RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions.
RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fphys.2018.00247
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Zourdos MC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Helms ER;Byrnes RK;Cooke DM;Haischer MH;Carzoli JP;Johnson TK;Cross MR;Cronin JB;Storey AG;Zourdos MC
目的：探讨阻力训练的男性（19-35岁）执行匹配的组和重复的负荷分配区分的协议之间的差异，感知劳累（RPE）和百分比一次重复最大（1 RM）负荷分配。方法：参与者进行蹲下，然后仰卧推举3次/周，每天起伏的格式超过8周。参与者通过预测试1 RM进行平衡，然后分配到1 RM百分比（1 RMG，n = 11）;通过1 RM百分比或RPE组（RPEG，n = 10）进行负荷分配;参与者选择负荷以达到目标RPE范围。超声检查确定了测试前后的胸肌（PMT）和股外侧肌厚度（50（VLMT 50）和70%（VLMT 70）股骨长度）。结果如下：卧推（1 RMG +9.64 ± 5.36; RPEG + 10.70 ± 3.30 kg），深蹲（1 RMG + 13.91 ± 5.89; RPEG + 17.05 ± 5.44 kg）及其组合-总1 RM（1 RMG + 23.55 ± 10.38; RPEG + 27.75 ± 7.94 kg）增加（p < 0.05），PMT也是如此1RMG + 1.59 ± 1.33; RPEG +1.90 ± 1.91 mm）、VLMT 50（1RMG +2.13 ± 1.95; RPEG + 1.85 ± 1.97 mm）和VLMT 70（1RMG + 2.40 ± 2.22; RPEG + 2.31 ± 2.27 mm）。组间差异无统计学意义（p > 0.05）。基于量值的推断显示，在RPEG中，蹲下平均小效应量（ES）优势的概率分别为79、57和72%; ES 90%置信限（CL）= 0.50 ± 0.63，卧推; ES 90% CL = 0.28 ± 0.73，和组合总; ES 90% CL = 0.48 ± 0.68。1 RMG有4%、14%和6%的机会具有相同幅度的强度优势，而组间的微小差异分别为18%、29%和22%。结论：两种负荷方式均有效。然而，RPE为基础的负载可能会提供一个小的1 RM的力量优势，在大多数人。
Purpose: To investigate differences between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and percentage one-repetition maximum (1RM) load assignment in resistance-trained males (19–35 years) performing protocols with matched sets and repetitions differentiated by load-assignment. Methods: Participants performed squats then bench press 3x/weeks in a daily undulating format over 8-weeks. Participants were counterbalanced by pre-test 1RM then assigned to percentage 1RM (1RMG, n = 11); load-assignment via percentage 1RMs, or RPE groups (RPEG, n = 10); participant-selected loads to reach target RPE ranges. Ultrasonography determined pre and post-test pectoralis (PMT), and vastus lateralis muscle thickness at 50 (VLMT50) and 70% (VLMT70) femur-length. Results: Bench press (1RMG +9.64 ± 5.36; RPEG + 10.70 ± 3.30 kg), squat (1RMG + 13.91 ± 5.89; RPEG + 17.05 ± 5.44 kg) and their combined-total 1RMs (1RMG + 23.55 ± 10.38; RPEG + 27.75 ± 7.94 kg) increased (p < 0.05) in both groups as did PMT (1RMG + 1.59 ± 1.33; RPEG +1.90 ± 1.91 mm), VLMT50 (1RMG +2.13 ± 1.95; RPEG + 1.85 ± 1.97 mm) and VLMT70 (1RMG + 2.40 ± 2.22; RPEG + 2.31 ± 2.27 mm). Between-group differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). Magnitude-based inferences revealed 79, 57, and 72% chances of mean small effect size (ES) advantages for squat; ES 90% confidence limits (CL) = 0.50 ± 0.63, bench press; ES 90% CL = 0.28 ± 0.73, and combined-total; ES 90% CL = 0.48 ± 0.68 respectively, in RPEG. There were 4, 14, and 6% chances 1RMG had a strength advantage of the same magnitude, and 18, 29, and 22% chances, respectively of trivial differences between groups. Conclusions: Both loading-types are effective. However, RPE-based loading may provide a small 1RM strength advantage in a majority of individuals.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1097/00005768-199807000-00007
发表时间：
1998-07-01
期刊：
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Abe, T;Brechue, WF;Brown, JB
通讯作者：
Brown, JB
DOI：
10.1519/jsc.0000000000001517
发表时间：
2017-02-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Helms, Eric R.;Storey, Adam;Zourdos, Michael C.
通讯作者：
Zourdos, Michael C.
影响因子：
5.6
作者：
Jones, N.;Kiely, J.;Grimaldi, K. A.
通讯作者：
Grimaldi, K. A.
影响因子：
7
作者：
Morris, SB;DeShon, RP
通讯作者：
DeShon, RP
DOI：
10.1519/jsc.0000000000001901
发表时间：
2019-02-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Ormsbee, Michael J.;Carzoli, Joseph P.;Panton, Lynn B.
通讯作者：
Panton, Lynn B.