Esfuerzo percibido al 40%, 60% y 80% de una repetición máxima en hombres con entrenamiento intermedio durante la prescripción de ejercicio de resistencia basada en el ACSM

Pedro Augusto Inacio; Eduardo da Matta Mello Portugal; Daphine Busch; William Riciere; Douglas Farias Fonseca; Weder Alves da Silva; Cezimar Borges; Alberto Souza Sá Filho

Authors

Pedro Augusto Inacio Graduaten Program in Movement and Rehabilitation, Evangelical University of Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA), Anápolis, Goias, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9354-1460
Eduardo da Matta Mello Portugal Graduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Rio De Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7268-7847
Daphine Busch Graduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Rio De Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2227-2293
William Riciere Graduaten Program in Movement and Rehabilitation, Evangelical University of Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA), Anápolis, Goias, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1197-683X
Douglas Farias Fonseca Graduaten Program in Movement and Rehabilitation, Evangelical University of Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA), Anápolis, Goias, Brazil https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8395-7434
Weder Alves da Silva Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Evangelical University Of Goiás – UniEVANGÉLICA, Anápolis, Goiás, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7677-4710
Cezimar Borges Department of Physical Education, University Center of Goiatuba (UniCERRADO), Goiatuba, Goiás, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7524-9906
Alberto Souza Sá Filho Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Evangelical University Of Goiás – UniEVANGÉLICA, Anápolis, Goiás, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9434-4231

Keywords:

rate of perceived exertion, resistance training, exercise prescription

Abstract

Objective: To test the validity of the resistance training intensity prescription table proposed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) by comparing the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) after exercise at 40%, 60%, and 80% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Methods: Sixteen recreationally trained men (age: 25.1 ± 5.5 y; body mass: 84.4 ± 8.6 kg; height: 178.0 ± 6.2 cm) completed three sessions in a randomized crossover design, performing three sets of eight repetitions at a fixed speed in the exercises lat pulldown, leg extension, bench press, and leg curl, at 40%, 60%, or 80%. RPE was recorded immediately after each exercise. Single-sample t-tests compared observed RPE values with ACSM values (40% 1RM = RPE 2–3; 60% 1RM = RPE 4–5; 80% 1RM = RPE 6–7). Variations in effect sizes were calculated (ES). Results: All intensities produced significantly higher RPE values than those predicted by the ACSM (p < 0.001). The largest discrepancies were observed at 60% 1RM (ES: 1.4–2.5) and 80% 1RM (ES: 1.5–2.5). For upper limb exercises, at 40% (ES: 0.5–0.9), the RPE approached the recommendation. Conclusion: Under the specific conditions tested, the ACSM table may underestimate the RPE elicited by submaximal resistance exercises performed with fixed repetitions.