Apenas Mais Uma Repetição - Capacidade de Prever A Proximidade Da Falha Da Tarefa em Pessoas Treinadas em Resistência

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/333359883
“Just one more rep!” – Ability to predict proximity to task failure in resistance
trained persons
Preprint · May 2020

DOI: 10.31236/osf.io/af6dv
CITATION READS
1 562
10 authors, including:
Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis Nikos Michalopoulos

Southampton Solent University University of Patras
9 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Tsvetelina Georgieva James Fisher

Southampton Solent University Southampton Solent University
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION 114 PUBLICATIONS 1,322 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Differentiation between Perceived Effort and Discomfort During Resistance Training View project
EFEITOS DE DIFERENTES VOLUMES DE TREINO E FREQUÊNCIAS SEMANAIS DE TREINAMENTO RESISTIDO EM MULHERES IDOSAS View project
All content following this page was uploaded by James Steele on 25 May 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
“Just one more rep!” – Ability to predict proximity

to task failure in resistance trained persons
Cedrik Armes1,2, Henry Standish-Hunt1, Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis1, Nick

Michalopoulos1,3, Tsvetelina Georgieva1, Alex Hammond1, James P. Fisher1,
Paulo Gentil4, Jürgen Giessing5, James Steele1,6
1
Solent University, UK
2
VU Amsterdam, Netherlands
3
University of Patras, Greece
4
Federal University of Goias, Brazil
5
University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
6
ukactive Research Institute, UK
James Steele
Centre for Health, Exercise and Sport Science, School of Sport, Health and Social
Sciences, Solent University, Southampton SO14 0YN, UK
e-mail: james.steele@solent.ac.uk
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work.
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Data Availability Statement

The raw data and code for all experiments is available at https://osf.io/s9yqk/.
Pre-print article (not peer reviewed) published on 24/05/2020 (doi: 10.31236/osf.io/af6dv) – all authors confirm they are happy to share this
work
2
Abstract
In resistance training, the ability to predict momentary task failure (MF; i.e. maximum effort)
during submaximal exercise may be affected by congruence of how (sub-)maximal effort is
perceived compared with the actual effort required. The present study examined participants with
at least one year of resistance training experience predicting their proximity to MF in two different
experiments using a deception design. Participants performed four trials of knee extensions with
single sets to their self-determined repetition maximum (sdRM) and MF using a baseline
70%1RM in the first experiment (n = 14). Aiming to minimize participants’ variability in
repetition performances, they performed at 70% of their daily MVC instead of their baseline 1RM
in the second experiment (n = 24). Results suggested that participants typically under predicted the
number of repetitions they could perform to MF. These results suggest that participants with at
least one year of resistance training experience are not adequately accurate at gauging effort in
submaximal conditions during the gestalt experience of resistance training. This suggests that
perceptions of effort during RT task performance may not be congruent with the actual effort
required. This has implications for controlling, programming and manipulating effort in RT and
potentially on the magnitude of desired adaptations such as improvements in muscular
hypertrophy and strength.
Keywords Perception Effort Hypertrophy Strength
work
3
Introduction
Prolonged performance of physical tasks with fixed absolute demands
results in a reduction in the capacity to meet their demands (i.e. fatigue), and thus
require greater effort to maintain their performance. As a result of this, the
perception of that effort also increases (Horstmann et al., 1979; Noakes, 2004).
This appears to be the case over varying exercise modalities including both
endurance and resistance training (Hortsman et al., 1979; Pincivero et al., 2004
Marcora and Staiano, 2010). Though rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales are
widely employed in physical tasks such as sport and exercise, novel scales have
been developed that are aimed at utilizing the feedback from increasing
perceptions of fatigue and effort in order to predict proximity to task failure
(Coquart et al., 2012; Helms et al., 2016). The application of predictions of
proximity to task failure has been a particularly popular approach within
resistance training in recent years to manipulate and control the intensity of effort
employed in a given bout (Hackett, Johnson, Halaki & Chow, 2012; Hackett,
Cobley, Favies, Michael & Halaki, 2016; Helms, Cronin, Storey & Zourdos,
2016; Zourdos et al., 2016). Considering the value of resistance training (RT) to
improve physical fitness and health (Steele et al., 2017d), understanding the
manipulation of variables such as effort within RT in order to maximize outcomes
is of considerable interest.
Within physical tasks such as resistance training the intensity of effort
employed has been defined as the task demands relative to the current ability to
meet those demands (Steele, 2014; Steele, 2015; Steele, Fisher, Giessing &
Gentil, 2017b; Steele et al., 2019). Considering this, maximal effort is thus
anchored at the set endpoint where the participant reaches momentary task failure
(MF, i.e. where despite attempting to do so the trainee cannot complete the current
repetition; Steele, 2014; Steele et al., 2017b). MF has also been argued to be the
most appropriate way to objectively and adequately control for effort intra- and
inter-individually (Dankel et al., 2016). However, in to better understand
submaximal intensities of effort (i.e. set end-points that occur at different
proximities to MF) RT modified RPE scales based upon ‘repetitions in reserve’
work
4
(RIR) have been developed (Hackett, Johnson, Halaki & Chow, 2012; Hackett,
Cobley, Favies, Michael & Halaki, 2016; Helms, Cronin, Storey & Zourdos,
2016; Zourdos et al., 2016). These RIR scales are designed as a way of
assessing/controlling effort by participants estimating how many repetitions they
can perform before reaching MF. RIR scales have been argued to be a more valid
method of representing effort in close proximity to MF when compared to
traditional RPE scales or the use of relative demands from a test of strength (i.e %
of one repetition maximum [1RM]; Hackett et al., 2012; Helms et al., 2016;
Steele, Endres, Fisher, Gentil & Giessing, 2017a). Indeed, traditional RPE scales
often result in submaximal ratings even at MF (Steele, Fisher, McKinnon &
McKinnon, 2017c). Further, the numbers of possible repetitions prior to MF at the
same relative loads (%1RM) vary between attempts and individuals (Steele, 2014;
Steele et al., 2017a; Steele et al., 2017b). Thus, RIR scales might provide a more
accurate way of controlling for effort during RT.
An essential aspect of RIR scales for them to enable valid control of
intensity of effort is the requirement of participants, given a particular set of task
demands (i.e. load), to be able to predict their number of repetitions until MF
accurately. A number of recent studies have examined this predictive ability under
a variety of conditions. Steele and colleagues (2017a) for example examined the
ability of participants with a range of prior RT experience to predict a priori how
many repetitions they could perform to MF. They reported that participants under
predicted with standard error of measurements (SEMs) between predicted and
actual repetitions ranging from 2.36 to 3.83 (Steele et al., 2017a). Altoé Lemos et
al. (2017) examined participant’s ability to predict repetitions to MF after they
had performed an initial 2 repetitions of a set to MF across multiple sets with
descriptive data suggesting that participants tended to under predict, though this
improved with increased loads. Hackett et al. (2012; 2016) have conducted studies
examining participant’s predictive abilities during multiple sets after they had
performed an initial 10 repetitions of each set. They found mean differences
between estimated and actual repetitions to MF of 0.8-1.3 and 0.4-1.9 (over sets
1-2 in bench press and squat; Hackett et al., 2012) and error of estimated
repetitions (estimated repetitions minus actual repetitions) of ∼0.5-4.5 repetitions
for chest press and leg press (Hackett et al., 2016). It thus seems that predictive
work
5
ability is less than accurate whether predictions are made a priori, or even at
various points during the gestalt experience of performing a set of repetitions. The
ability of predicting repetitions to MF might be better in experienced trainees and
improve with training experience (Hackett et al., 2012; Helms et al., 2016; Steele
et al., 2017a). Hence, RIR scales might be more advantageous in these
populations assuming they are able to accurately predict their repetition
performance. Though, Hackett et al. (2016) concluded that the ability to predict
proximity to MF was not impacted by RT experience and Steele et al. (2017a),
though reporting improvement with experience, still found the most experienced
were less than adequately accurate.
The inaccuracy of predictions of proximity to MF are concerning with
respect to the consistent application of submaximal intensities of effort in RT.
Indeed, studies comparing groups training to MF and those who stopped at a self-
determined repetition maximum (sdRM, i.e. when a person predicts they could not
complete the next repetition if attempted and thus would reach MF if they did;
Steele et al., 2017b) have shown greater responses for both untrained (Giessing,
Eichmann, Steele & Fisher, 2016a) and trained persons (Giessing et al., 2016b)
when training to MF. The authors of these studies suggest this may be due to
participants stopping further from MF than intended due to their poor ability to
predict actual proximity to MF.
It might be expected that, as the feedback and perceptions associated with
the gestalt experience of performing a RT bout (i.e. perceived fatigue, effort, and
also discomfort) intensify with the duration of that bout (i.e. the number of
repetitions), the accuracy of prediction should increase the closer to the event (i.e.
MF) a person is. Indeed, there is some suggestion that prediction might be greater
when using heavier loads, and thus where fewer repetitions are possible such that
any given repetition is closer to MF than with lighter loads (Altoé Lemos et al.,
2017; Steele et al., 2017a). However, only one study has examined varying
proximities to failure (Zourdos et al., 2019), and indeed predictive ability when
participants are attempting to get as close to, but not reach, MF. As noted, Steele
et al., (2017b) have previously defined this as the sdRM. Zourdos et al. (2019)
examined the validity of predictions of 5RIR, 3RIR, and 1RIR. They found that
accuracy improved with proximity to MF (difference between predicted and
work
6
actual of 5.15±2.92, 3.65±2.46, and 2.05±1.73 respectively), but that participants

were still inaccurate even when only ~1 repetitions away from MF. Considering
previous findings and the interest in attempting to quantify effort through RIR
scales to better understand the role it might play in determining the potential
benefits of RT, there is a need to examine this further.
Examination of predictive ability also offers insight into the congruence of
a person’s perception of effort with the actual effort required to complete a task.
As continued performance of a task with fixed absolute demands (such as during a
set of RT) results in progressive fatigue such that a person’s ability (i.e. ability to
produce force) diminishes with time on task, those fixed absolute demands
represent greater and greater relative demands as time continues and thus require
greater actual effort to continue performing. Perceived effort also increases with
continued time of task; but, it is unclear whether the objective increase in actual
effort required is reflected in a 1:1 manner by the perception of effort experienced.
Previous research using RT models and velocity loss (which is a valid objective
marker of the proximity to MF; Izquierdo et al., 2006; Rodriguez-Rosell et al.,
2019; Moran-Navarro et al., 2019) has shown mixed results regarding the
congruency of perceived effort with objective measures of actual effort (Weakley
et al., 2019; Steele et al., 2019). However, the validity of a person’s perception of
effort (if we consider it with respect to the actual effort required) might be born
out in behavior such as when they decide to stop a bout of RT exercise based upon
their prediction of proximity to MF. Accurate prediction would suggest
congruence of actual and perceived effort, whereas overestimation of the
perceived effort would lead persons to decide to stop task performance during RT
at a further proximity to MF than intended.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare multiple trials of a RT
exercise with varying set endpoints, to assess the validity of self-identified
perceptions of effort through the ability to predict proximity to MF. In two
separate experiments using a deception design, participants experienced in RT (>1
year) were tested over four sessions whilst performing one set of knee extensions
to either MF or sdRM.
Methods
work
7
Experimental approach
There were two separate experiments conducted in this study. All testing
procedures involved performing knee extensions on a knee extension/flexion
dynamometer (MedX, Ocala, Florida, USA). In Experiment 1, participants
underwent a single baseline 1RM test and four RT trials involving single sets of
leg extensions performed at 70%1RM with at least 48 hours in between to
determine their ability to accurately identify their sdRM and MF. Two of the RT
trials were comprised of one set until their sdRM and the other two trials of one
set until MF in a randomized order.
After finding that participants' repetition performances between the trials
were highly variable, potentially attributed to individual day-to-day variabilities in
preparedness (e.g. fatigue, mental state, stress, prior sleep, muscle glycogen
concentrations etc.), Experiment 1 was slightly modified. Aiming to minimize the
impact of this variability in Experiment 2, participants underwent four RT trials,
where likewise two of the RT trials were comprised of one set until their sdRM
and the other two trials of one set until MF in a randomized order. However, each
RT trial started with a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) to examine
participants’ ‘daily max performance’ prior to their RT trial performance. Thus,
participants performed the RT trials at 70% of their daily MVC instead of their
baseline 1RM.
Originally 11 participants were recruited for Experiment 1. From the initial
data collected in Experiment 1 we produced an exploratory linear mixed model
using the ‘lme4’ package (Bates et al., 2015) in R (version 3.6.1; R Core Team,
2019) to examine the fixed effect of condition adjusted for the fixed effect of day
and allowing random intercepts by participant. The using the ‘simr’ package
(Green and MacLeod, 2015) this model was extended to 100 participants and
simulation (1000 resamples) and power curve analysis conducted (see
supplementary materials). Simulation showed that, for >80% power, ~30
participants would be required at an alpha level of 0.05 and ~25 participants at an
alpha level of 0.1. As such we aimed to recruit ~30 for Experiment 2 in order to
be able to at minimum exclude a zero effect. The final sample for Experiment 2
was 24 participants. We were unable to achieve the intended 30 participants due
to cessation of data collection due to ‘lockdown’ measures as a result of COVID-
work
8
19. An opportunity to collect additional data for Experiment 1 resulted in a final

sample of 14 participants but was also cut short. Thus the results of either
experiment should be treated with caution individually. To somewhat overcome
the sample issues, we conducted an internal meta-analysis (see below).
To reduce demand characteristics (where participants’ expectations of the
experiments purpose might influence their performance) from invalidating the
results, a deception was used blinding the participants to the actual goal of the
study. This was realized by falsifying the objectives through informing the
participants that this was a reliability study examining similarities within the
repeated identical condition trials (i.e. the reliability of sdRM or MF repetition
performance between days). However, the study actually investigated the
agreement between the different conditions. As such, it was hoped that
participants would be less likely to consciously or unconsciously adapt their
behavior such that their predictive ability was influenced by adjusting the number
of repetitions performed in either condition to make it appear as though predictive
accuracy was greater than it might have been.
All testing was performed at the Centre for Health, Exercise and Sport
Science at Solent University. The study was approved by the Health, Exercise,
and Sport Science ethics committee at Solent University (ID: standish-hunt2018).
Participants were required to have a RT experience of at least 1 year and to have
abstained from any strenuous physical activity for 72-hours prior to testing.
Experiment 1: RT trials based on baseline 70%1RM

Participants
Eleven males (age 22  2 years) and three females (age 20  1 years) with
at least 1 year of RT experience were recruited for Experiment 1. The subjects had
to complete a physical activity readiness questionnaire which covered any areas
whereby there may be contraindications to the exercise (e.g. injury etc.). All
participants were provided with a participant information sheet including the
deceptive purpose of the study and gave written informed consent. Participants
were given the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time and were
debriefed after completion of the study.
work
9
Procedure
The testing procedure of Experiment 1 involved one baseline 1RM test and
four RT trials, where one set of each condition (2x sdRM; 2x MF) was performed.
All conditions were performed in a randomized order and separated by at least 48
hours. Within the baseline session, participants’ range of motion (ROM) was
determined through measuring their maximum knee extension and flexion angles.
Following a warm-up using 50% of their estimated 1RM load, their 1RM was
determined within a maximum of 5 attempts with 4-minutes rest between
attempts. For some participants it was possible for the maximum resistance on the
weight stack to be lifted for multiple repetitions and so 1RM was predicted using
the Brzycki (1993) equation (predicted 1RM = load lifted / (1.0278 – (0.0278 x
number of repetitions)) which has been shown to have a very high correlation to
actual 1RM (r = 0.99; Nascimento et al., 2007). The load for the following four
trials was calculated as 70% of their 1RM. Subsequently, two sessions of
submaximal sets to sdRM and two sessions of maximal sets to MF were
performed.
Each session started with a warm up involving one set of knee extensions
at 50% of the calculated condition load with 8-10 repetitions, followed by a rest of
5 minutes after which the condition was performed. The previously determined
ROM was set such that a ‘beep’ sound was provided by the dynamometer when
they reached this to ensure that a full ROM was used for each repetition.
Participants were instructed as follows. For the sdRM conditions they were
instructed to, immediately upon completing a given repetition, consider whether
they felt they could complete the next if attempted; if they did not think they
could complete another if attempted they were to stop there and inform the
investigator. For the MF conditions they were instructed to, immediately upon
completing a given repetition, always attempt the next repetition; this was to
continue until they reached a point where despite their maximal effort they could
not complete the concentric portion of a repetition. The total number of completed
repetitions were examined for each condition (i.e. the repetition chosen to stop on
during sdRM, and the last complete repetition prior to MF). Participants were
encouraged to think carefully about their sdRM prediction during that condition
work
10
so as to push as close to, but not actually reach MF, and to perform under
maximal effort for the MF condition.
Experiment 2: RT trials based on daily 70%MVC

Participants
Twenty male (age 27  6 years) and four females (age 24  2 years) with
at least 1 year of RT experience were recruited for Experiment 2. As with
Experiment 1 the subjects had to complete a physical activity readiness
questionnaire which covered any areas whereby there may be contraindications to
the exercise (e.g. injury etc.). All participants were provided with a participant
information sheet including the deceptive purpose of the study and gave written
informed consent. Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from the
study at any time and were debriefed after completion of the study. None of these
participants had taken part in Experiment 1.
Procedure
The testing procedure of Experiment 2 was exactly the same as that used
for Experiment 1 with one difference. At the beginning of each session, following
a warm-up and a practice isometric trial, participants performed an isometric
MVC at 78° (previous testing in our lab suggests that most participants reach a
peak torque at this angle) to determine their maximum voluntary torque in lbs.
The load for each condition was thus calculated by 70% of their MVC for that
day. After a warm-up of 8-10 repetitions at 50% of their condition load followed
by a rest of 5 minutes, the condition was performed. The process of measuring
MVCs was repeated before each session. Thus, participants performed sets until
sdRM and MF at 70% of their daily MVC instead of their baseline 1RM.
Statistical Analysis
The dependent variable was the number of complete repetitions performed
and the independent variable was the condition (sdRM and MF). Linear mixed
modelling was used for analysis using Restricted Maximum Likelihood
estimation. Condition was modelled as a fixed factor with random intercepts by
participants included. As each condition was performed across 2 sessions (days)
work
11
each participant had 2 pairs of sdRM:MF repetitions. Thus day was also adjusted
for in the model as a fixed factor. Estimated marginal means with 95% confidence
intervals (CI) were produced using the “emmeans” package. Contrasts were
produced using both 95%, and 90% CIs to support inferences regarding
equivalence. Equivalence bands were determined based upon the between day
reliability of repetitions performed to MF within each study based upon the half-
width of the minimal detectable change (MDC). Lastly, we combined the results
from the two Experiments using an internal meta-analysis (Goh et al., 2016). The
‘metafor’ (Viechtbauer, 2010) package was used to performed a random effects
meta-analysis weighted by sample size to produce effect estimates using both
95% and 90% CIs.
Inferences were drawn primarily regarding the magnitude and uncertainty
of each outcome, whether it be close to zero or the equivalence bands. We opted
to avoid dichotomizing the existence of an effect and therefore did not employ
traditional null hypothesis significance testing, which has been extensively
(Amrhein et al., 2019; McShane et al., 2019). Instead, we consider the
implications of all results compatible with these data, from the lower limit to the
upper limit of the CIs, with the greatest interpretive emphasis placed on the point
estimate. All effect estimates are reported in their raw units (number of
repetitions) to facilitate practical interpretation.
Results
Experiment 1: RT trials based on baseline 70%1RM
The point estimate for the number of repetitions performed during the
sdRM condition was 13.3 with the 95%CIs suggesting compatibility with a range
of 11.6 to 15.0 repetitions. For the MF condition the point estimate was 14.1
repetitions with the 95%CIs suggesting compatibility with a range of 12.4 to 15.8
repetitions. The paired contrast showed that the number of repetitions performed
during the MF condition was 0.77 greater than during the sdRM condition. The
95%CIs ranged -0.26 to 1.8 and thus did not exclude a possible effect estimate of
zero, though included possible estimates of as high as 1.8 repetitions. The 90%CIs
ranged from -0.09 to 1.62. Notably, considering the MDC for Experiment 1 (3.24
repetitions) neither the point estimate nor 95% or 90% estimate intervals excluded
work
12
its upper bound thus suggesting equivalence within the range of the MDC
between the repetitions performed in both conditions. Figure 1 shows the
individual paired comparisons (Session:Participant) across the conditions in
addition to the paired contrast with both 95%CIs (grey band) and 90%CIs (black
error bars) with the equivalence bands (dashed red line).
Figure 1: Experiment 1: (A) Estimated marginal means with individual paired data for number of
repetitions performed in MF and sdRM; (B) estimated marginal mean for the pairwise comparison
between MF and sdRM with both 95%CIs (grey band) and 90%CIs (black error bars) with the
equivalence bands (dashed red line).
Experiment 2: RT trials based on daily 70%MVC

The point estimate for the number of repetitions performed during the
sdRM condition was 11.6 with the 95%CIs suggesting compatibility with a range
of 9.11 to 14.0 repetitions. For the MF condition the point estimate was 14.3
repetitions with the 95%CIs suggesting compatibility with a range of 11.86 to
16.8 repetitions. The paired contrast showed that the number of repetitions
performed during the MF condition was 2.75 greater than during the sdRM
condition. The 95%CIs ranged -1.53 to 3.97 and thus excluded a possible effect
work
13
estimate of zero. The 90%CIs ranged from 1.73 to 3.77. Notably, considering the
MDC for Experiment 1 (1.98 repetitions) the point estimate exceeded this;
however, neither the 95% or 90% estimate intervals excluded its upper bound thus
equivalence within the range of the MDC remains a possible compatible effect
between the repetitions performed in both conditions. Figure 2 shows the
individual paired comparisons (Session:Participant) across the conditions in
addition to the paired contrast with both 95%CIs (grey band) and 90%CIs (black
error bars) with the equivalence bands (dashed red line).
Figure 2: Experiment 2: (A) Estimated marginal means with individual paired data for number of
repetitions performed in MF and sdRM; (B) estimated marginal mean for the pairwise comparison
between MF and sdRM with both 95%CIs (grey band) and 90%CIs (black error bars) with the
equivalence bands (dashed red line).
Internal meta-analysis
The paired contrast estimate from the random effects meta-analysis
showed that the number of repetitions performed during the MF condition was
2.02 greater than during the sdRM condition. The 95%CIs ranged 0.0 to 4.04 and
thus just included a possible effect estimate of zero. The 90%CIs ranged from
0.32 to 3.72. Figure 3 presents the forest plot with 95%CIs, and figure 4 presents
work
14
the forest plot with 90%CIs in addition to the upper equivalence bands from both
Experiment 1 (dashed red line) and Experiment 2 (dashed blue line).
Figure 3. Forest plot of both experiments with 95%CIs; RE = Random-effects
Figure 4. Forest plot of both experiments with 90%CIs in addition to the upper equivalence bands
from both Experiment 1 (dashed red line) and Experiment 2 (dashed blue line); RE = Random-
effects
Discussion
The present study examined the accuracy of RT experienced participants
(> 1 year) in predicting their proximity to MF using a deception design.
Participants underwent multiple trials of a RT exercise with different set
endpoints (self-determined repetition maximum [sdRM] and momentary failure
[MF]; Steele et al., 2017b). In two separate experiments, the participants were
tested over four sessions whilst performing one set of knee extensions on a knee
work
15
extension/flexion dynamometer to either MF or sdRM. In Experiment 1,

participants underwent a single baseline 1RM test and four RT trials involving
single sets of leg extensions performed at 70%1RM. In Experiment 2, participants
underwent four RT trials at 70%MVC, determined before performing the
condition, where likewise two of the RT trials were comprised of one set until
their sdRM and the other two trials of one set until MF in a randomized order. It
was expected that participants would show a more accurate repetition
performance in Experiment 2, after attempting to reduce between-day variability
by having participants use 70% of their daily MVC. Data from both Experiments
suggested that on average participants under predicted the number of repetitions
they could perform to MF. However, in Experiment 1 this did not exceed the
MDC and thus based upon the between day variability in repetition performance
the repetition numbers were inferred to be equivalent between conditions. For
Experiment 2 as expected there was a reduction in the between day variability as
seen by the reduced MDC. Results from this Experiment suggested more strongly
that participants under predicted the number of repetitions they could perform to
MF, though could still not wholly exclude an effect within the range of the MDC.
The internal meta-analysis echoed the results of Experiment 2, excluding a zero
effect and suggesting that participants under predicted. These results are mostly in
line with previous findings (Steele et al., 2017a; Hackett et al., 2012; Hackett et
al., 2016; Giessing et al., 2016a; Giessing et al., 2016b; Altoé Lemos et al., 2017;
Zourdos et al., 2019). In contrast with prior research however, this study to our
knowledge is the first to examine this predictive ability during the gestalt
experience of RT task performance (where participants attempted to get as close
to, but not reach MF i.e. sdRM) using a deception design. This study offers a
behavioral test of the congruence of perceived effort and actual effort.
Many authors have examined the accuracy of participants’ predictions of
how many repetitions they could perform to MF in different exercises involving
both single sets (Altoé Lemos et al., 2017; Steele et al., 2017a) and multiple sets
(Hackett et al., 2012; Hackett et al., 2016). Prior studies involved asking the
participants how many repetitions they could perform to MF prior to the exercise
whilst performing single sets (SEM [95%CI] for combined sample ranging from
2.64 [2.36 to 2.99] to 3.38 [3.02 to 3.83]; Steele et al., 2017a), during the exercise
work
16
after 2 repetitions showing descriptive differences in actual vs predicted (Altoé

Lemos et al., 2017), and whilst performing multiple sets after 10 repetitions (mean
difference between estimated and actual repetitions to MF 0.8-1.3 and 0.4-1.9
[over sets 1-2 in Bench Press and Squat]; Hackett et al., 2012; error of estimated
repetitions [estimated repetitions minus actual repetitions] ∼0.5-4.5 repetitions for
Chest Press and Leg Press; Hackett et al., 2016). The overall results of these
studies suggest that participants generally under predict the number of repetitions
they can perform to MF whether predictions are made a priori to initiation of the
exercise, or at varying degrees of proximity to actual MF. Indeed, Zourdos et al.
(2019) found that, despite improved validity of predictions with closer proximity
to MF, participants still under predicted when they thought they were 5, 3, and 1
repetition away from MF (difference between predicted and actual of 5.15±2.92,
3.65±2.46, and 2.05±1.73 respectively). In the current study, participants were
instructed to perform a single set to either sdRM or MF without making prior
predictions or a repetition target whilst using a deception design. The deception
involved falsifying the study’s objectives, namely that this study examined the
between day reliability of those set endpoints (sdRM and MF) whereas the true
aim was to compare agreement between participants sdRM (i.e. their prediction)
and the actual repetition prior to MF (i.e. their true repetition maximum [RM];
Steele et al., 2017b). Thus, in a sense, their ability to accurately perceive their
effort as being 1 ‘repetition in reserve’ (Helms et al., 2016) was examined. With
the exception of Zourdos et al. (2019), prior studies have not examined this
context where it might be expected that predictive ability would be improved with
greater proximity to MF. Furthermore, RT experienced (>1 year) participants
were chosen following prior suggestions that subjects’ predictive ability may
improve with training experience (Steele et al., 2017a; Helms et al., 2016).
However, our results suggest that even with the gestalt experiences of attempting
to get as close as possible to MF, even RT experienced participants (>1 year) are
likely not adequately accurate in their predictions, which is in accordance with
findings of other authors (Hackett et al., 2012; Hackett et al., 2016; Steele et al.,
2017a; Zourdos et al., 2019). In fact, Hackett et al. (2016) concluded that the
ability to predict proximity to MF was not affected by prior RT experience.
work
17
Experiment 1, where participants performed single sets of knee extensions

with a load of 70%1RM, showed participants were not adequately accurate at
predicting how close to MF they were; though the experimental design in this
study resulted in a high between day variability in repetition performance. We
were concerned the estimates could have been influenced by between day
variation in performance (Steele, 2014) and that, due to variation between days in
preparedness (e.g. fatigue, mental state, stress, prior sleep etc.), the loads may not
have always been ‘70%1RM’, i.e. participants may have been stronger or weaker
on each day thus affecting relative loading and repetition performance. In an
attempt to reduce the between day variability participants performed single sets of
knee extensions at 70%MVC determined before execution of the exercise in
Experiment 2 i.e. 70% of their ‘daily’ max strength. This successfully reduced the
between day variability in repetitions to MF from an MDC of 3.24 vs 1.98 from
Experiment 1 to Experiment 2 respectively. Thus, it was expected that participants
might in fact exhibit greater accuracy at predicting how close to MF they were
with reduced confounding by between day variability. However, our results
indicated that the effect was even stronger (and thus predictions even less
accurate) with a point estimate of 2.75 repetitions, which suggests participants
were on average stopping somewhere between ~3.75 repetitions away from MF.
These findings suggest that even RT experienced (>1 year) trainees are fairly poor
at predicting how close to MF they are, which might be a result of incongruence
between their perception of submaximal effort and the actual effort required as
determined by the current ability to meet the demands of the exercise (in this case
reduced by progressive fatigue insidious to continuous performance of fixed
absolute exercise demands, i.e. repeated repetitions with a fixed absolute load)
relative to the actual demands of the exercise.
Congruence of how (sub-)maximal effort is perceived compared with the
actual effort required may play an essential role in individuals’ ability to predict
proximity to MF. The actual effort required to complete a task can be thought of
as being a function of the absolute demands of the task and the current ability to
meet those demands (Steele et al., 2019). As such, in resistance training for
example, the load can affect the actual effort required (higher loads will require
greater actual effort to lift them), as well as fatigue (reduced capacity) insidious to
work
18
the repeated performance of lifting the load (as a set of repetitions progresses each
repetition will require greater and greater effort). Both load and fatigue therefore
are related to the actual effort required to complete a resistance training task.
Thus, the perception of load, fatigue, and thus effort might determine the accuracy
of predictions of proximity to MF. However, though related, the perception of
these three (load, fatigue, and effort) can be differentiated (e.g. Buckingham,
Byrne, Paciocco, van Eimeren & Goodale, 2014; Micklewright, St Clair Gibson,
Gladwell & Al Salman, 2017). The perception of effort is thought to have a
sensory signal originating centrally and involved with the central motor drive to
the musculature to meet the task demands (Marcora, 2009; Pageaux, 2016), i.e.
motor unit recruitment (Potvin and Fuglevand, 2017). Hence why during exercise
both load and fatigue might influence it as both can influence motor unit
recruitment to meet task demands (Steele & Fisher, 2018). However, despite their
interrelationships and seeming value in forecasting predictions of performance
during the gestalt experience of exercise, at least within RT, studies suggest that
trainees may anchor their perceptions of effort upon other perceptions such as
discomfort (see Steele et al., 2017a) and this has been argued to be a potential
factor influencing predictive accuracy (Steele et al., 2017b).
In the current study as well as in previous studies (Steele et al, 2017a;
Hackett, et al., 2012; Hackett et al., 2016 Giessing et al., 2016a; Giessing et al.,
2016b; Altoé Lemos et al., 2017; Zourdos et al., 2019), it might have been the
case that participants anchored their rating of perceived effort based on other
perceptions such as discomfort, leading to an overestimation of effort and thus
under prediction of how close they were to MF. As outlined by Steele et al.
(2017a), without clear instructions anchoring of effort based on other perceptions
such as discomfort seems to happen during RT. Discomfort and effort perceptions
are thought to be related to different sensory mechanisms; afferent feedback from
group III/IV afferents for the former, and central motor drive or efferent copy for
the latter (Marcora, 2009; Pageaux, 2016), though the former can indirectly affect
the latter (Steele & Fisher, 2018). Therefore, these other sensations/perceptions in
relation to exercise need to be dissociated from effort in order to understand it
(Smirmaul, 2012), which humans are able to realize as shown in several studies
(Pageaux, 2016). However, despite their differentiation neurophysiologically, in
work
19
addition to the ability to differentiate them cognitively with appropriate

instruction, it would seem that without instruction to differentiate them trainees
automatically conflate their perceptions of effort primarily with discomfort during
exercise.
Despite the possibility of persons anchoring their perceptions of effort
upon other perceptions such as discomfort, the less than adequate predictive
ability may in fact merely reflect a lack of congruence between actual and
perceived effort. As noted, velocity loss is a valid objective marker of the
proximity to MF when RT is performed with a maximal intended velocity
(Izquierdo et al., 2006; Rodriguez-Rosell et al., 2019; Moran-Navarro et al.,
2019). Previous work looking at the relationships between this objective measure
of actual effort and subjective measures of perception of effort have shown mixed
results (Weakley et al., 2019; Steele et al., 2019). However, Steele et al. (2019)
ensured that their participants differentiated the perception of effort from their
perception of discomfort and found that there was a poor correlation between
objective and subjective effort (r = 0.19; p = 0.2). Thus, even when participants
are instructed to differentiate their perception of discomfort from their perception
of effort the latter is still incongruent with the actual effort required for task
performance. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that people typically underestimate
their proximity to task failure; it may be a result of overestimation of the effort
currently required for task performance.
Though there are differences in the predictive accuracy reported in other
studies which have examined this during resistance training, the relative similarity
across conditions where predictions are made at varying proximities to actual MF
is interesting. As noted, if for example the perception of fatigue and perception of
effort during the continued performance of an exercise task with fixed absolute
demands (in this case repeated repetitions of a resistance exercise) is providing
information about the proximity to momentary failure then we might expect that
accuracy would improve the closer to that event (i.e. momentary failure) a person
gets. However, whether a priori (Steele et al., 2017a), 2 repetitions into a set of
~4-5 repetitions, ~10-12 repetitions, and ~15-20 repetitions to MF (Altoé Lemos
et al., 2017), or 10 repetitions into a set of up to 20 repetitions to MF (Hackett et
al., 2012; Hackett et al., 2016) there appears to be little relationship between
work
20
proximity and predictive accuracy. The exception to this being the findings of
Zourdos et al. (2019) who did report improved accuracy with proximity to MF.
Steele and colleagues suggested that, in their study of a priori predictive accuracy,
participants’ predictions may have been based on prior experience; indeed, in this
case primarily of training unsupervised which reflects the type of training of most
persons. Under unsupervised conditions, persons might not reach MF during
training although they believe they do so, potentially due to the discomfort they
associate with performing an exercise or merely due overestimation of effort
required. This could explain participants under prediction of how close to MF
they were in this study as well as others. Findings of several studies suggest
supervised training being superior to unsupervised training in terms of changes in
strength and body composition (Coutts, Murphy, Dascombe, 2004; Gentil &
Bottarro, 2010; Mazzetti et al., 2000). An explanation for this might be that
participants report higher RPE and are more likely to train with heavier loads
under supervision (Ratamess, Faigenbaum, Hoffman & Kang, 2008), while they
are shown to train with a lower than intended effort due to insufficient proximity
to MF when they are not supervised (Gentil & Bottaro, 2010). Indeed, lower loads
than those recommended are chosen by participants when they self-select their RT
load (Glass & Stanton, 2004). This may be linked to affective response as when
performing a fixed number of repetitions lower loads are associated with more
positive, and higher loads negative, affective response (Elsangedy et al., 2018).
Thus, training to MF seems to be hard to achieve without supervision and high
self-motivation. However, the similarity of predictive accuracy across varying
studies with differing proximities to MF when predictions were made suggests
that persons may primarily be using prior experience as a reference for their
predictions. This may have implications for the use of RIR scales in determining
intensity of effort during training, and for considerations of controlling sub
maximal effort for research purposes. It may be the case that an initial period of
familiarization with the scale, including with training to MF so as to provide an
experiential top anchor under supervised conditions, is required to improve
predictive accuracy and the RIR scales utility (Helms et al., 2016). Indeed, where
it has been recently applied with strength athletes such as powerlifters an initial
work
21
familiarization period has been included (Androulakis-Korakakis, Fisher,

Kolokotronis, Gentil & Steele, 2018a).
Persons might be likely to systematically train with a lower than intended
effort if they are not adequately accurate in predicting proximity to MF,
potentially impacting upon their adaptations to RT. Thus, our results may question
the value of RIR scales, or at least their application in specific contexts without
consideration of this underestimation. As noted, familiarization with the scale may
be required and greater prior RT experience may improve its utility. The findings
of other authors have suggested a higher accuracy in experienced participants
(Steele et al., 2017a; Hackett et al., 2012; Hackett et al., 2016; Zourdos et al.,
2016), especially when using higher loads (Zourdos et al., 2016). Indeed,
predictive ability might be higher using higher loads, as discomfort was shown to
be less in this case (Fisher, Farrow & Steele, 2017a; Stuart, Steele, Gentil,
Giessing & Fisher, 2018). The results of Altoé Lemos et al. (2017) suggest that
predictive ability improves with increased load, and the apparent improvement in
predictive ability with experience reported by Steele et al. (2017a) may have been
due to the increase in load used with experience. Further, predictive ability also
seems to improve with performance of consecutive sets (Hackett et al., 2012).
Thus, RIR might have its greatest applications in training where multiple sets of
high loads are performed by experienced persons. Indeed, the applications of RIR
seems to have arisen out of, and been primarily applied in strength sports such as
powerlifting (Helms et al., 2016; Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2018a) where the
same exercises are trained for long periods of time permitting practice of
predictive ability, whereas in applications outside of this it may have considerably
less utility.
Our results support the view that actual effort in RT is likely difficult to
control for in practice (Steele, 2014). Trainers and trainees should keep this in
mind. Though training to MF (i.e. giving maximum effort) seems to be the best
method to standardize protocols (Dankel et al., 2016), it might be hard to achieve
for many subjects unless highly self-motivated (Steele et al., 2017a), particularly
when unsupervised (Gentil & Bottaro, 2010). Additionally, subjects may anchor
their effort based upon discomfort or past experiences which may influence their
predictions and result in lower than desired intensities of effort. Our results have
work
22
suggested that even experienced participants are not very accurate at predicting
submaximal effort, which was suggested in prior studies (Hackett et al., 2012;
Steele et al., 2017a).
The strengths and limitations of this study should be acknowledged.
Firstly, the deception nature of this study design as intended to avoid potential
issues with prior studies whereby participants knowing the study’s purpose might
consciously or subconsciously alter their performance during submaximal
conditions to impact predictive ability. In debrief after completion of the study it
was confirmed that no participants had determined the true purpose of the study
suggesting the deception had been successful. Further, unlike previous studies
which involved asking the participants how many repetitions they could perform
to MF prior to the exercise (Steele et al., 2017a), during the exercise after 2
repetitions (Altoé Lemos et al., 2017), after 10 repetitions (Hackett et al., 2012;
Hackett et al., 2016), or to predict at 5RIR, 3RIR, and 1RIR respectively (Zourdos
et al., 2019), in this study they were solely instructed to perform a set to either
sdRM or MF. Thus, participants were not aiming for a specific repetition target
following prior predictions, but solely focused on the gestalt experience of
performing the exercise. Further, previous studies examined the predictive ability
in maximal effort conditions (i.e. sets to MF), while in this study, participants’
predictive ability of submaximal effort was examined (i.e. sets to sdRM) and thus
indirectly their ability to predict MF (i.e. when they felt they would fail on the
next repetition if attempted). In this sense too this study has the strength of having
examined predictive ability under the conditions where it would be expected it
should be greatest (i.e. just prior to the event of MF). Although the procedures
were standardized as all participants performed the exercise on the same knee
extension/flexion dynamometer, we did not control for factors such as time of
day, diet, sleep, etc. that potentially impacted participants’ predictive abilities.
Thus, performance each day in Experiment 1 may have changed and thus we
attempted to control for this in Experiment 2. Though between day variability was
improved it was still somewhat high in Experiment 2 precluding the exclusion of
the upper bound of the MDC from the estimates our data were compatible with. A
further potential limitation from Experiment 2 could be that fatigue from the
initial MVC might have influenced the perception of effort in the subsequent set
work
23
of repetitions, resulting in higher errors, though it should be considered that there

was only one MVC trial and a rest period to minimize the presence of fatigue.
Indeed, brief (2-3 seconds) MVCs repeated up to 3 times do not appear to induce
any lasting fatigue (Kennedy, Fitzpatrick, Gandevia & Taylor, 2015). Lastly, we
did not ask the participants regarding the specifics of their prior training history
and thus the extent to which they trained specifically with the knee extension
exercise, and to MF, are unclear. It is indeed possible that, though participants
were ‘trained’ generally speaking, they may have been relatively inexperienced in
the procedures performed in the present experiments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our results seem to suggest that trained participants with a
minimum of 1-year training experience are not adequately accurate at predicting
proximity to MF during the gestalt experience of RT. Further research should look
to identify the information that persons utilize to form their predictions during
resistance training and other exercise (i.e. discomfort, fatigue, effort). The
inaccuracy of prediction for even trained persons has implications for the control
of effort (i.e. proximity to MF) during RT. Whether or not predictive ability is
sufficient is still yet to be determined as some research suggests effort is an
important variable for determining adaptation to RT. However, these results
suggest this is something to be aware of and will be an issue for controlling
submaximal effort. In fact, it is suspected that people on average are fairly
inaccurate at gauging effort during submaximal conditions.
References
Altoé Lemos, E., Carvalho Caldas, L., Lima Leopoldo, A.P., Soares Leopoldo, A.,
Guinarães Ferreira, L. & Lunz, W. (2017). The perception of effort is not a
valid tool for establishing the strength-training zone. Journal of Human
Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 593-606. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2017.123.04.
Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Fisher, J.P., Kolokotronis, P., Gentil, P., & Steele, J.
(2018a). Reduced volume ‘daily max’ training compared to higher volume
work
24
periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition – A pilot

study. Sports, 6(3), 86. doi: 10.3390/sports6030086.
Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., and McShane, B. (2019). Scientists rise up against
statistical significance. Nature 567, 305–307. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-
00857-9
Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-
effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Brzycki, M. (1993). Strength testing: predicting a one-rep max from repetitions to
fatigue. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(1), 88-90.
doi: doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1993.10606684.
Buckingham, G., Byrne, C.M., Paciocco, J., van Eimeren, L., Goodale, M.A.
(2014). Weightlifting exercise and the size-weight illusion. Attention,
Perception & Psychophsics, 76(2), 452-459. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-
0597-8.
Coutts, A.J., Murphy, A.J. & Dascombe, B.J. (2004). Effect of direct supervision
of a strength coach on measures of muscular strength and power in young
rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
18(2), 316-323.
Coquart, J. B., Eston, R. G., Noakes, T. D., Tourny-Chollet, C., L’hermette, M.,
Lemaître, and Garcin, M., 2012. Estimated time limit: A brief review of a
perceptually based scale. Sports Medicine, 42(10), pp 845-855. doi:
10.2165/11635370-000000000-00000.
Dankel, S.J., Jessee, M.B., Mattocks, K.T., Mouser, J.G., Counts, B.R., Buckner,
S.L. & Loenneke, J.P. (2016). Training to fatigue: the answer for
standardization when assessing muscle hypertrophy?. Sports Medicine,
47(6), 1021-1027. doi 10.1007/s40279-016-0633-7.
Elsangedy, H.M., Machado, D.G.D.S., Krinski, K., Duarte, D.O., Nascimento,
P.H., Amorim, D.E., ... Parfitt, G. (2018). Let the pleasure guide your
resistance training intensity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
50(7), 1472-1479. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001573.
work
25
Fisher, J., Farrow, J. & Steele, J. (2017a). Acute fatigue, and perceptual responses
to resistance exercise. Muscle and Nerve, 56(6), E141-E146. doi:
10.1002/mus.25645.
Gentil, P. & Bottaro, M. (2010). Influence of supervision ratio on muscle
adaptations to resistance training in nontrained subjects. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(3), 639-643. doi:
10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ad3373.
Giessing, J., Eichmann, B., Steele, J. & Fisher, J. (2016a). A comparison of low
volume ‘high-intensity-training’ and high volume traditional resistance
training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and
subjective assessments of training. Biology of Sport, 33(3), 241-249. doi:
10.5604/20831862.1201813.
Giessing, J., Fisher, J., Steele, J., Rothe, F., Raubold, K. & Eichmann, B. (2016b).
The effects of low volume resistance training with and without advanced
techniques in trained subjects. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness, 56(3), 249-258.
Glass, S.C. & Stanton, D.R. (2004). Self-selected resistance training intensity in
novice weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
18(2), 324-327.
Goh, J.X., Hall, J.A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own
studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535-549. doi:
10.1111/spc3.12267
Green, P., & MacLeod, C.J. (2015). SIMR: an R package for power analysis of
generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, 7(4), 493-498. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12504
Hackett, D.A., Cobley, S., Favies, T., Michael, S. & Halaki, M. (2016). Accuracy
in estimating repetitions to failure during resistance exercise. Journal of
10.1519/JSC.0000000000001683.
Hackett, D.A., Johnson, N.A., Halaki, M. & Chow, C. (2012). A novel scale to
assess resistance-exercise effort. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(13), 1405-
1413. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.710757.
work
26
Helms, E.R., Cronin, J., Storey, A. & Zourdos, M. (2016). Application of the
repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for
resistance training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 38(4), 42-49. doi:
10.1519/SSC.0000000000000218.
Horstman, D. H., Morgan, W. P., Cymerman, A., and Stokes, J. (1979).
Perception of effort during constant work to self-imposed exhaustion.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48(3), pp 1111-1126. doi:
10.2466/pms.1979.48.3c.1111.
Izquierdo, M., González-Badillo, J.J., Ibáñez, J., Kraemer, W.J., Altadill, A.,
Eslava, J., & Gorostiaga, E.M. (2006). Effect of loading on unintentional
lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during
upper and lower extremity muscle actions. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 27, 718-724. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-872825
Kennedy, D.S., Fitzpatrick, S.C., Gandevia, S.C., & Taylor, J.L. (2015). Fatigue
related firing of muscle nociceptors reduces voluntary activation of
ipsilateral but not contralateral lower limb muscles. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 118(4), 408-418. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00375.2014.
Marcora, S. (2009). Perception of effort during exercise is independent of afferent
feedback from skeletal muscles, heart, and lungs. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 106(6), 2060-2062. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.90378.2008.
Marcora, S. M., and Staiano, W., 2010. The limit to exercise tolerance in humans:
Mind over muscle? European Journal of Applied Physiology, 109(4), pp
763-770. doi: 10.1007/s00421-010-1418-6.
Mazzetti, S.A., Kraemer, W.J., Volek, J.S., Dunca, N.D., Ratamess, N.A., Gomez,
A.L., ... Fleck. S.J. (2000). The influence of direct supervision of
resistance training on strength performance. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 32(6), 1175-1184. doi: 10.1097/00005768-
200006000-00023.
McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C., and Tackett, J. L. (2019).
Abandon statistical significance. Am. Stat. 73, 235–245. doi:
10.1080/00031305.2018.1527253
work
27
Micklewright, D., St Clair Gibson, A., Gladwell, V., & Al Salman, A. (2017).
Development and validity of the rating-of-fatigue scale. Sports Medicine,
47(11), 2375-2393. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0711-5.
Morán-Navarro, R., Martínez-Cava,A., Sánchez-Medina, L., Mora-Rodríquez, R.,
González-Badillo, J.J., & Pallarés, J.G. (2019). Movement velocity as a
measure of level of effort during resistance exercise. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 33(6), 1496-1504. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0000000000002017.
Nascimento, M.A. do, Cyrino E.S., Nakamura F.Y., Romanzini, M., Pianca,
H.J.C. & Queiróga, M.R. (2007). Validation of the Brzycki equation for
the estimation of 1-RM in the bench press. Brasilian Journal of Sports
Medicine, 13(1), 40e-42e.
Noakes, T. D., 2004. Linear relationship between the perception of effort and the
duration of constant load exercise that remains. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 96(4), pp 1571-1572. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01124.2003
Pageaux, B. (2016). Perception of effort in Exercise Science: Definition,
measurement and perspectives. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(8),
885-894. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1188992.
Pincivero, D. M., Coelho, A. J., and Campy, R. M., 2004. Gender differences in
perceived exertion during fatiguing knee extensions. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 23, pp 514-520. doi:
10.1249/01.MSS.0000106183.23941.54.
Potvin, J.R., & Fuglevand, A.J. (2017). A motor unit-based model of muscle
fatigue. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(6), e1005581.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005581
Ratamess, N.A., Faigenbaum, A.D., Hoffman, J.R. & Kang, J. (2008). Self-
selected resistance training intensity in healthy women: the influence of a
personal trainer. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1),
103-111. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f29cc.
Rodríguez-Rossell, D., Yáñez-García, J.M., Sánchez-Medina, L., Mora-Custodio,
R., & González-Badillo, J.J. (2019). Relationship between velocity loss
and repetitions in reserve in the bench press and back squat. Journal of
work
28
Strength and Conditioning Research, doi:

10.1519/JSC.0000000000002881. Online ahead of print.
Smirmaul, B.P. (2012). Sense of effort and other unpleasant sensations during
exercise: Clarifying concepts and mechanisms. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 46(5), 308-311. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.071407.
Steele, J. (2014). Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within
resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether?. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(22), 1586-1588. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-
2012-092127.
Steele, J. (2015). Re: Dichotomy in translation raises the need for careful
definition in use. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/22/1586.responses#redichotomy-in-
translation-raises-the-need-for-careful-definition-in-use.
Steele, J., & Fisher, J. (2018). Effort, discomfort, group III/IV afferents,
bioenergetics, and motor unit recruitment. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 50(8), 1718. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001605.
Steele, J., Andoulakis-Korakakis, P., Perrin, C., Fisher, J.P., Gentil, P., Scott, C.,
& Rosenberger, A. (2019). Comparisons of resistance training and
“cardio” exercise modalities as countermeasures to microgravity-induced
physical deconditioning: New perspectives and lessons learned from
terrestrial studies. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1150. doi:
10.3389/fphys.2019.01150
Steele, J., Endres, A., Fisher, J., Gentil, P. & Giessing, J. (2017a). Ability to
predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though
improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ 5, e4105. doi:
10.7717/peerj.4105.
Steele, J., Fisher, J., Giessing, J. & Gentil, P. (2017b). Clarity in reporting
terminology and definitions of set endpoints in resistance training. Muscle
Nerve, 56(3), 368-374.
Steele, J., Fisher, J., McKinnon, S. & McKinnon, P. (2017c). Differentiation
between perceived effort and discomfort during resistance training in older
adults: reliability of trainee ratings of effort and discomfort, and reliability
work
29
and validity of trainer ratings of trainee effort. Journal of Trainology, 6(1),

1-8. doi: 10.17338/trainology.6.1_1.
Steele, J., Fisher, J. Skivington, M., Dunn, C., Arnold, J., Tew, G., ... Winett, R.
(2017d). A higher effort-based paradigm in physical activity and exercise
for public health: making the case for a greater emphasis on resistance
training. BMC Public Health, 17:300. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4209-8.
Steele, J., Santos, W., Viera, C., Bottaro, M., Nunes, V.A., Ramirez-Campillo, R.,
Fisher, J., & Gentil, P. (2019). Incogruence of objective measures of actual
effort, and subjective perception of effort, during maximal intended
velocity resistance training. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(suppl 1), 28.
doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31387.41766
Stuart, C., Steele, J., Gentil, P., Giessing, J. & Fisher, J. (2018). Fatigue and
perceptual responses of heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension
resistance exercise in males and females. PeerJ 6, e4523. doi:
10.7717/peerj.4523.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor
package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48. URL:
http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/
Weakley, J., McLaren, S., Ramirez-Lopez, C., García-Ramos, A., Dalton-Barron,
N., Banyard, H., Mann, B., Weaving, D., & Jones, B. (2019). Application
of velocity loss thresholds during free-weight resistance training:
Responses and reproducibility of perceptual, metabolic, and
neuromuscular outcomes. Journal of Sports Sciences, doi:
10.1080/02640414.2019.1706831. Online ahead of print.
Zourdos, M.C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J.M., Schau, K.A., Jo, E., ... Garcia-
Merino Blanco, R. (2016). Novel resistance training-specific rating of
perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. Journal of
10.1519/JSC.0000000000001049.
Zourdos, M.C. Goldsmith, J.A., Helms, E.R., Trepeck, C., Halle, J.L., Mendez,
K.M., Cooke, D.M., Haischer, M.H., Sousa, C.A., Klemp, A., & Byrnes,
R.K. (2019). Proximity to failure and total repetitions performed in a set
influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve-based rating of
work
30
perceived exertion. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, doi:

10.1519/JSC.0000000000002995. Online ahead of print.
work
View publication stats

Apenas Mais Uma Repetição - Capacidade de Prever A Proximidade Da Falha Da Tarefa em Pessoas Treinadas em Resistência

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apenas Mais Uma Repetição - Capacidade de Prever A Proximidade Da Falha Da Tarefa em Pessoas Treinadas em Resistência

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Preprint · May 2020

Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis Nikos Michalopoulos

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tsvetelina Georgieva James Fisher

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

“Just one more rep!” – Ability to predict proximity

Cedrik Armes1,2, Henry Standish-Hunt1, Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis1, Nick

Data Availability Statement

Keywords Perception Effort Hypertrophy Strength

actual of 5.15±2.92, 3.65±2.46, and 2.05±1.73 respectively), but that participants

19. An opportunity to collect additional data for Experiment 1 resulted in a final

Experiment 1: RT trials based on baseline 70%1RM

Experiment 2: RT trials based on daily 70%MVC

equivalence bands (dashed red line).

Experiment 2: RT trials based on daily 70%MVC

equivalence bands (dashed red line).

Figure 3. Forest plot of both experiments with 95%CIs; RE = Random-effects

extension/flexion dynamometer to either MF or sdRM. In Experiment 1,

after 2 repetitions showing descriptive differences in actual vs predicted (Altoé

Experiment 1, where participants performed single sets of knee extensions

addition to the ability to differentiate them cognitively with appropriate

familiarization period has been included (Androulakis-Korakakis, Fisher,

of repetitions, resulting in higher errors, though it should be considered that there

periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition – A pilot

Strength and Conditioning Research, doi:

and validity of trainer ratings of trainee effort. Journal of Trainology, 6(1),

perceived exertion. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, doi:

View publication stats

You might also like