WORK DISTRIBUTION INFLUENCES SESSION RATINGS
OF PERCEIVED EXERTION RESPONSE DURING
RESISTANCE EXERCISE MATCHED FOR ToTAL VoLUME
2 1
JusTIN A. KRAFT/ JAMES M. GREEN, AND TYLER
1
Depmtmmt qfHealt/1, Plzysz"cal Education and Recreatt"on, Missozm· H7estem State University, St Joseph, i11t"ssozm;· and
2
Depmtmeni qfHealt!z, Physical Education and Recreation, Umverst!y qfN01tlz Alabama, Florence, Alabama
ABSTRACT
Kraft, JA, Green, JM, and Gast, TM. Work distribution
influences session ratings of perceived exertion response
during resistance exercise matched for total volume. J Strength
Cond Res 28(7): 2042-2046, 2014-Session ratings of per-
ceived exertion (SRPE) are sensitive to changes in total work
volume and work rate during resistance training. This study
examined the influence of work distribution (varied load, set,
and repetitions [reps]) on SRPE in 2 resistance exercise trials
matched for total work volume (sets X reps X percentage of
1 repetition maximum [% 1RM]) and work rate (total work vol-
ume/time). Participants completed a low load/high rep (LLHR)
trial (2 sets X 1 2 reps X 3-minute recovery at ~60% 1RM)
and a high load/low rep (HLLR) trial (3 sets X 6 reps X
1.5-minute recovery at ~80% 1RM) of the bench press, lat
pull-down, overhead press, upright row, triceps extension,
and biceps curl. A 2-minute recovery separated each exercise
in both trials. Session ratings of perceived exertion and recov-
ery heart rate (HR) were recorded 20 minutes after exercise.
Preset and postset RPE and HR were higher for HLLR vs.
LLHR (3.1 ::': 1.6; 104 ::': 15 b·min- 1 vs. 2.1 ::': 1.3; 98 ::':
10 b·min- 1) and (5.5 ::': 0.9; 139 ::': 14 b·min- 1 vs. 4.4 ::':
0.9; 131 ::': 12 b·min- 1 ), respectively. Session RPE was
higher for HLLR (5. 7 ± 1.4) vs. LLHR (4.3 ::': 1.4) with no
difference in recovery HR. Session ratings of perceived exer-
tion was greater with higher load despite matched total
volumes and work rates. Higher preset acute RPE and HR
in HLLR may indicate differences in recovery between sets.
Higher postset acute RPE and HR in HLLR indicated
increased difficulty of individual sets in HLLR, which iikeiy
contributed to SRPE differences. Practitioners can be confi-
dent that SRPE accurately reflects changes in training load
Address correspondence to Justin A Kraft, jkraft@missouriwestern.edu.
28(7)/2042-2046
Joumal q(Strengt/1 and Conditiomizg Research
© 2014 National Strength and Condrtrimrizg Association
2042 Jturnal of Strength and Conditioning Researcli
M. GAsT
when the number of sets, reps, and loads are altered within
routine training.
INTRODUCTION
he session ratings of perceived exertion (SRPE) is
T a subjective measure of global training load. It is
postulated that the SRPE represents as "gestalt"
experience, which incorporates a variety of phys-
iological and perceptual cues into a single global marker of
exercise intensity (2,21). As such, the SRPE has been shown
to be a versatile measure capable of validly assessing exercise
intensity in exercise paradigms that are intermittent in nature
including resistance exercise (4,7,10,12,18-21,24,27).
Although SRPE has been validated in numerous settings,
relatively little is known about the precise factors that
contribute to the gestalt experience reflected in SRPE.
Session RPE may be influenced by a number of metabolic
and physiologic factors (metabolic acidosis, etc.), which may
vary as exercise parameters such as intensity, repetitions
(reps), and recovery period are changed (27). Early research
indicated that intensity (as measured by percentage of 1 rep-
etition maximum [1RM]) was a key mediating factor and
that SRPE increased with increases in the percentage of
1RM lifted (4,18,27). However, Pritchett et al. (22) reported
higher SRPE at lower relative resistance (Ofo 1RM) during
resistance training to failure, noting that participants per-
formed more total volume of work at lower intensities. This
led authors to conclude that total volume lifted was a princi-
ple mediating factor.
,. ~r , 1 1 • 1 .1 • fl r 1
JVlOre recem worK nas exammeu me mnuence or worK
rate (total volume lifted per unit time) on SRPE response
during resistance training by comparing 3 resistance exercise
protocols: (a) 3 sets X 8 reps X 600fo 1RM X 1.5-minute
recove1y between sets, (b) 2 sets X 12 reps X 600fo 1RM X
3-minute recovery between sets, and (c) 3 sets X 8 reps X
600fo 1RM X 3-minute recovery between sets. Results indi-
cated that SRPE was linked more closely to changes in work
rate than to the number of sets and reps per set (13). Addi-
tionally, authors noted a trend (p = 0.08) toward increased

SRPE when performing higher reps and fewer sets despite
lifting equal volumes. Authors also noted higher postset
acute RPE in this condition (likely resulting fi·om completing
more total work per set) and postulated that the difliculty of
individual sets may serve as a mediating factor influencing
SRPE and warrants further investigation (13). One limitation
was that load was held constant in the study at 60% of 1RM
in all protocols. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
examine the influence of the independent variable work dis-
tribution (varied load, set, and reps) on the dependent vari-
able SRPE during 2 resistance exercise trials matched for
total work volume and work rate.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A within-subjects repeated-measures design was used to
examine the influence of the independent variable (work
distribution) on the dependent variable SRPE during 2 resis-
tance training protocols matched for total volume and work
rate (total volume/unit time) across the entire bout. \Vork
distribution was manipulated by varying reps, sets, and
resistance as a unit. These 3 variables are often altered
concurrently in natural settings (i.e., increases in load
naturally prompt a reduction in reps), yet the influence on
perceptual responses is not well understood.
Participants completed an initial session that included the
determination of a 1RM for the bench press, !at pull-down,
overhead press, upright row, triceps press down, and barbell
curl. Participants additionally completed 2 experimental trials
consisting of performing the aforementioned exercises accord-
ing to following protocols: (a) low load/high rep (LLHR)
2 sets X 12 reps X 3-minute rest at ~60% of 1RM and (b)
high load/low rep (HLLR) 3 sets X 6 reps X 1.5-minute rest
at ~SO% of1RM. Exercises were performed in the order listed
and trials were counterbalanced. One warm-up set of 12 reps
with ~40% of the predetermined 1RM was performed before
the bench press. This was followed by a 2-minute recovery
period. No warm-up was performed before other exercises.
A standard 2-minute rest period was provided between all
exercises in both trials.
These 2 protocols were designed to equate workloads
(ofiset the decrease in reps 3 set X 6 reps = 18 reps vs. 2 set X
12 reps = 24 reps with a prop01tional increase in intensity [80
vs. 60% 1RM]). Additionally, recovety periods between sets
were designed to equate total recovery time across the entire
exercise bout. Therefore, both total exercise trial duration and
duration of each exercise within the trial were constant (i.e.,
2 sets X 12 reps X 60o/o lRM with 3-minute rest required an
equivalent time as 3 sets X 6 reps X 80% 1RM with
1.5-minute rest). In this way, work completed per unit time
(i.e., work rate) was controlled between trials. As such, work
distribution was isolated as the independent variable. The
selection of the 60 and 80% intensity levels was based on
the rep to load relationship set forth by the National Strength
and Conditioning Association (1) and selected to ensure that
J&1rrnal of StTength and Conditioning Research 1 '''ww,nsca,com
participants could complete all reps in both trials, which was
necessary for matching total volume.
Subjects
Fourteen recreationally strength-trained (strength training 2
2 times per week for a minimum of 6 weeks) male volunteers
between the ages of 18 and 25 years (age, 20.8 ± 1.7 years;
height, 180 ± 5 em; weight, 81.9 ± 13.3 kg; percent body fat,
11.6 ± 4.9%) were recruited. A prerequisite of 6 uninter-
mpted weeks of training before study inclusion ensured
a minimal level of resistance training experience and ensured
that differences in RPE would not result fi·om changes in
strength attributable to our exercise protocol. All partici-
pants received a clear explanation of the study and signed
a written informed consent before participation. Procedures
were approved a priori by the local institutional review
board for the protection of human subjects. All pmticipants
were screened before the study for physical problems contra-
indicating physical activity (Physical Activity Readiness Ques-
tionnaire [PAR-QJ) (28). All subjects were nonsmokers.
Participants were instructed to continue with their normal diet
(including dietmy vitamins/supplements) through the dura-
tion of the study to decrease likelihood of confounding poten-
tial of nutritional changes during participation. Participants
were instructed to report for testing in a well-hydrated state,
1.5-3 hours after their last meal, to refrain from resistance
exercise on the day prior (~24-48 hours) and all strenuous
physical activity ~24 hours before testing and to avoid caf-
feine on the day of testing.
Procedures
Participants reported for testing on 3 occasions. During the
first trial, they completed a health questionnaire and informed
consent and were measured for descriptive data (age [years],
height [em], weight [kg], and percent body fat using an
Omron body fat analyzer, Omron Healthcare Inc., Bannock-
burn, IL, USA). A 1RM was then detetmined for each of the 6
exercises performed in experimental tiials. Participants then
returned on separate days and completed the 2 counterbal-
anced resistance training protocols: (a) LLHR 2 sets X 12
reps X 3-minute rest at ~60% of 1RM and (b) HLLR 3 sets
X 6 reps X 1.5-minute rest at ~SOO;U of 1RM.
During experimental trials, heart rate (HR) via polar HR
monitor (Polar Inc., Port \Vashington, 'NY) and acute ratings
of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured before (preset)
and after (postset) each set. Session RPE (global exercise
RPE) and recovery HR were recorded 20 minutes after bout
completion. All perceived exe1tion ratings were estimated
according to the 10-point omni scale for resistance training
(23). This scale is comprised of a visual scale with verbal
anchors for estimating feelings of exettion. Preset RPE was
a measure of perceived vigor (no actual exertion at moment
recorded) and was measured by having participants respond
to the question "How do you feel?" 'I11e preset RPE was
designed to assess subjective feelings of "preparedness" or
"acute recovery." The RPE scale was used for this measure
VOLUME 28 I NUMBER 7 I JULY 2014 I 2043
Work Distribution Influences SRPE
thereby avoiding additional rating scales, which may have
introduced confusion for participants. Preset RPE has pre-
viously been used to assess recovery while investigating the
influence of 3 difierent rest intervals during a multiset squat
routine (15). Session RPE was estimated by asking partici-
pants the question, "How was your workout?" (6). This vari-
able provides a subjective estimate of the global difficulty of
the entire exercise bout.
One Repetition Maximum Determination
Exercises were performed in the following order: bench
press, !at pull-down, overhead press, upright row, triceps
press down, and barbell curl. The 1RM was defined as the
heaviest weight the participant was able to lift for 1 complete
repetition (24). Determination of the 1RM was performed
according to the procedure outlined by Baechle and Earle
(1). Participants performed a light warm-up with a resistance
they estimated they could lift 5-10 times. After a 1-minute
rest, the participant performed a second warm-up using
a weight they estimated they could lift 3-5 times. Two-
minute rest was provided. At this time, the participant esti-
mated a near maximal load (one they expected to perform
2 or 3 times) and performed the final warm-up followed by
3-minute rest. The load was increased to an estimated max-
imum (add 10-20 lbs for upper body) and a 1RM was
attempted. If successful, 3-minute rest was provided and an
additional attempt was made with a, new estimated weight. If
unsuccessful, 3-minute rest was provided and another
attempt was made with a reduced load. Loads were adjusted
based on participant feedback with the goal of identifYing
the 1Rl\1 within 3-5 attempts. A 3-minute rest was allowed
between exercises.
Statistical Analyses
A 6 exercise X 2 protocol repeated-measures analysis of
variance was used to detect difference among trials for
preset RPE, postset RPE, preset HR, postset HR (averaged
across trials). Bonferroni follow-up tests (16) were used to
assess pairwise comparisons (set by set). A paired t-test was
used to determine differences in SRPE and recovery HR.
Differences were considered significant at the p s 0.05 level
(2-tailed test).
TABLE 1. Pre- and postset average acute ratings of perceived exertion and heart
rate by exercise protocol.*
Condition Preset RPE Postset RPE
LLHR 2.1 ::'::: 1.3 4.4 ::'::: 0.9
HLLR 3.1 ::'::: 1.6t 5.5 ::'::: 0.9t
'RPE =ratings of perceived exertion; HR =heart rate; LLHR =low load/high rep; HLLR =
high load/low rep.
tLLHR vs. HLLR (p s; 0.05).
2044 J8\1rnal of Strength and Conditioning Research
RESULTS
Preset and postset RPE and HR values are listed in Table 1.
Preset and postset RP'E and HR averaged across the exercise
trials were significantly higher for HLLR vs. LLHR. Session
RPE was significantly higher for HLLR (5.7 ::'::: 1.4) vs.
LLHR (4.3 ::'::: 1.4) with no difference in recovery HR
(HLLR: 88 ± 17 b·min- 1 vs. LLHR: 89 ± 10 b·min-· 1).
DISCUSSION
Session RPE increased with higher load despite matched
total volumes and work rates. This indicates that intensity
may be a primary mediating factor responsible for SRPE
estimations and corresponds with previous findings that
reported higher SRPE as resistance (as a o/o1RM) increased
(4,18,27). However, it should be noted that total volume
lifted was equated between trials as previous research has
shown that differences in total volume of weight lifted may
overshadow intensity in determining SRPE (22).
An alternative explanation is that the difficulty of individ-
ual sets within a resistance exercise bout may partially
mediate SRPE responses. Higher postset HR was observed
in HLLR vs. LLHR, which indicated greater physiological
strain during individual sets in HLLR. The increased strain
was reflected in higher postset RPE in HLLR. Thus,
participants also perceived individual sets as more difficult
in HLLR than LLHR. The increased difficulty of individual
sets in HLLR likely contributed to SRPE differences and
indicates that the difficulty of individual sets within a resis-
tance exercise bout contributes to the overall estimation of
difficulty reflected in SRPE. Perceptual measures represent
a culmination of input from multiple sources. As such,
current results do not indicate that difficulty experienced in
an individual set is the only or even the dominant mediator
for SRPE. However, responses do suggest a link. These
findings coincide with previous work from our laboratory
showing a trend toward higher SRPE after completing 2 sets
X 12 reps X 60% 1Rl\1 vs. 3 sets X 8 reps X 60% 1RM of the
same 6 exercises (13). In this study, higher postset RPE was
associated with the protocol containing a greater number of
sets and lower reps per set, whereas in Kraft et al. (13)
greater postset RPE occurred
during the protocol containing
fewer sets but higher reps per
set. In other words, increases in
SRPE see1n to be associated
Preset HR Postset HR with higher postset RPE.
(b·min- 1 ) (b·min- 1 ) Combining these 2 results
would indicate that the strain
98 ::'::: 10 131 ::'::: 12
104 ::'::: 15t 139 ::'::: 14t (as reflected in postset RPE)
within the individual sets has
a stronger link with SRPE than
reps per set or number of sets.
It is also plausible that greater
strain resulted in concomitant

changes in physiological variables (i.e., pH) potentially
linked with elevations in SRPE. However, in this study,
direct evidence supporting this notion is lacking.
This interpretation may also help explain the influence of
load on SRPE as both acute RPE (4,9,14,26,27) and SRPE
(4,18,27) have been reported to increase as intensity (o/o1RM
lifted) increases. It should be noted that resistance exercise in
the current paradigm included a fixed end point. It has been
postulated that during resistance exercise with fixed termi-
nation criteria, load (o/o1RJVI) may play a more critical role as
participants will likely focus on the heaviness of the lift
rather than actual exertion when estimating RPE (13,22).
Pritchett et a!. (22) reported higher acute RPE and SRPE
during light intensity (60% 1RM) vs. high intensity (90%
1RM) resistance exercise to failure and attributed this to
the completion of a greater volume of work completed in
each exercise in the lower intensity trial. In this study, higher
postset RPE was associated with the HLLR trial despite
completing less work per set in this trial. Even so, higher
SRPE did correspond with higher postset RPE in both stud-
ies and corroborates previous research, which concluded
that average RPE and SRPE are complimenta1y measures
(4). Still, interpreting the influence of postset RPE on SRPE
should be done with caution as previous research has noted
that average acute RPE and SRPE are not identical measures
and that SRPE seems to provide different (17,24) (or perhaps
additional) information.
Previous resistance training research has indicated differ-
ences in salivary cortisol response during low intensity (30%
1RM) and high intensity (75% 1RM) exercise (18) and has
also shown that altering the number of sets influences hor-
monal response to resistance exercise (25). Research com-
paring matched volumes of interval cycling to constant load
cycling noted higher levels of blood lactate during interval
exercise, which corresponded to higher SRPE after interval
cycling (10). A similar mechanism may apply to the current
findings as higher postset RPE in HLLR may also indicate
a greater metabolic disruption within the HLLR exercise
protocol thus contributing to the difference in SRPE,
although this is speculative and was not measured in this
study. Higher postset HR similarly attests to greater physi-
ological demands in HLLR.
Preset HR and RPE were significantly affected by set
distribution, resistance, and recovery period. Ratings of
perceived exertion (measured after the first rep of a set) has
been shown to increase with shorter rest intervals leading
authors to conclude that RPE can be considered a valid
measure of muscle recovery (5). Other studies have assessed
recovery through the estimation of preset RPE (13,15). For
example, Larson and Potteiger (15) used preset RPE to exam-
ine the influence of3 different recovery periods during a multi-
set squat (reps to failure) resistance protocol and concluded
that similar preset RPE values despite difierent recovery pa-
rameters indicated similar recovery between conditions. In
contrast, higher preset RPE and HR in HLLR indicated
J~t!fnal of Strength and Conditioning Research I www.nsca.com
reduced recovery between sets vs. LLHR in this study. Diller-
ences in recovery betvveen sets may have been attributable to
differing metabolic disruption in the HLLR protocol indicated
by higher postset RPE as postulated above. Thus, the shorter
recovery period benveen sets in HLLR likely inhibited par-
ticipants' ability to recover as effectively (vs. LLHR) for sim-
ilar perfonnance in subsequent efforts.
Differences in SRPE despite no difference in recovery HR
indicate that SRPE is sensitive to variation in work distribution
but is estimated independently of recovery HR. Vlhen
miginally developed, it was suggested that SRPE be estimated
30 minutes after exercise to prevent terminal exercise con-
ditions fi·om influencing the estimation (4,7,8,27). It has since
been shown that RPE at exercise endpoint does not influence
SRPE (11) and that SRPE estimations recorded 15 minutes or
greater after exercise tem1ination do not differ (13,24).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The ability to quantif)r exercise load significantly influences
the development and implementation of strategies designed
to maximize training-induced benefits (3,29). However, tra-
ditional measures of training load, such as HR, are inade-
quate during intermittent activity comprised high intensity
bouts with recovery periods interspersed such as resistance
training (7). Additionally, these methods often present
a practical barrier in the form of the time and equipment
required for monitoring. As such, a valid alternative method
that can quantifY training load in a single marker is of great
practical benefit to coaches and practitioners (7,8). The
SRPE provides this alternative measure.
This study expands the understanding of the factors that
mediate SRPE responses. Results indicate that load is
a primary mediating factor during resistance exercise to
fixed termination criteria (i.e., number of sets and reps). It
further confirms that postset RPE measurements compli-
ment the SRPE (4). Therefore, both acute postset RPE and
SRPE provide a viable alternative to objective markers of
intensity during resistance exercise. The SRPE appears to
be a highly sensitive marker, which responds to a variety
of training parameters which are often manipulated during
the course of training. Practitioners can thus be confident
that SRPE provides an accurate reflection of the training
load when the number of reps, number of sets, and loads
are altered within routine training. There are advantages of
using SRPE rather than objective measures. A principle ben-
efit is convenience. Athletes need only provide a single sub-
jective assessment of the global difficulty of their workout.
Future research should directly assess the fimctionality of
SRPE across the duration of a periodized training program.
REFERENCES
l. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. Essmt1ds q(Strength T:mi11i1g and
Conditiomi1g. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
2. Borg, GAV. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci
Spot1s Exerc 14: 377-381, 1982.
VOLUME 28 1 NUMBER 7 I JULY 2014 I 2 045
 Work Influences SRPE
3. Coutts, A, Murphy, A, Pine, J\1, Reaburn, P, and lmpcllizzcri, F.
Validity of the session-H.PE method for determining training load in
team sport athletes. J Sci l\1ed Spo;t 6: 525, 2003.
4. Day, ML, McGuigan, MR, Brice, G, and Foster, C. Monitoring
exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE
scale. J Strength Cond Res 18: 353-358, 2004.
5. Farah, BQ, Lima, AH, Lins-Filho, OL, Souza, DJ, Silva, GQ,
Robertson, RJ, Cyrino, ES, and Ritti-Dias, RM. Effects of rest
interval length on rating of perceived exertion during a multiple-set
resistance exercise. Percept Mot Skt7ls 115: 273-282, 2012.
6. Foster, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to
overtraining syndrome. l\1ed Sci Sp01t.r Exerc 30: 1164-1168, 1998.
7. Foster, C, Florhaug, JA, Franklin, J, Gottschall, L, Hrovatin, LA,
Parker, S, Doleshal, P, and Dodge, C. A new approach to monitoring
exercise training. J Strmgth Cond Res 15: 109-115, 2001.
8. Foster, C, Heimann, KM, Esten, PL, Brice, G, and Porcarid, JP.
Difierences in perceptions of training by coaches and athletes. S Aft
J Spotts Med 8: 3-7, 2001.
9. Gearhart, RF Jr, Goss, FL, Lagally, KM,Jakicic,JJ\1, Gallagher,],
and Robertson, RJ. Standardized scaling procedures for rating
perceived exertion during resistance training. J Strmgth Cond Res
15: 320-325, 2001.
10. Green,JM, Yang, Z, Laurent, CM, Davis,J-K, Kerr, K, Pritchett, RC,
and Bishop, PA. Session RPE following interval and constant-
resistance cycling in hot and cool environments. Med Sci Spotts Exerc
39: 2051-2057, 2007.
11. Hornsby,], Green,], O'Neal, E, Killen, L, Mclntosh,J, and Coates, T.
Influence of terminal RPE on session RPE. J Strength Cond Res
27: 2800-2805, 2013.
12. Impellizzeri, FM, Rampinini, E, Coutts, AJ, Sassi, A, and
Marcora, SM. Use of RPE-based training load in soccer. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 36: 1042-1047, 2004.
13. Kraft, JA, Green, JM, and Thompson, K. Session RPE responses
during resistance training bouts equated for total work but difiering
in work rate. J Strmgth Cond Res. [Epub ahead of print] doi:
10.1519;JSC.Ob0 13e31829b569c.
14. Lagally, KM, McCaw, ST, Young, GT, Medema, HC, and
Thomas, DQ. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity
during the bench press in recreational and novice lifters. J Strength
Cond Res 18: 359-364, 2004.
15. Larson, GD Jr and Potteiger, JA. A comparison of three different rest
intervals between multiple squat bouts. J Strmgth Cond Res 11: 115-118,
1997.
2046 J~urnal of Strength and Conditioning Research
16. Lomax, RG. An Introduction to Statistical ConcejJ/sfor Education and
Behavioral Scimces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
17. McGuigan, MR, Dayel, AA, Tad, D, f<oster, C, Newton, RU, and
Pettigrew, S. Use of session rating of perceived exertion for
monitoring resistance exercise in children who are overweight or
obese. Pediatr Exerc Sci20: 333-341, 2008.
18. McGuigan, MR, Egan, AD, and Foster, C. Salivary cortisol
responses and perceived exertion during high intensity and low
intensity bouts of resistance exercise. J Sp01ts SciMed3: 8-15,2004.
19. Minganti, C, Ferragina, A, Demarie, S, Verticchio, N, Meeusen, R,
and Piacentini, MF. The use of session RPE for interval training in
master endurance athletes: Should rest be included? J Sports J11ed
Phys Fitness 51: 547-554, 2011.
20. Minganti, C, Capranica, L, Meeusen, R, and Piacentine, MF. The
validity of session rating of perceived exertion method for quantifying
training load in teamgym. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3063-3068, 2010.
21. Minganti, C, Capranica, L, Meeusen, R, and Piacentine, MF. The use
of session-RPE method for quantifYing training load in diving. Int J
Sports Physiol Petfomz 6: 408-418, 2011.
22. Pritchett, RC, Green, JM, Wickwire, PJ, Pritchett, KL, and
Kovacs, MS. Acute and session RPE responses during resistance
training: Bouts to failure at 60o/o and 90% of 1RM. S Aji- J Spotts Med
21: 23-26, 2009.
23. Robertson, RJ. Perceived Exertion .for Practitioners: Rating E./fort with
the Omni Picture Scale. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
24. Singh, F, Foster, C, Tod, D, and McGuigan, MR. Monitoring
different types of resistance training using session rating of perceived
exertion. lnt J Sports Physiol Petfonn 2: 34-45, 2007.
25. Smilios, I, Pilianidis, T, Karamouzis, M, and Tokmakidis, SP.
Hormonal responses after various resistance exercise protocols. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 35: 644-654, 2003.
26. Suminski, RR, Robertson, RJ, Arslanian, S, Kang, J, Utter, AC,
DaSilva, SG, Goss, FL, and Metz, KF. Perception of effort during
resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 11: 261-265, 1997.
27. Sweet, TW, Foster, C, McGuigan, MR, and Brice, G. Quantification
of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion
method. J Strength Cond Res 18: 796-802, 2004.
28. TI1omas, S, Reading, J, and Shephard, RJ. Revision of the Physical
Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci 17: 338-345,
1992.
29. Wallace, LK, Slaterrey, KM, and Coutts, AJ. The ecological validity
and application of the session-RPE method for quantiJ.Yingtraining
loads in swimming. J Strengtlz Cond Res 23: 33-38, 2009.