercises.

Hughes, LJ, Peiffer, JJ, and Scott, B. Estimating repetitions in reserve in four commonly used resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-This study aimed to determine the accuracy and reliability of estimating repetitions in reserve (RIR) across the squat, bench press, overhead press, and prone row exercises, using both free-weight and Smith machine modalities. Twenty-one trained men attended the laboratory on 14 occasions. They were assessed for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for the squat, bench press, prone row, and overhead press exercises and subsequently completed 6 RIR testing sessions using 65, 75, and 85% 1RM. In these trials, subjects indicated when they reached 2 RIR (i.e., perceive they could only perform 2 more repetitions), before continuing the set to failure. The same process was then replicated using the alternative equipment modality. To determine accuracy of 2-RIR estimates, 1-sample t-tests assessed differences between 2 and the actual number of repetitions completed after subjects indicated they had reached 2 RIR. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine the reliability of test-retest RIR estimated. There were no clear differences in the accuracy or reliability of estimating RIR between free-weight and Smith machine exercises. Load, however, proved an important factor with the highest accuracy associated with RIR estimations performed when using 85%, followed by 75 and 65% 1RM, respectively. When using loads of 75 and 65% 1RM, it was increasingly likely that individuals would underestimate RIR by >1 repetition, which would practically lead to an undesired reduction in training volume. These results highlight that although estimates of 2 RIR may be accurate and reliable in heavy load resistance training (≥85% 1RM), practitioners should be wary of using this measure with lighter loads.

Effect of the Repetitions-In-Reserve Resistance Training Strategy on Bench Press Performance, Perceived Effort, and Recovery in Trained Men.

Mangine, GT, Serafini, PR, Stratton, MT, Olmos, AA, VanDusseldorp, TA, and Feito, Y. Effect of the repetitions-in-reserve resistance training strategy on bench press performance, perceived effort, and recovery in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 36(1): 1-9, 2022-This study examined the effects of the repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) strategy on resistance exercise performance, perceived effort, and recovery. Fourteen resistance-trained men (24.6 ± 3.0 years, 176 ± 5 cm, 85.7 ± 14.0 kg) completed 2 bench press protocols in a randomized crossover fashion. The protocols consisted of 4 sets at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) to a self-reported 3-RIR and a fifth set to failure or all 5 sets to failure (0-RIR). Barbell kinetics (velocity, rate of force development, and impulse), repetition volume, total work, and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were quantified on each set. Barbell kinetics were reassessed during one set of 3 repetitions at 80% 1RM completed at 24-hour, 48-hour, and 72-hour postexercise. Blood samples were collected before and after exercise at 6 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours and analyzed for concentrations of creatine kinase (CK). Separate, 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed significant interactions (p < 0.001) where 3-RIR better maintained repetitions and work at greater average velocity (+0.6 m·s-1) and lower RPE (0-RIR = 10; 3-RIR = 8.2) across all sets. No differences were seen between conditions for CK at 6 hours postexercise (3-RIR: 32.2 ± 55.3%; 0-RIR: 40.8 ± 66.0%) or for CK and barbell kinetics at 24 hours to 72 hours postexercise. Although no differences were seen for recovery, the RIR strategy enabled work to be better sustained across sets at a lower perceived effort and higher average velocity. This strategy could be used to manage fatigue and better sustain effort and volume during a resistance training session.

Validation of the Repetitions in Reserve Rating Scale in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes.

The present study aimed to validate the perceived exertion scale based on the repetitions in reserve (RIR) of Paralympic Powerlifting (PP) athletes. Twenty-one PP athletes were assessed in the one-maximum repetition test (1RM) of the bench press exercise, maximum repetition strength tests with loads corresponding to 90, 85, 80, and 75% of 1RM, and 4-repetitions strength tests (4-repST) with 100, 90, 85, 80, and 75% of the 1RM. The RIR scale was assessed after each set of the 4-repST and compared to the 1RM and maximum strength tests. For criterion validity, the total estimated repetition was significantly lower compared to the maximum strength test repetitions in the lower scores of the RIR scale (median=7.0 vs. 9.0 for 75% of 1RM). The total estimated repetition correlation with maximum strength was very high and significant (ICC=0.91). Using the Bland and Altman method, the difference between means was 0.9 reps, and the interval around differences was 6.4 reps. For construct validity, and the RIR scale presented high correlation with 1RM intensities (rho=0.86, p≤0.05). The RIR scale was validated and coaches and sports trainers can use this monitoring tool to ensure submaximal loads when improving lift technique, which is extremely rigorous in PP.

Training for Muscular Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity.

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength-power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete's performance capabilities. An athlete's daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner 'sees', and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

Repetitions in Reserve Is a Reliable Tool for Prescribing Resistance Training Load.

Lovegrove, S, Hughes, L, Mansfield, S, Read, P, Price, P, and Patterson, SD. Repetitions in reserve is a reliable tool for prescribing resistance training load. J Strength Cond Res 36(10): 2696-2700, 2022-This study investigated the reliability of repetitions in reserve (RIR) as a method for prescribing resistance training load for the deadlift and bench press exercises. Fifteen novice trained men (age: 17.3 ± 0.9 years, height: 176.0 ± 8.8 cm, body mass: 71.3 ± 10.7 kg) were assessed for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for deadlift (118.1 ± 27.3 kg) and bench press (58.2 ± 18.6 kg). Subsequently, they completed 3 identical sessions (one familiarization session and 2 testing sessions) comprising sets of 3, 5, and 8 repetitions. For each repetition scheme, the load was progressively increased in successive sets until subjects felt they reached 1-RIR at the end of the set. Test-retest reliability of load prescription between the 2 testing sessions was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). A 2-way analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for each exercise to assess differences in the load corresponding to 1-RIR within each repetition scheme. All test-retest comparisons demonstrated a high level of reliability (deadlift: ICC = 0.95-0.99, CV = 2.7-5.7% and bench press: ICC = 0.97-0.99, CV = 3.8-6.2%). Although there were no differences between time points, there was a difference for load corresponding to 1-RIR across the 3 repetition schemes (deadlift: 88.2, 84.3, and 79.2% 1RM; bench press: 93.0, 87.3, and 79.6% 1RM for the 3-, 5-, and 8-repetition sets, respectively). These results suggest that RIR is a reliable tool for load prescription in a young novice population. Furthermore, the between-repetition scheme differences highlight that practitioners can effectively manipulate load and volume (repetitions in a set) throughout a training program to target specific resistance training adaptations.

Rating of Perceived Exertion and Velocity Relationships Among Trained Males and Females in the Front Squat and Hexagonal Bar Deadlift.

Odgers, JB, Zourdos, MC, Helms, ER, Candow, DG, Dahlstrom, B, Bruno, P, and Sousa, CA. Rating of perceived exertion and velocity relationships among trained males and females in the front squat and hexagonal bar deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S23-S30, 2021-This study examined the accuracy of intraset rating of perceived exertion (RPE) to predict repetitions in reserve (RIR) during sets to failure at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) on the front squat and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD). Furthermore, the relationship between RPE and average concentric velocity (ACV) during the sets to failure was also determined. Fourteen males (29 ± 6 years, front squat relative 1RM: 1.78 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1, and HHBD relative 1RM: 3.0 ± 0.1 kg·kg-1) and 13 females (30 ± 5 years, front squat relative 1RM: 1.60 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1, and HHBD relative 1RM: 2.5 ± 0.3 kg·kg-1) visited the laboratory 3 times. The first visit tested 1RM on both exercises. During visits 2 and 3, which were performed in a counterbalanced order, subjects performed 4 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM for both exercises. During each set, subjects verbally indicated when they believed they were at "6" and "9" on the RIR-based RPE scale, and ACV was assessed during every repetition. The difference between the actual and predicted repetitions performed was recorded as the RPE difference (RPEDIFF). The RPEDIFF was significantly (p < 0.001) lower at the called 9 RPE versus the called 6 RPE in the front squat for males (9 RPE: 0.09 ± 0.19 versus 6 RPE: 0.71 ± 0.70) and females (9 RPE: 0.19 ± 0.36 versus 6 RPE: 0.86 ± 0.88) and in the HHBD for males (9 RPE: 0.25 ± 0.46 versus 6 RPE: 1.00 ± 1.12) and females (9 RPE: 0.21 ± 0.44 versus 6 RPE: 1.19 ± 1.16). Significant inverse relationships existed between RPE and ACV during both exercises (r = -0.98 to -1.00). These results indicate that well-trained males and females can gauge intraset RPE accurately during moderate repetition sets on the front squat and HHBD.

Relationship Between Velocity Loss and Repetitions in Reserve in the Bench Press and Back Squat Exercises.

Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Yáñez-García, JM, Sánchez-Medina, L, Mora-Custodio, R, and González-Badillo, JJ. Relationship between velocity loss and repetitions in reserve in the bench press and back squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res 34(9): 2537-2547, 2020-This study aimed to compare the pattern of repetition velocity decline during a single set to failure performed against 4 relative loads in the bench press (BP) and full back squat (SQ) exercises. After an initial test to determine 1 repetition maximum (1RM) strength and load-velocity relationships, 20 men performed one set of repetitions to failure (MNR test) against loads of 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM in BP and SQ, on 8 random order sessions performed every 6-7 days. Velocity against the load that elicited a ∼1.00 m·s (V1 m·s load) was measured before and immediately after each MNR test, and it was considered a measure of acute muscle fatigue. The number of repetitions completed against each relative load showed high interindividual variability in both BP (coefficient of variation [CV]: 15-22%) and SQ (CV: 26-34%). Strong relationships were found between the relative loss of velocity in the set and the percentage of performed repetitions in both exercises (R = 0.97 and 0.93 for BP and SQ, respectively). Equations to predict repetitions left in reserve from velocity loss are provided. For a given magnitude of velocity loss within the set (15-65%), the percentages of performed repetitions were lower for the BP compared with the SQ for all loads analyzed. Acute fatigue after each set to failure was found dependent on the magnitude of velocity loss (r = 0.97 and 0.99 for BP and SQ, respectively) but independent of the number of repetitions completed by each participant (p > 0.05) for both exercises. The percentage of velocity loss against the V1 m·s load decreased as relative load increased, being greater for BP than SQ. These findings indicate that monitoring repetition velocity can be used to provide a very good estimate of the number (or percentage) of repetitions actually performed and those left in reserve in each exercise set, and thus to more objectively quantify the level of effort incurred during resistance training.

Estimating Repetitions in Reserve for Resistance Exercise: An Analysis of Factors Which Impact on Prediction Accuracy.

Mansfield, Sean, K, Peiffer, Jeremiah, J, Hughes, Liam, J, and Scott Brendan, R. Estimating repetitions in reserve for resistance exercise: an analysis of factors which impact on prediction accuracy. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of knowing the load being lifted on the accuracy of repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) estimates, during both moderate- (60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) and heavy-load (80% 1RM) exercise. Twenty trained men (age: 25.9 ± 4.5 years, height: 181 ± 7 cm, body mass: 86.5 ± 13.7 kg) were assessed for 1RM in bench press (98.4 ± 16.4 kg) and prone row (72.0 ± 11.7 kg), before being randomized into control (i.e., informed of the load; n = 10) or blinded (noninformed; n = 10) conditions. Subjects then completed 2 protocols in a randomized order: 3 sets at 80% 1RM and 3 sets at 60% 1RM. During each set of these protocols, subjects were asked to estimate their RIR before continuing the set to failure. Differences in estimated and actual RIR between sets and conditions were determined via 3-way repeated measures analysis of variance for the 60 and 80% 1RM protocols independently. No differences in RIR accuracy were observed between blinded vs nonblinded conditions. Repetitions-in-reserve estimates were lower than actual RIR for the first set of both exercises in 60 and 80% protocols (p ≤ 0.007, effect size [ES]: 1.30-2.89 [moderate-large]) and for set 2 of the 80% bench press protocol (p = 0.046, ES: 0.39 [small]). Knowing the load during resistance exercise or the %1RM of the load lifted did not influence the estimates of RIR. The ability to accurately determine RIR in the 60 and 80% 1RM protocols improved from sets 1-3, indicating that estimation of RIR is enhanced when an individual is estimating RIR at a closer point to actual failure.

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training.

Individualisation can improve resistance training prescription. This is accomplished via monitoring or autoregulating training. Autoregulation adjusts variables at an individualised pace per performance, readiness, or recovery. Many autoregulation and monitoring methods exist; therefore, this review’s objective was to examine approaches intended to optimise adaptation. Up to July 2019, PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies on methods of athlete monitoring useful for resistance-training regulation, or autoregulated training methods were included. Eleven monitoring and regulation themes emerged across 90 studies. Some physiological, performance, and perceptual measures correlated strongly (r ≥ 0.68) with resistance training performance. Testosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, cell-free DNA, jump height, throwing distance, barbell velocity, isometric and dynamic peak force, maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and sessional, repetitions in reserve-(RIR) based, and post-set Borg-scale ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were strongly associated with training performance, respectively. Despite strong correlations, many physiological and performance methods are logistically restrictive or limited to lab-settings, such as blood markers, electromyography or kinetic measurements. Some practical performance tests such as jump height or throw distance may be useful, low-risk stand-ins for maximal strength tests. Performance-based individualisation of load progression, flexible training configurations, and intensity and volume modifications based on velocity and RIR-based RPE scores are practical, reliable and show preliminary utility for enhancing performance.

RE: Mesocycle Progression in Hypertrophy: Volume Versus Intensity

RE: Mesocycle Progression in Hypertrophy: Volume Versus Intensity

Repetitions in reserve vs. maximum effort resistance training programs in youth female athletes.

This study aimed to analyze and compare the effects of two different resistance training programs. Fourteen under-17 youth female basketball players were randomly assigned to repetitions in reserve (RIR, N.=7) or maximum effort (RM, N.=7) resistance training programs. The programs consisted of 3-4 sets of 4 exercises x 7-10 repetitions with 2 min of passive recovery between sets and exercises, twice a week for a period of 8 weeks. The RIR group was instructed to perform the exercises with 3 repetitions remaining (rate of perceived exertion [RPE] =7). The physical assessment included jumping, agility, and sprinting tests. Moreover, the maximum strength (one maximum-repetition [1-RM]) and muscle power output at 60% 1RM were assessed for back-squat and bench-press exercises. The within-group analysis showed improvements in all tests for both groups (RIR=1.3-43.9%; RM=1.3-17.2%). Between-group analyses showed a significant interaction effect (group x time) on 1-RM bench-press (F=8.07, P<0.05, η2<inf>p</inf>=0.40), favoring RIR group. This study reports for the first time that the use of RIR-based RPE resistance training protocol promotes improvements in high-intensity actions (sprinting, jumping, and cutting), muscle power output, and maximum strength, particularly in youth athletes. Considering the advantages of non-failure training, RIR training may be a suitable in-season training strategy. However, more studies are needed to confirm whether the training-induced benefits of this novel training strategy are significantly better as compared to other approaches.

The Effects of Increasing Training Load on Affect and Perceived Exertion.

Cavarretta, DJ, Hall, EE, and Bixby, WR. The effects of increasing training load on affect and perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res 36(1): 16-21, 2022-This study was designed to investigate how affect and ratings of perceived exertion based on repetitions in reserve (RPE/RIR) change as a function of increasing load during a 10 repetition maximum (RM) test. Twenty-nine novice lifters completed a 10RM test for 2 different conditions presented in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. RPE/RIR and affect were assessed immediately after each successful 10RM attempt. RPE/RIR was significantly different at all loads from 50 to 100% 10RM (p < 0.001) with no differences between exercise and exercise load (p = 0.059). RPE/RIR was higher for all lower body exercises compared with upper-body exercises (p < 0.001) but was not different between machine and free-weight exercises (p > 0.344). Affect became less positive only at 100% 10RM compared with all other loads (p < 0.05). Finally, affect was more positive for upper-body exercises compared to lower-body exercises (p = 0.025) and more positive for machines compared to free-weights (p = 0.015). The results of this study suggest that among novice lifters, RPE/RIR increases as load increases during a 10RM and affective valence remains relatively constant but becomes less positive when exercising at maximal intensities (100% 10RM). Further research is needed to replicate these findings and elucidate the effects of different muscles used (e.g., upper vs. lower body) and modality of exercise (e.g., machine vs. free-weight) on RPE/RIR and affect among both novice and experienced lifters.

Classic Powerlifting Performance: A Systematic Review.

Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all scientific publications related to able-body drug-tested classic powerlifting performance since January 1, 2012, and to regroup them into a brief narrative review. Three electronic databases were systematically searched in August 2018 using the wildcard: powerlift*. A manual search was performed from the reference list of all retained articles. The search and selection strategy permitted to gather a total of 16 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Results show that practitioners should prioritize a low-bar squat and a wide grip bench press because they generally contribute to moving greater loads, bring more attention to preventing injuries, since a fair amount of powerlifters seem to train injured and prioritize a hypertrophy-power-strength model when prescribing 3 times a week daily undulating periodization on nonconsecutive days for squat and bench. Practitioners could also introduce respiratory muscle training, use daily 1 repetition maximum training combined with down sets on experienced athletes and use a rate of perceived exertion scale based on repetitions in reserve combined with an individual velocity profile when prescribing intensity. Before competition, powerlifters seem to taper in this order: the deadlift, the squat, and lastly the bench press. The Slingshot does help to move more weight because it helps to generate more inertia, but it also deactivates the triceps. Finally, the present work was limited by the present literature but could serve as a reference in the field of powerlifting. Further research should include more details about the circumstances under which they were conducted.

Proximity To Failure And Repetitions Per Set Effect Rpe Accuracy In The Squat, Bench Press, And Deadlift

The repetitions in reserve (RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale has gained significant popularity. Previous data has shown that intra-set RIR predictions become more accurate closer to failure. However, research has yet to examine this concept in the deadlift. PURPOSE: This investigation examined proximity to failure and total repetitions per set on intra-set RPE accuracy. METHODS: Ten males (age: 25.0±4.0yrs, body mass: 84.1±14.3kg, training age: 6.9±4.0yrs) performed 4 sets to failure at 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) on the squat, bench press, and deadlift in successive weeks; in a counterbalanced order. During all sets, subjects indicated when they believed to be at a 6 and 9RPE (i.e. 4 and 1RIR). The RIR difference (RIRDIFF) was calculated by subtracting the predicted number of repetitions from the actual number of repetitions performed. Thus, if 10 repetitions were performed, but a 9RPE was called after 7 repetitions (predicting 8 repetitions), then the RIRIDFF would have equaled 2 (i.e. RIRDIFF=10-8). The RIRDIFF at the called 6 and 9RPE was analyzed with a paired t-test and Pearson’s correlations were used to assess the relationship between repetitions per set and RIRDIFF; significance was set at p≤0.05. RESULTS: The RIRDIFF across all sets of all exercises and within each individual exercise was significantly lower (p<0.01) at the called 9 vs. 6RPE. Across all squat sets the RIRDIFF at 6RPE was 1.00±1.13 vs. 0.67±0.69 at the called 9RPE (p=0.04, effect size-ES=0.35). Bench press RIRDIFF across all sets was 0.84±0.81 at the called 6 vs. 0.51±0.58 at the called 9RPE (p<0.01, ES=0.46). Additionally, deadlift had an RIRDIFF of 1.12±1.05 at the called 6RPE vs. an RIRDIFF of 0.56±0.70 at the called 9RPE (p<0.01, ES=0.62). Total repetitions performed per set were significantly related to a higher RIRDIFF (i.e. more inaccurate RPE ratings) on squat at 6RPE (r=0.47, p<0.01), and bench at 6RPE (r=0.50, p<0.01) and bench at 9RPE (r=0.60, p<0.01). There was no relationship between repetitions performed and RIRDIFF at the squat called 9RPE or either called RPE on the deadlift (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that intra-set RPE ratings are more accurate closer to failure on all three exercises and that more repetitions per set may lead to more inaccurate RIR predictions on the squat and bench press.

Optimal Approach to Load Progressions during Strength Training in Older Adults.

To compare four approaches to load progressions in RT for older adults to determine if an optimal method exists. Eighty-two healthy community-dwelling older adults (71.8 ± 6.2 yr) performed 11 wk of structured RT (2.5 d·wk) in treatment groups differing only by the method used to increase training loads. These included percent one repetition maximum (%1RM): standardized loads based on a percentage of the one repetition maximum (1RM); rating of perceived exertion (RPE): loads increased when perceived difficulty falls below 8/10 on the OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale perceived exertion scale; repetition maximum (RM): loads increased when a target number of repetitions can be completed with a given load; repetitions in reserve (RiR): identical to RM except subjects must always maintain ≥1 "repetition in reserve," thus avoiding the possibility of training to temporary muscular failure. Multiple analyses of covariance indicated no significant between-group differences on any strength (chest press 1RM; leg press 1RM) or functional performance outcome (usual walking speed, maximum walking speed, 8-ft timed up-and-go, gallon jug transfer test, 30 s sit-to-stand). The RPE group found the exercise to be significantly more tolerable and enjoyable than subjects in the RiR, RM, and %1RM groups. Given the RM, RPE, %1RM, and RiR methods appear equally effective at improving muscular strength and functional performance in an older population, we conclude that the RPE method is optimal because it is likely to be perceived as the most tolerable and enjoyable, which are two important factors determining older adults' continued participation in RT.

Autoregulation by "Repetitions in Reserve" Leads to Greater Improvements in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading.

Graham, T and Cleather, DJ. Autoregulation by "repetitions in reserve" leads to greater improvements in strength over a 12-week training program than fixed loading. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-Autoregulated (AR) training involves altering resistance session parameters based on the athlete's readiness to train. One potential benefit of AR training may be that training intensity can reflect an athlete's increasing strength level throughout a training program and can be contrasted with fixed loading (FL) where the load is stipulated at the start of the program. In this study, 31 resistance-trained men participated twice weekly in an AR or a FL squat program. For the FL group, the load was prescribed as a percentage of the pre-test 1-repetition maximum, whereas for the AR group, the load was prescribed based on the number of "repetitions in reserve," such that the intensities were theoretically the same (volume was also matched). Both groups showed a significant increase in front squat (FS) and back squat (BS) performance, but the magnitude of this was significantly greater for the AR program (FS: AR +11.7%, FL +8.3%, p = 0.004, ηp = 0.255; BS: AR +10.8%, FL +7.1%, p = 0.006, ηp = 0.233). The AR group was trained at a greater intensity (average weekly intensity; FS: AR 83.2 ± 13.3%, FL 80.4 ± 10.0%, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.240; BS: AR 83.6 ± 12.7%, FL 80.4 ± 10.0%, p = 0.006, ηp = 0.159). The results of this study support the contention that AR can be used to accommodate the increasing strength level of the athlete during the course of a program and that such a strategy is effective in eliciting greater strength adaptations across 12 weeks.