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<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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 Exploring the acute affective responses to resistance training: A comparison of the predetermined and the estimated repetitions to failure approaches

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0256231
Author(s):  
Hadar Schwartz ◽  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Isaac Isur Rozen Samukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Affective Responses ◽  
Affective Valence ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Leg Press ◽  
Effort Regulation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Repetitions To Failure

Background In resistance-training (RT), the number of repetitions is traditionally prescribed using a predetermined approach (e.g., three sets of 10 repetitions). An emerging alternative is the estimated repetitions to failure (ERF) approach (e.g., terminating sets two repetitions from failure). Despite the importance of affective responses experienced during RT, a comparison between the two approaches on such outcomes is lacking. Methods Twenty women (age range: 23–45 years) without RT experience completed estimated one repetition maximum (RM) tests in four exercises. In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants performed the exercises using 70%1RM. Participants completed ten repetitions in all three sets (predetermined condition) or terminated the sets when perceived to be two repetitions away from task-failure (ERF condition). Primary outcomes were affective-valence, enjoyment, and approach-preference and secondary outcomes were repetition-numbers completed in each exercise. Results We observed trivial differences in the subjective measures and an approximately even approach-preference split. Under the ERF condition, we observed greater variability in repetition-numbers between participants and across exercises. Specifically, the mean number of repetitions was slightly lower in the chest-press, knee-extension, and lat-pulldown (~1 repetition) but considerably higher in the leg-press (17 vs. 10, p<0.01). Conclusions Both approaches led to comparable affective responses and to an approximately even approach preference. Hence, prior to prescribing either approach, coaches should consider trainee’s preferences. Moreover, under the ERF condition participants completed a dissimilar number of repetitions across exercises while presumably reaching a similar proximity to task-failure. This finding suggests that ERF allows for better effort regulation between exercises.

scholarly journals Repetition numbers in resistance training: a comparison between the predetermined and the estimated repetitions to failure prescription approaches on affective responses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadar Schwartz ◽  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Affective Responses ◽  
Affective Valence ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Leg Press ◽  
Performance Variability ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Repetitions To Failure

Background: In resistance-training, the number of repetitions is traditionally prescribed using a predetermined approach, whereby the numbers are decided upon before set initiation (e.g., three sets of 10 repetitions). An alternative is the estimated repetitions to failure (ERF) approach, whereby sets are terminated based on one's estimated proximity to task-failure (e.g., two repetitions before failure). The latter approach allows trainees to better account for day-to-day performance variability and may be perceived as a more enjoyable way to train. Methods: Twenty women (age range: 23-45 years) without resistance-training experience first completed estimated 1RM tests in four exercises. In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants performed three sets of each exercise using 70%1RM. They either completed ten repetitions in all sets (predetermined condition) or terminated the sets when they perceived to be two repetitions before task-failure (ERF condition). Affective-valence, enjoyment, and approach-preference were collected during and after the sessions. Results: We observed trivial differences in the subjective measures and an approximately even approach-preferences split. Number of repetitions performed were mostly similar under both conditions in the chest-press, knee-extension and lat-pulldown (difference of ~1 repetition). However, under the ERF condition participants completed more repetitions in the leg-press (17 vs. 10, p&lt;0.01). Conclusions: Both approaches led to comparable affective responses. However, the fact that participants performed a different number of repetitions across exercises while reaching a similar proximity to task-failure, suggests that the ERF approach may be preferable to account for day-to-day performance variability.

scholarly journals Associations Between Rate of Force Development Metrics and Throwing Velocity in Elite Team Handball Players: a Short Research Report

2011 ◽  
Vol 29A (Special-Issue) ◽  
pp. 53-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mário Marques ◽  
Francisco Saavedra ◽  
Catarina Abrantes ◽  
Felipe Aidar
Keyword(s):  
Maximum Rate ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Rate Of Force Development ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Force Development ◽  
Team Handball ◽  
Ball Velocity ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
The Relationship

Associations Between Rate of Force Development Metrics and Throwing Velocity in Elite Team Handball Players: a Short Research ReportPerformance assessment has become an invaluable component of monitoring participant's development in distinct sports, yet limited and contradictory data are available in trained subjects. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between ball throwing velocity during a 3-step running throw in elite team handball players and selected measures of rate of force development like force, power, velocity, and bar displacement during a concentric only bench press exercise in elite male handball players. Fitteen 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 25, 35, and 45 kg as well as having one-repetition maximum strength determined. Ball throwing velocity was evaluated with a standard 3-step running throw using a radar gun. The results of this study indicated significant associations between ball velocity and time at maximum rate of force development (0, 66; p<0.05) and rate of force development at peak force (0, 56; p<0.05) only with 25kg load. The current research indicated that ball velocity was only median associated with maximum rate of force development with light loads. A training regimen designed to improve ball-throwing velocity in elite male team handball players should emphasize bench press movement using light loads.

scholarly journals Acute Effects of Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction on Movement Velocity During Bench Press Exercise Against Different Loads

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Wilk ◽  
Mariola Gepfert ◽  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Petr Stastny ◽  
Adam Zajac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Experimental Session ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Bar Velocity

This study evaluated the effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (BFR) with 70% of full arterial occlusion pressure on bar velocity during the bench press exercise against a wide range of resistive loads. Eleven strength-trained males (age: 23.5 ± 1.4 years; resistance training experience: 2.8 ± 0.8 years, maximal bench press strength – 1RM = 101.8 ± 13.9 kg; body mass = 79.8 ± 10.4 kg), performed three different testing protocols in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR); intermittent BFR (I-BFR) and continuous BFR (C-BFR). During each experimental session, subjects performed eight sets of two repetitions each, with increasing loads from 20 to 90% 1RM (10% steps), and 3 min rest between each set. In the C-BFR condition occlusion was kept throughout the trial, while in the I-BFR, occlusion was released during each 3 min rest interval. Peak bar velocity (PV) during the bench press exercise was higher by 12–17% in both I-BFR and C-BFR compared with NO-BFR only at the loads of 20, 30, 40, and 50% 1RM (p &lt; 0.001), while performance at higher loads remained unchanged. Mean bar velocity (MV) was unaffected by occlusion (p = 0.342). These results indicate that BFR during bench press exercise increases PV and this may be used as an enhanced stimulus during explosive resistance training. At higher workloads, bench press performance was not negatively affected by BFR, indicating that the benefits of exercise under occlusion can be obtained while explosive performance is not impaired.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document