See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51973786

Concurrent Validation of the OMNI-Resistance

Exercise Scale of Perceived Exertion With Thera-
Band Resistance Bands

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · December 2011

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318245c0c9 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

15 418

6 authors, including:

Juan Carlos Colado Xavier García-Massó

University of Valencia University of Valencia
103 PUBLICATIONS 670 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 327 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sebastien Borreani Victor Tella

University of Valencia University of Valencia
33 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Carlos Colado on 30 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 CONCURRENT VALIDATION OF THE OMNI-
RESISTANCE EXERCISE SCALE OF PERCEIVED
EXERTION WITH THERA-BAND RESISTANCE BANDS
JUAN C. COLADO,1 XAVIER GARCIA-MASSO,1 TRAVIS N. TRIPLETT,2 JORGE FLANDEZ,3
SEBASTIEN BORREANI,1 AND VICTOR TELLA1
1
Laboratory of Physical Activity and Health, Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Valencia, Valencia,
Spain; 2Neuromuscular Laboratory, Department of Health, Leisure and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, Boone,
NC; and 3Faculty of Pedagogy in Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Austral University of Chile, Valdivia, Chile
ABSTRACT
Colado JC, Garcia-Masso X, Triplett TN, Flandez J, Borreani S,
Tella V. Concurrent validation of the OMNI-Resistance Exercise
Scale of perceived exertion with Thera-Band resistance bands.
J Strength Cond Res 26(11): 3018–3024, 2012—The concur-
rent validity of the OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale (OMNI-RES)
of perceived exertion for use with elastic bands was studied
during isotonic resistance exercises. Twenty healthy, physically
active subjects completed both familiarization and testing
sessions. The criterion variables were myoelectric activity,
recorded by electromyography, and heart rate, recorded by
a heart rate monitor. The subjects performed 2 separate sets of
15 repetitions in each of the 2 testing sessions and for each of
the exercises applied (i.e., frontal and lateral raises). One set was
carried out with the separation between the hands gripping the
elastic band allowing that 15 repetition maximum to be
performed in the selected exercise, whereas the other set was
carried out with the separation between hands at +50% of the
previous grip. The perceived exertion rating for the active
muscles and for the overall body, muscular activity, and heart rate
were measured during the final repetition of each set. The results
showed significant differences (p # 0.001) in myoelectric
activity, heart rate, and OMNI-RES scores between the low- and
high-intensity sets and the intraclass correlation coefficient was
0.72–0.76. So it can be concluded that the OMNI-RES can be
used for monitoring the intensity of exercises when elastic bands
are used. This would allow the training stimulus dosage to be
precisely controlled in both the session in progress and between
different sessions, and allowing to differentiate between different
Address correspondence to Juan C. Colado, juan.colado@uv.es.
26(11)/3018–3024
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
3018 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
levels of intensity according to the physical aptitudes and special
physiological needs of the subjects.
KEY WORDS myoelectric activity, heart rate, elastic bands,
physical conditioning, strength training
INTRODUCTION
T
he OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance
exercise (OMNI-RES) is a tool that helps to
control intensity during strength training exercises
and can be applied to men, women, boys, and girls
alike (19,22). As described by Lagally et al. (8), there is
a functional link between the 3 kinds of responses that can
appear when physical exercise is being carried out:
physiological, perceptual, and performance. Some of the
physiological variables that usually change during resistance
exercises, and that can therefore be used to control intensity
while they are being carried out, are blood lactic acid
concentration, muscular activity, and heart rate (8,12,13,23).
For example, Robertson et al. (19,22) used the following
criterion variables for concurrent validation of the OMNI-
RES: total weight lifted, blood lactic acid concentration, and
rating of perceived exertion for active muscles (RPE-AM)
and for the overall body (RPE-O).
Despite its ease of use and the fact that the reliability of the
session RPE scale for quantifying exercise intensity in different
workout sessions (5,10,11) has already been shown, few studies
(2–4,6,7) have applied the RPE-AM to control intensity during
resistance exercise programs by using the OMNI-RES Scale
for active muscles (OMNI-RES AM). Several of these studies
(2,4) have been characterized by the fact that to match the
intensity of the resistance exercise with different types of
resistance devices (i.e., elastic bands and tubing, weight
machines, free weights and aquatic devices that increase drag
forces), the targeted number of repetitions was maintained
while applying the RPE-AM by using the OMNI-RES. These
studies showed that this methodological resource was valid, as
using different materials for dynamic strength training obtained

similar adaptations with regard to body composition and
functional capacity.
We should also point out that other studies before these
that used perceived exertion indicated that intensity is usually
underestimated when carrying out submaximal exercises with
isokinetic and isometric characteristics (17,18). It should also
be underlined that, despite the fact that the OMNI-RES has
been shown to be valid for resistance exercises with isotonic
and eccentric characteristics (22), it was exclusively validated
with the use of materials that use the force of gravity to create
the resistance used for exercising (i.e., free weight). This is
why some doubt arises as to whether it is really appropriate
to use the OMNI-RES scale with other devices that it has
not been validated for. Indeed, we could ask whether many of
the unknowns that have been clarified regarding the use of
the RPE applied to resistance exercises respond in similar
fashion when other strength training devices are used (i.e.,
possible reliability between exercises and sessions (5) and
possible differences between levels of intensity and/or genere
(7,8,16,19,22)). So, studies on these topics are needed for both
scientific and professional areas. Taking into consideration
these previous aspects that aim to guarantee the precise
application of the OMNI Perceived Exertion Scale to control
the intensity of the exercise, it should be mentioned that the
studies have already been carried out to validate it during
different types of aerobic exercises (13,14,20,21,25).
Therefore, and specifically for resistance exercises, the
purpose of this investigation was threefold: (a) To examine the
Figure 1. OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale of perceived exertion with Thera-Band resistance bands.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
effect of 2 different resistance exercise intensities with elastic
bands on RPE, myoelectric activity, and heart rate responses;
(b) to examine the concurrent validity of the OMNI-RES for
use with elastic bands during isotonic resistance exercises; and
(c) to determine the reliability of the session RPE method, using
the OMNI-RES Scale, for quantifying resistance training with
elastic bands. It was hypothesized that the OMNI-RES AM
and OMNI-RES O would show a positive link with muscular
activation and heart rate during resistance exercises with elastic
bands, thus establishing the concurrent validity of the OMNI-
RES for the use of elastic bands.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Twenty volunteers took part in 3 different sessions. In the first,
the subjects were familiarized with the use of the OMNI-RES
Scale and how to establish the grip width on the elastic
band (Thera-Band) with which they carried out their 15
repetitions maximum (RM) for 2 different exercises for the
upper extremities (i.e., frontal and lateral raise). The next
2 sessions were the same (in which the reliability was tested),
with the subjects carrying out 1 set of 15 low-intensity
repetitions and another of high-intensity repetitions. During
the low-intensity set, the subjects carried out the exercises
with an elastic band grip width of +50% over the width with
which they achieved their 15RM and with the grip identified
for the 15RM during the high-intensity set. Electromyo-
graphic (EMG) signals were recorded during these sets
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2012 | 3019
 Elastic Band OMNI-RES
TABLE 1. Differences in myoelectric activity between low- and high-intensity sets.*
High intensity
Frontal raise (n = 37) Mean RMS 71.10 (4.23)†
Maximum RMS 200.20 (11.77)†
Lateral raise (n = 38) Mean RMS 69.73 (7.04)†
Maximum RMS 185.19 (16.26)†
*Data are expressed as mean (SE) as a % of the maximum isometric voluntary contraction.
The frontal raise dealt with the activation of 2 muscle groups: Pectoralis Major and Anterior
Deltoid. The lateral raise dealt with the activation of 2 muscle groups: middle deltoid and
supraspinatus.
†Significant differences (p # 0.001) between intensities.
(frontal raise: pectoralis major, anterior deltoid; lateral raise:
middle deltoid and supraspinatus), and heart rate was also
recorded. In addition to these dependent variables, the ratings
provided by the subjects for perceived exertion were obtained,
both for active muscles and overall, using the OMNI-RES
Scale adapted to a new pictograph for use when working with
elastic bands (Figure 1).
To analyze the concurrent validity of this scale, all
dependent variables were compared (EMG, OMNI-RES
scores, and heart rate) for the different intensities being tested.
Subjects
Twenty subjects (12 men and 8 women; 21.00 [62.77] years;
175.66 [69.39] cm; 69.40 [613.10] kg; 485.24 [6272.98]
minutes of physical activity per week; data expressed as mean
[SD]) participated voluntarily in this study. The inclusion
criteria were (a) 6 months minimum experience of physical
activity and (b) attendance at weight training class or taking
part in weight training exercises at least twice a week for at
least 3 weeks before testing. Participants suffering musculo-
skeletal pain or any neuromuscular and cardiovascular
disorder were excluded from the study. All subjects signed
an informed consent form before starting the protocol. The
study was approved by the review board of the institution. All
procedures applied in this study comply with the require-
ments listed in the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and its
amendment in 2008.
Procedure
Each subject took part in a familiarization session and 2
measurement sessions at least 48 hours apart. The subjects
were also warned not to carry out any exhausting activities in
the 48 hours before each session. The study was performed in
September, and all the sessions were performed at the same
time of the day. The subjects were also told not to change
their diets and not to consume stimulants (e.g., caffeine).
Subjects were drinking water during the sessions of the study
according to their need.
the TM
3020 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
The measurement protocols
were always strictly controlled
by the same evaluators, using
Low intensity
a digital metronome to ensure
that the execution speed of the
53.31 (3.18) different exercises and sets was
169.55 (10.78) always the same. The subjects
53.32 (4.20)
underwent a standard warm-up
161.22 (14.17)
in every session. The order in
which the exercises were car-
ried out was counterbalanced.
In the same way, the order in
which the different sets were
performed according to their
intensity was randomized for
the measurement sessions.
Familiarization Session
In the first session, the subjects were familiarized with the
exercises and the use of the scale. They were instructed to use
the correct technique in both exercises, avoiding any
nonstandard movements and thus focus movement exclu-
sively in the shoulder joint. In addition, the subjects were
helped to maintain the correct position (and enhance the
reproducibility of the experimental situation) through
appropriate configuration of the measurement area. The
range of movement was set from a position at which the hand
was touching the hip to 90 degrees for both movements.
During this session, the grip width with which they reached
their 15RM was also determined, taking into account the
suggestions of previous studies (15). To do this, the subjects
performed sets of each exercise, adjusting the grip width until
they were able to perform 15RM. During this procedure, the
recovery time between series was 3 minutes.
As regards familiarizing themselves with the scale, the
subjects carried out 2 different protocols, 1 of high and 1 of
low intensity, to establish the range of values for perceived
exertion and its correspondence with scores on the OMNI-
RES Scale. The high-intensity protocol was carried out first,
during which, to confirm the width obtained, the subjects
also performed an additional set of 15 repetitions with the grip
width that had previously allowed them to perform their
15RM. At the end of this exercise, it was explained to them
that the perceived local exertion of the active muscles at
that time corresponded to a rating of 10 on the OMNI-RES
Scale. After that, during the low-intensity protocol, they
performed a single repetition with a grip width that only
allowed the elastic band to tighten very slightly at the end of
the range of movement. At the end of this series, it was
explained to them that the perceived local exertion of the
active muscles at that time corresponded to a rating of 0 on
the OMNI-RES Scale.
Experimental Sessions
Two identical measurement sessions were carried out to
obtain EMG recordings, heart rate data, and the perceived

Figure 2. Comparisons between intensities in muscle activation. The columns represent the mean and the error bars represent the SEM. *Significant differences
(p , 0.05) between intensities.
exertion ratings while the subjects performed 1 high-intensity
and 1 low-intensity series of each of the exercises. The
recovery time between these sets was 2 minutes. At the end of
the concentric phase of the last repetition, the subjects
reported their perceived exertion of the active muscles and,
immediately afterward, their overall perception.
Before performing these series, the subjects made an
attempt to obtain their maximum isometric voluntary
contraction (MIVC) for each of the exercises, to be able to
normalize the EMG data later. These isometric attempts were
performed with a 45-degree angle of the glenohumeral joint,
following the same technical principles as in the dynamic
exercises.
Electromyography Recording
Surface EMG signals were measured using the Telemyo 900
system (Noraxon USA Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, USA). The skin
was shaved, abraded, and cleansed with alcohol before
placing a disposable bipolar surface electrode (Noraxon dual
electrode, Noraxon USA Inc.) over the muscle. Surface
electrodes were placed on the following muscle groups: (a)
pectoralis major (one third of the distance between the
anterior aspect of the acromium and the xiphoid process); (b)
anterior deltoid (between the lateral border of the clavicle and
the deltoid tuberosity on the humerus); (c) middle deltoid
(3 cm below the acromion over the muscle mass on the lateral
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
upper arm); and (d) supraspinatus (aligned with the midpoint
of the scapular spine, 2 cm superiorly).
All signals were acquired at a sampling frequency of 1 kHz,
amplified, and converted from analog to digital. All records of
myoelectrical activity (microvolts) were stored on a hard
drive for later analysis.
Heart Rate Measurement
Heart rate monitors (Polar FT1; Polar Electro, Tampere,
Finland) were attached around the chests of the subjects with
an elastic band. The reading given by the pulsometer when
the subject performed the 15th repetition of each series was
recorded and stored for later analysis.
Data Reduction
All surface electromyography (SEMG) signal analyses were
carried out using Matlab 7.0 (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA,
USA). The SEMG signals related to the isometric exercises
were analyzed using the middle 2-second period. On the other
hand, the SEMG signals of the dynamic exercises were
analyzed using the whole 15th repetition. All signals were band
pass filtered at a 20- to 400-Hz cut-off frequency with a fourth-
order Butterworth filter. SEMG amplitude in the time domain
was quantified using the root mean square (RMS) and
processed every 100 milliseconds. The maximum and mean
RMSs were selected for every trial. The data obtained were
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2012 | 3021
 Elastic Band OMNI-RES
TABLE 2. Differences in OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale scores and heart rate between low- and high-intensity sets.*
Active muscle scores
High intensity Low intensity High intensity Low intensity
Frontal raise (n = 20) 8.95 (0.25)† 6.0 (0.37)
Lateral raise (n = 20) 9.15 (0.25)† 6.15 (0.45)
*Data are expressed as mean (SE). bpm = beats per minute.
†Significant differences (p , 0.001) between intensities.
normalized to the MIVC achieved during both exercises and
therefore expressed as percentage of the MIVC.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (version 17;
SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All variables were checked for
normality (K-S normality test) and homoscedasticity (Lev-
ene’s test). Standard statistical methods were used to obtain
the mean as a measurement of the central trend and the (SE) as
a measurement of dispersion. A mixed model (muscle group [2]
3 condition [2]) multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
performed to determine the effect of the intensity on the
SEMG-related variables for both exercises. Post hoc analysis
with Bonferroni correction was performed in the case of
significant main or interaction effects. Also, Student’s t-tests for
related samples (2-tailed) were applied to determine the
existence of differences between intensities in OMNI-RES
scores and heart rate data. Bonferroni correction was applied
to avoid increasing familywise error as several dependent
variables were included in Student’s t-tests. Finally, the
reliability of the OMNI-RES scores was checked by means
of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and SEM. The level
of significance was set at p # 0.05 before Bonferroni correction.
RESULTS
Multivariate contrast revealed that there was a main effect of
the intensity in the EMG-related variables in the frontal
(F2,34 = 13.69, p , 0.001, h2p ¼ 0:45) and lateral raise (F2,35 =
11.01, p , 0.001, h2p ¼ 0:39) exercises. Univariate analysis
TABLE 3. Intersessions reliability of OMNI-Resistance
Exercise Scale scores.*
ICC SEM
Active muscles 0.72 1.37
Overall 0.76 1.12
*ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.
the TM
3022 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Overall scores Heart rate (bpm)
High intensity Low intensity
6.35 (0.36)† 3.85 (0.45) 122.45 (4.74)† 112.6 (4.74)
6.35 (0.41)† 4.15 (0.46) 124.0 (4.72)† 113.05 (4.97)
showed a significant main effect of the intensity in the mean
RMS (F1,35 = 28.07, p , 0.001, h2p ¼ 0:44) and maximum
RMS (F1,35 = 12.58, p = 0.001, h2p ¼ 0:26) in the frontal raise
exercise. This effect also appeared in the mean RMS (F1,36 =
17.64, p , 0.001, h2p ¼ 0:33 and maximum RMS (F1,36 =
19.44, p , 0.001, h2p ¼ 0:35) in the lateral raise exercise.
The results provided by the planned contrasts are shown in
Table 1 and Figure 2.
On the other hand, the OMNI-RES scores for active
muscles were higher in the high-intensity set than in the low-
intensity set (t19 = 8.99, p , 0.001) for the frontal raise. The
same results were found for the lateral raise (t19 = 8.11, p ,
0.001). As regards the OMNI-RES overall scores, the results
show lesser values in the low-intensity test for frontal (t19 =
7.43, p , 0.001) and lateral (t19 = 6.38, p , 0.001) raises.
Finally, the heart rate in low-intensity test was lower than in
the high-intensity protocol for both exercises, frontal (t19 =
4.43, p , 0.001) and lateral (t19 = 6.16, p , 0.001) raises. The
OMNI-RES scores and heart rate descriptive statistics are
shown in Table 2.
The intersession reliability analysis shows good ICC for
active muscles and overall OMNI-RES Scale scores. The
SEM also shows good reliability values (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
OMNI is an acronym for the word omnibus and, when
defined in the context of a perceived exertion metric, it
refers to a category scale having broadly generalizable
measurement properties (21). Robertson et al. (22) vali-
dated the OMNI Scale for the use of resistance exercises,
but doubt could arise when it is used with other types of
resistance devices for which it was initially validated,
because there is the possibility that this scale could under-
estimate the intensity of the effort performed and might not
show good reliability between sessions. Therefore, this
study examined the concurrent validity of the newly
developed elastic band format for the OMNI Scale of
Perceived Exertion. Validity was established with female
and male adults performing unilateral isotonic frontal and
lateral raise exercises. The present study is the first to use
an elastic band OMNI Scale format that presents

developmentally specific pictorial-verbal categories to rate
perceived exertion during resistance exercise.
The most important finding of this study is that the OMNI-
RES can be used to monitor intensity when elastic bands are
used. These findings are in agreement with certain previous
studies that used the OMNI Scale to assess exertional
perceptions during resistance exercises (19,22). Therefore,
a new scale with a new pictorial format of the OMNI Scale of
perceived exertion for resistance exercises has been validated
using a concurrent paradigm, as previously done in other
studies (19) to corroborate its application to different
populations to those used in the original study by Robertson
et al. (22).
The results indicate that there are differences in the
physiological (EMG and heart rate) and perceptual variables
in response to changes in resistance exercise intensity through
elastic band grip width. This reduction in grip width is
normally used with elastic bands as the equivalent to
increasing resistance when training with weight-based
devices (3). Therefore, because of the fact that this study
has shown the existence of an increase in both RPE and
EMG measurements as elastic band grip width is reduced, we
can state that neuromotor activity was greater as the relative
resistance became stronger because of said reduction (8).
Therefore, these findings are also consistent with previous
studies using Borg scales (i.e., 6–20, CR-10) that showed that
RPE increased as a function of increasing the total weight
lifted (17,24). In our study, because of the special nature of
materials with elastic properties, instead of altering the
weight, grip width was reduced as a way of manipulating the
resistance load.
This once again shows the functional link between 3 main
effort continua, as shown previously with free weights by
Lagally et al. (8). In addition, the session RPE method of
quantifying resistance training using the OMNI-RES was
shown to be a reliable measurement tool across 2 different
sessions when elastic bands are employed and when the
same training methodology regarding intensity is properly
applied, as was shown by Day et al. (5) using free weights.
These results could explain the effectiveness obtained in
previous studies with a more practical or applied design (2,4)
in which the targeted number of repetitions was maintained
while applying the OMNI-RES AM in short- and medium-
term resistance exercise programs using different types of
devices (e.g., elastic bands).
Unlike previous findings (24), and in full accordance with
other previous findings (13), in this study we have seen the
appearance of statistically significant differences, which
confirm that a reduction in elastic band grip width is related
to an increase in working heart rate and local and overall
perception of the exertion associated with the exercise being
performed. Therefore, these results could indicate that this
tool could well be useful for controlling heart rate in popula-
tions with cardiovascular disorders that could be a condition-
ing factor when carrying out physical exercise (1,26).
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
It is very important to highlight that the concurrent validity
of the OMNI-RES for its use with elastic bands during
isotonic resistance exercises that we have developed was only
performed with the evaluation of 2 exercises. However, this
fact cannot shed doubt on our validity, as this is the habitual
procedure that has been followed until now in other studies of
great scientific value (8,16,20,22) that have evaluated the
sensitivity of some kind of scale (OMNI-RES; 15-Category
Borg Perceived Exertion; Borg Category-Ratio [CR-10]). It is
for this reason that we have followed the same methodo-
logical guidelines regarding the number of exercises
employed and characteristics of these. For example,
Robertson et al. (20,22) employed 2 exercises (biceps curl
and knee extension) to perform 2 studies of concurrent
validation with weight resistance devices very similar to the
study that we have developed. Even Lagally et al. (8) and
Pincivero et al. (16) employed only 1 exercise (single-arm
biceps curl and knee extension exercise, respectively) to
evaluate the sensitivity of different scales applied to the
resistance exercises.
As an advantage of our study, it must be highlighted that we
have employed 2 exercises of upper extremities instead of
using only 1, showing that in both exercises a similar answer
in the measured variables is produced as it was to be expected
independently from whether they were for upper or lower
exercises. In fact, both in the study of Lagally et al. (8) and of
Pincivero et al. (16) generalizations are performed regarding
the RPE employing only 1 exercise of upper and lower
extremities. It is for all these exposed arguments that no
doubts should arise when the validity scale in our study is
employed with other exercises that have not been analyzed
in it because it is not habitual to add more exercises to be
analyzed and until nowadays this aspect has not been
indicated in any similar study with the same topic. Despite
that, we would like to highlight that the development of any
study focused on lower extremities could be recommended
with the purpose of reinforcing the results of the sensitivity of
the scale that we have employed in our study.
Finally, it should be pointed out that comparing this scale
against the standard OMNI-RES Scale to develop a construct
validity study would be very interesting for future studies. It
had been done previously by Lagally et al. (9), who made
the comparison between the OMNI-RES and the Borg
15-category RPE scale once the Concurrent Validation of the
OMNI-RES had been previously performed by them in
another study (22).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The findings of this study may have important implications
for exercise prescription, as this new scale showing the use
of the OMNI-RES with elastic bands can be a useful tool
that allows the stimulus regimen to be applied more
effectively when performing strength training with such
cheap and accessible devices as the elastic bands in question.
This means that coaches, end users, and scientists can develop
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2012 | 3023
 Elastic Band OMNI-RES
workouts providing a specific and reproducible stimulus over
sets, and repeating it reliably in different training sessions in
the same week or over several weeks, making the periodi-
zation process and training prescription easier and, therefore,
the specificity of the responses and/or adaptations (13).
In turn, the fact that we can differentiate precisely between
different levels of intensity using the same material, in this case
elastic bands, means that we can adapt training to both
individuals with different levels of physical aptitude and to
a single subject, allowing to vary the level of intensity of their
training on the basis of previously defined goals (19).
Finally, we should also underline the fact that populations
with specific physical or physiological needs, where elastic
bands are accessible devices that match their special
characteristics, could have access to an easy-to-use resource
that allows them to carry out their training programs with
greater safety and without any risk to health (4).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
X.G.M. is a Vali+D researcher in formation and thanks the
Generalitat Valenciana.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), Pescatello, LS,
Franklin, BA, Fagard, RM, Farquhar, WB, Kelley, GA, and Ray, CA.
Exercise and hypertension. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 533–553, 2004.
2. Colado, JC, Garcia-Masso, X, Pellicer, M, Alakhdar, Y, Benavent, J,
and Cabeza-Ruiz, RA Comparison of elastic tubing and isotonic
resistance exercises. Int J Sports Med 31: 810–817, 2010.
3. Colado, JC and Triplett, NT. Effects of a short-term resistance
program using elastic bands versus weight machines for sedentary
middle-aged women. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1441–1448, 2008.
4. Colado, JC, Triplett, NT, Tella, V, Saucedo, P, and Abellán, J. Effects
of aquatic resistance training on health and fitness in postmeno-
pausal women. Eur J Appl Physiol 106: 113–122, 2009.
5. 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.
6. Gearhart, RF Jr, Lagally, KM, Riechman, SE, Andrews, RD, and
Robertson, RJ. RPE at relative intensities after 12 weeks of
resistance-exercise training by older adults. Percept Mot Skills 106:
893–903, 2008.
7. Gearhart, RF Jr, Lagally, KM, Riechman, SE, Andrews, RD, and
Robertson, RJ. Strength tracking using the OMNI resistance exercise
scale in older men and women. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1011–1015,
2009.
8. Lagally, KM, Robertson, RJ, Gallagher, KI, Goss, FL, Jakicic, JM,
Lephart, S, and Goodpaster, B. Perceived exertion, electromyogra-
phy, and blood lactate during acute bouts of resistance exercise. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 34: 552–559, 2002.
9. Lagally, KM and Robertson, RJ. Construct validity of the OMNI
resistance exercise scale. J Strength Cond Res 20: 252–256, 2006.
10. Lagally, KM and Amorose, AJ. The validity of using prior ratings of
perceived exertion to regulate resistance exercise intensity. Percept
Mot Skills 104: 534–542, 2007.
11. Lagally, KM, Amorose, AJ, and Rock, B. Selection of resistance
exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion from the
OMNI-RES. Percept Mot Skills 108: 573–586, 2009.
the TM
3024 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
12. Lepley, AS and Hatzel, BM. Effects of weightlifting and breathing
technique on blood pressure and heart rate. J Strength Cond Res 24:
2179–2183, 2010.
13. Miller, PC, Hall, EE, Chmelo, EA, Morrison, JM, DeWitt, RE, and
Kostura, CM. The influence of muscle action on heart rate, RPE, and
affective responses after upper-body resistance exercise. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 366–372, 2009.
14. Nakamura, FY, Perandini, LA, Okuno, NM, Borges, TO, Bertuzzi, RC,
and Robertson, RJ. Construct and concurrent validation of
OMNI-Kayak rating of perceived exertion scale. Percept Mot Skills
108: 744–758, 2009.
15. Newsam, CJ, Leese, C, and Fernandez-Silva, J. Intratester reliability
for determining an eight-repetition maximum for three shoulder
exercises using elastic bands. J Sports Rehabil 14: 35–47, 2005.
16. Pincivero, DM, Coelho, AJ, and Campy, RM. Perceived exertion and
maximal quadriceps femoris muscle strength during dynamic knee
extension exercise in young adult males and females. Eur J Appl
Physiol 89: 150–156, 2003.
17. Pincivero, DM, Coelho, AJ, Campy, RM, Salfetnikov, Y, and
Bright, A. The effects of voluntary contraction intensity and gender
on perceived exertion during isokinetic quadriceps exercise. Eur J
Appl Physiol 84: 221–226, 2001.
18. Pincivero, DM, Lephart, SM, Moyna, NM, Karunakara, RG, and
Robertson, RJ. Neuromuscular activation and RPE in the quadriceps
at low and high isometric intensities. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol
39: 43–48, 1999.
19. Robertson, RJ, Goss, FL, Andreacci, J, Dubé, J, Rutkowski, J, Frazee, KM,
Aaron, DJ, Metz, KF, Kowallis, RA, and Snees BM. Validation of
the children’s OMNI-resistance exercise scale of perceived exertion.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 819–826, 2005.
20. Robertson, R, Goss, FL, Andreacci, J, Dubé, J, Rutkowski, J, Snee, B,
Kowallis, R, Crawford, K, Aaron, D, and Metz, K. Validation of the
children’s OMNI RPE scale for stepping exercise. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 37: 290–298, 2005.
21. Robertson, RJ, Goss, FL, Dubé, J, Rutkowski, J, Dupain, M, Brennan, C,
and Andreacci, J. Validation of the adult OMNI scale of perceived
exertion for cycle ergometer exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 102–108,
2004.
22. Robertson, RJ, Goss, FL, Rutkowski, J, Lenz, B, Dixon, C, Timmer, J,
Frazee, K, Dube, J, and Andreacci, J. Concurrent validation of the
OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 35: 333–341, 2003.
23. Rozenek, R, Rosenau, L, Rosenau, P, and Stone, MH. The effect of
intensity on heart rate and blood lactate response to resistance
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 7: 51–54, 1993.
24. 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.
25. Utter, AC, Robertson, RJ, Green, JM, Suminski, RR, McAnulty, SR,
and Nieman, DC. Validation of the adult OMNI scale of perceived
exertion for walking/running exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1776–
1780,2004.
26. Williams, MA, Haskell, WL, Ades, PA, Amsterdam, EA, Bittner, V,
Franklin, BA, Gulanick, M, Laing, ST, Stewart, KJ, American Heart
Association Council on Clinical Cardiology, and American Heart
Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabo-
lism. Resistance exercise in individuals with and without cardio-
vascular disease: 2007 update: a scientific statement from the
American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology and
Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation
31: 572–584, 2007.