Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Convergent Validity of Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Resistance Exercise in Healthy Participants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lea, John W D; O'Driscoll, Jamie M; Hulbert, Sabina; Scales, James; Wiles, Jonathan D.
Afiliación
  • Lea JWD; School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK. john.lea1@canterbury.ac.uk.
  • O'Driscoll JM; School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK.
  • Hulbert S; School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK.
  • Scales J; Institute of Population and Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
  • Wiles JD; School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK.
Sports Med Open ; 8(1): 2, 2022 Jan 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35000021
BACKGROUND: The validity of ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during aerobic training is well established; however, its validity during resistance exercise is less clear. This meta-analysis used the known relationships between RPE and exercise intensity (EI), heart rate (HR), blood lactate (BLa), blood pressure (BP) and electromyography (EMG) to determine the convergent validity of RPE as a measure of resistance exercise intensity and physiological exertion, during different forms of resistance exercise. Additionally, this study aims to assess the effect of several moderator variables on the strength of the validity coefficients, so that clearer guidance can be given on the use of RPE during resistance exercise. METHODS: An online search of 4 databases and websites (PubMed, Web of Science SPORTDiscus and ResearchGate) was conducted up to 28 February 2020. Additionally, the reference lists of the included articles were inspected manually for further unidentified studies. The inclusion criteria were healthy participants of any age, a rating scale used to measure RPE, resistance exercise of any type, one cohort receiving no other intervention, and must present data from one of the following outcome measures: EI, HR, BP, EMG or BLa. Weighted mean effect sizes (r) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the τ2 and I2 statistics. Moderator analysis was conducted using random-effects meta-regression. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, with 75 studies (99 unique cohorts) included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted mean validity coefficient was large (0.88; 95% CI 0.84-0.91) and between studies heterogeneity was very large (τ2 = 0.526, I2 = 96.1%). Studies using greater workload ranges, isometric muscle actions, and those that manipulated workload or repetition time, showed the highest validity coefficients. Conversely, sex, age, training status, RPE scale used, and outcome measure no significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: RPE provides a valid measure of exercise intensity and physiological exertion during resistance exercise, with effect sizes comparable to or greater than those shown during aerobic exercise. Therefore, RPE may provide an easily accessible means of prescribing and monitoring resistance exercise training. Trial Registration The systematic review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018102640).
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Sports Med Open Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Suiza

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Sports Med Open Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Suiza