Validity of using perceived exertion to assess muscle fatigue during back squat exercise.

The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale has been found to reflect physiological responses, and this study aimed to assess the validity of using the Borg CR-10 scale and velocity loss to evaluate muscle fatigue quantified by surface electromyography during back squat (BS) exercise. A total of 15 collegiate male athletes underwent three non-explosive BS tasks comprising low, medium, and high volumes at 65% of their one-repetition maximum. RPEs, spectral fatigue index (SFI), and velocity loss during BS exercise were assessed throughout the trials. Significant differences in overall RPE (p < 0.001) and average SFI (p < 0.05) were observed between the conditions, whereas no significant difference was observed in average velocity loss. Significant increases in RPE and SFI (p < 0.001) were observed within the exercise process, whereas a significant increase in velocity loss was not observed. Correlation analyses indicated a significant correlation between RPE and SFI obtained during exercise (r = 0.573, p < 0.001). However, no significant correlation was observed between velocity loss and SFI. These results demonstrated that RPE could be used as a muscle fatigue predictor in BS exercise, but that velocity loss may not reflect muscle fatigue correctly when participants cannot and/or are not required to perform BS explosively. Furthermore, practitioners should not use velocity loss as a muscle fatigue indicator in some resistance exercise situations, such as rehabilitation, beginner, and hypertrophy programs.

Validity of using perceived exertion to assess muscle fatigue during resistance exercises.

BACKGROUND: The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is correlated with physiological variables. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of using the Borg CR-10 scale and velocity to predict muscle fatigue assessed by surface electromyography during single joint resistance exercises. METHODS: Fifteen healthy males underwent different fatigue levels of unilateral elbow flexion (EF) and knee extension (KE), consisting of low, medium, and high volumes at 65% of their one-repetition maximum. The RPEs, spectral fatigue index (SFI), and mean velocity of the experimental exercises were assessed throughout the trials. RESULTS: Significant differences in overall RPE (p < 0.001) and average SFI (p < 0.001) were observed between the conditions in both exercises. Significant changes in RPE and SFI (p < 0.001) were observed throughout the EF, whereas a SFI increase (p < 0.001) was only observed at the end point of KE. Multiple regression analyses revealed two significant models (p < 0.001) for the prediction of muscle fatigue during EF (R2 = 0.552) and KE (R2 = 0.377). CONCLUSIONS: Muscle fatigue resulted in similar increases in perceptual responses, demonstrating that RPE is useful for assessing fatigue when resistance exercise is performed. However, velocity changes may not reflect muscle fatigue correctly when exercise is no longer performed in an explosive manner. We recommend combining RPE responses with velocity changes to comprehensively assess muscle fatigue during clinical and sports situations.

Effects of rest interval array on training volume, perceived exertion, neuromuscular fatigue, and metabolic responses during agonist-antagonist muscle alternative training.

BACKGROUND: Agonist-antagonist muscle superset (SS) and paired-set (PS) strength training protocols enable the completion of training activities within a shorter period of time than traditional set. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of PS and SS through total volume (TV), set volume (SV), blood lactate concentration (LAC), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and neuromuscular fatigue index (FInsm5). METHODS: Eleven males who train recreationally performed PS and SS consisting of bent-over row (BOR) and bench press (BP). In performing the PS, a single bout of BOR was followed by a rest interval of 60 seconds, the BP was then performed and followed by another rest interval of 60 seconds. When the SS was performed, a single bout of BOR and a single bout of BP were performed consecutively and followed by a single rest interval of 120 seconds. The exercise configurations were repeated until five sets were completed. The TV was calculated by multiplying the number of successful repetitions and the load. The LAC and RPE were measured at predetermined times. Electromyographic signals were recorded for use in the FInsm5 calculation. RESULTS: The RPE indicated that PS was significantly lower than SS (P<0.01). No significant differences between PS and SS were discovered in SV, TV, LAC, and FInsm5. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that PS has lower perceived exertion than SS when agonist-antagonist strength training protocols are selected as the training structure.