Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma , USA.
J Sports Sci Med. 2006 Jun 1;5(2):289-95. eCollection 2006.
The purpose of this study was to compare session rating of perceived exertion for different resistance training techniques in the squat exercise. These techniques included traditional resistance training, super slow, and maximal power training. Fourteen college-age women (Mean ± SD; age = 22 ± 3 years; height = 1.68 ± 0. 07 m) completed three experimental trials in a randomized crossover design. The traditional resistance training protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of squats using 80% of 1-RM. The super slow protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions using 55% of 1-RM. The maximal power protocol consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions using 30% of 1-RM. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) measures were obtained following each set using Borg's CR-10 scale. In addition, a session RPE value was obtained 30 minutes following each exercise session. When comparing average RPE and session RPE, no significant difference was found. However, power training had significantly lower (p < 0.05) average and session RPE (4.50 ± 1.9 and 4.5 ± 2.1) compared to both super slow training (7.81 ± 1.75 and 7.43 ± 1.73) and traditional training (7.33 ± 1.52 and 7.13 ± 1.73). The results indicate that session RPE values are not significantly different from the more traditional methods of measuring RPE during exercise bouts. It does appear that the resistance training mode that is used results in differences in perceived exertion that does not relate directly to the loading that is used. Using session RPE provides practitioners with the same information about perceived exertion as the traditional RPE measures. Taking a single measure following a training session would appear to be much easier than using multiple measures of RPE throughout a resistance training workout. However, practitioners should also be aware that the RPE does not directly relate to the relative intensity used and appears to be dependent on the mode of resistance exercise that is used. Key PointsThe present study showed that session RPE values are not significantly different from the more traditional methods of measuring RPE during exercise bouts.Power training had significantly lower average and session RPE compared to both super slow training and traditional trainingIt does appear that the resistance training mode that is used results in differences in perceived exertion that does not relate directly to the loading that is used.
本研究旨在比较不同阻力训练技术在深蹲运动中对感觉用力的评价。这些技术包括传统阻力训练、超慢速和最大力量训练。14 名大学年龄的女性（均值±标准差；年龄=22±3 岁；身高=1.68±0.07m）在随机交叉设计中完成了三次实验试验。传统阻力训练方案由 6 组 6 次重复深蹲组成，使用 1-RM 的 80%。超慢速方案由 6 组 6 次重复使用 1-RM 的 55%组成。最大力量方案由 6 组 6 次重复使用 1-RM 的 30%组成。每组后使用 Borg 的 CR-10 量表获得感觉用力（RPE）测量值。此外，在每次运动后 30 分钟获得一次运动后 RPE 值。当比较平均 RPE 和运动后 RPE 时，没有发现显著差异。然而，与超慢速训练（7.81±1.75 和 7.43±1.73）和传统训练（7.33±1.52 和 7.13±1.73）相比，力量训练的平均和运动后 RPE 明显较低（p<0.05）（4.50±1.9 和 4.5±2.1）。结果表明，运动后 RPE 值与运动期间更传统的 RPE 测量方法没有显著差异。似乎使用的阻力训练模式会导致感知用力的差异，而这种差异与使用的负荷没有直接关系。使用运动后 RPE 为从业者提供了与传统 RPE 测量相同的感知用力信息。在训练后单次测量似乎比在整个阻力训练过程中多次测量 RPE 更容易。然而，从业者还应该意识到，RPE 与使用的相对强度没有直接关系，似乎取决于使用的阻力运动模式。要点本研究表明，运动后 RPE 值与运动期间更传统的 RPE 测量方法没有显著差异。与超慢速训练和传统训练相比，力量训练的平均和运动后 RPE 明显较低。似乎使用的阻力训练模式会导致感知用力的差异，而这种差异与使用的负荷没有直接关系。
