Efficacy Of The Repetitions In Reserve-based Rating Of Perceived Exertion For The Bench Press In Experienced And Novice Benchers: 3644 Board #91 June 3 8
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of this method using the bench press exercise.
METHODS: Twenty-seven college aged men were assigned to one of two groups based upon training age: experience benchers (EB) (n=14, 4.7±2.0 yrs of training) and novice benchers (NB) (n=13, 1.1±0.6 yrs of training). Subjects performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) followed by single-repetition sets at 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM and finally an 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM. Subjects reported RIR-based RPEs following every set. Average concentric velocity (ACV) was recorded via the TENDO Weightlifting Analyzer during the 1RM and all single repetitions sets, along with the first and last repetitions of the 8-repetition set. Pearson product moment correlations were used to assess relationships between RPE and velocity, while two-tail independent-sample t-tests examined differences in RPE and velocity between EB and NB.
RESULTS: ACV at 100% of 1RM in EB was slower (0.14±0.04 m[BULLET OPERATOR]s-1) compared to NB (0.20±0.05 m[BULLET OPERATOR]s-1) (p<0.001). EB recorded greater RPE than NB at 100% of 1RM (EB: 9.86±0.14 vs. NB: 9.35±0.36) (p=0.011). No between-group differences existed for average velocity or RPE at any other intensity. Both EB (r=0.85, p<0.001) and NB (r=0.85, p<0.001) had strong inverse significant correlations between average velocity and RPE at all intensities.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the RIR-based RPE scale may be an efficacious approach for AR of bench press training load and volume in EB and NB; however, EB may record more accurate RPEs at near maximal loads.