alexa The validity of submaximal ratings of perceived exertion to predict one repetition maximum.
Physicaltherapy & Rehabilitation

Physicaltherapy & Rehabilitation

International Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Author(s): Eston R, Evans HJ

Abstract Share this page

Abstract The One Repetition Maximum (1-RM) test is commonly used to assess strength. However, direct assessments of 1-RM are time consuming and unsafe for novice lifters. Whilst various equations exist to predict 1-RM, there is limited research on the validity of these equations. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of using sub-maximal ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) to predict 1-RM in young adults, using the Borg 6-20 RPE Scale. Twenty healthy participants (ten male (Mean ± SD, 20.8 ± 0.6 y, 75.7 ± 9.3 kg, 1.8 ± 0.07 m) and ten female (20.3 ± 0.7 y, 68.4 ± 10.0 kg, 1.68 ± 0.03 m)) completed two trials involving resistance exercises for both the upper and lower body. In the first trial the 1-RM for the bilateral biceps curl (BC) and the bilateral knee extension (KE) were determined for each participant. In the second trial, participants performed blinded repetitions which were equivalent to 20, 40 and 60 \% of 1-RM for both exercises. The RPE was recorded immediately after two repetitions had been completed at each intensity. The order of intensity of the repetitions was randomly assigned with participants wearing blindfolds to exclude the possibility of pre-determined judgments about load and RPE. Individual RPE recorded at each intensity was subjected to linear regression analysis and the line of best fit was extrapolated to RPE 20 to predict 1-RM in both exercises. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the 1-RM predicted from RPE 20 and measured 1-RM for both exercises for the men and women. Measured and predicted values for men were 46.0 ± 4.6 and 45.2 ± 6. 1 kg for biceps curl, and 46.3 ± 3.8 and 43.0 ± 7.1 kg for knee extension, respectively. Measured and predicted values for women were 18.6 ± 5.7 and 19.3 ± 5.6 kg for biceps curl, and 25.5 ± 9.6 and 27.2 ± 12.6 kg for knee extension, respectively. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between actual and predicted 1-RM for the BC and KE were 0.97 and 0.92, respectively. These results provide evidence that submaximal ratings of perceived exertion can be used to provide reasonably accurate estimates of 1-RM in young and active men and women. Key pointsThe direct measurement of 1-RM is time consuming and impractical for large groups. This has led to the development of prediction models which employ sub-maximal loads in order to minimise the limitations and risks of maximal strength assessment.The principle of using the ratings of perceived exertion from sub-maximal work rates to predict maximal work rate has been established.With the exception of the present study, there are no published studies on the efficacy of using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale for predicting maximal strength.Perceived exertion ratings from the Borg 6-20 Scale may be used to provide reasonably accurate estimates of 1-RM.Sub-maximal exercise intensities in the range of 20 - 60\% of the 1-RM can be used estimate the 1-Repetition Maximum for upper and lower body exercise.
This article was published in J Sports Sci Med and referenced in International Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords