You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Responses During Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in Work Rate

Kraft, Justin A.1; Green, James M.2; Thompson, Kyle R.1

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31829b569c
Original Research

Abstract: Kraft, JA, Green, JM, and Thompson, KR. Session ratings of perceived exertion responses during resistance training bouts equated for total work but differing in work rate. J Strength Cond Res 28(2): 540–545, 2014—Session ratings of perceived exertion (SRPE) during resistance training may be influenced by specific exercise parameters. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of work rate (total work per unit time) and recording time on SRPE. Participants performed 3 exercise bouts of bench press, lat pull-down, overhead press, upright row, triceps extension, and biceps curl at 60% of predetermined 1 repetition maximum according to these protocols: (a) 3 sets × 8 repetitions (reps) × 1.5 minutes of recovery, (b) 3 sets × 8 reps × 3 minutes of recovery, and (c) 2 sets × 12 reps × 3 minutes of recovery. Session ratings of perceived exertion for the 3 × 8 × 1.5-minute recovery (5.3 ± 1.8) and 2 × 12 × 3-minute recovery trials (6.2 ± 1.7) were significantly greater vs. 3 × 8 × 3-minute recovery trial (4.2 ± 1.8). The difference approached significance between work rate–matched protocols (p = 0.08). No difference was observed between SRPE at 15 minutes (5.1 ± 1.8) vs. 30 minutes (5.2 ± 1.9) post exercise. Post-set in-task ratings of perceived exertion were higher for the 2 × 12 × 3-minute recovery trial (5.9 ± 1.4) vs. 3 × 8 × 1.5-minute recovery trial (4.8 ± 1.2) and 3 × 8 × 3-minute recovery trial (4.0 ± 1.6). The difference approached significance (p = 0.07) for the 3 × 8 × 3-minute recovery trial vs. 3 × 8 × 1.5-minute recovery trial. Session ratings of perceived exertion responded to changes in work rate with no significant difference at matched work rates, indicating that SRPE is responsive to training load. Results indicated that more proximal monitoring (15 minutes post exercise) yielded reliable estimates of SRPE increasing the practical utility of the measure.

Author Information

1Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph, Missouri; and

2Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama

Address correspondence to Justin A. Kraft,

Copyright © 2014 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.