Difference of perceived effort index in reserve as a self-regulation method compared to objective effort methodsa systematic review

Abstract

[EN] The use of rate of perceived effort scales (RPE) based on reserve repetitions (RIR) can be a complement to absolute meth-ods, such as 1 maximum repetition (1RM), the percentage variable with respect to 1RM (xRM), and the average concentric velocity (ACV), optimizing control of training intensity. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of using a subjective RPE-RIR effort scale as a self-regulation tool with respect to quantifying the intensity of the training load. We perform a systematic search in PubMed, WOS, and Scopus databases. 2,271 articles were reviewed, of which 7 met the eligibility criteria. These studies involved 147 subjects trained in strength (novices, experienced professionals, and powerlifters), who responded to the implementation of protocols that quantify the subjective and objective load intensity (RPE-RIR relationship and objective load intensity, mean speed - 1RM/xRM). There are strong correlations between the variables in the RPE-RIR study/ Average concentric velocity (r = 0.90 - 0.92; r = -0,98 to -1,00; EL: r = 0.85/ r = -0.88, NL: r = 0.85/ r = -0.77), RPE-RIR/1RM (r = 0.88 to 0.91). The main conclusions of this systematic review regarding methods and means of quantifying objective and subjective intensity of training load indicate a strong correlation between RPE-RIR (as a subjective method) and ACV and 1RM/xRM (as an objective method), especially in inexperienced populations. How-ever, these findings should be considered individually, given the differences between protocols and movements analyzed and the limited analysis of novice populations.