Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Strength Cond J. 2018 Apr;40(2):94–109. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000373

Relationship between the rating of perceived exertion scale and the load intensity of resistance training

Shinichiro Morishita 1, Atsuhiro Tsubaki 1, Tomoya Takabayashi 1, Jack B Fu 2
PMCID: PMC5901652  NIHMSID: NIHMS956418  PMID: 29674945

Abstract

Studies have reported that the load intensity of Resistance training is related to the rating of perceived exertion scale in healthy subjects. The aim of our column was to evaluate current evidence regarding the relationship between the rating of perceived exertion scale and the load intensity of resistance training.

INTRODUCTION

Resistance training (RT) is an important component of rehabilitation training programs. RT is a type of physical exercise involving the use of resistance to produce muscular contractions, and is used to improve the strength and size of skeletal muscles. RT is often defined in terms of the total volume of load lifted (sets × repetitions × load) during each session(16, 45). The National Strength and Conditioning Association recommends RT consisting of 6-12 repetitions at 67-85% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) for healthy people to increase muscular strength (4). 1RM is a popular metric for assessing muscular strength during rehabilitation(47, 73), and is defined as the maximal weight that a subject can lift for one repetition. However, determining 1RM is not always feasible in the context of rehabilitation because specialized strength equipment is required, and it is therefore often difficult to determine 1RM in the gym, rehabilitation clinic, or nursing home in which the session is being performed.

Recently, many studies have reported a relationship between the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and %1RM (40, 55, 67). RPE provides a means for RT to be performed without the use of specialized RT machines. The purpose of this review article was to analyze the current literature regarding the relationship between RPE and the load intensity of RT to determine whether RPE can replace machinery-based measurements in a rehabilitative setting.

RPE is a subjective, self-performed rating of the intensity of exercise based on the patient’s perception of physical exertion. RPE is commonly used to monitor the intensity of aerobic exercise. RPE scores can be used to gauge the patient’s level of intensity during training, ensuring a safe intensity based on the patient’s perception. Perceived exertion takes into account a number of factors associated with exercise intensity, such as heart rate and breathing rate. The Borg 15-point RPE scale(6, 8) and Borg category ratio (Borg CR-10)(7) are often used to measure RPE because they are simple methods. More recently, the OMNI resistance exercise scale (OMNI-RES) has also been used to assess RPE during RT.

The Borg 15-point RPE scale, Borg CR-10, and OMNI-RES are described in the sections that follow.

Borg 15-point RPE scale

The Borg 15-point RPE scale was developed by Borg(6). The scale is a modified 6–20-point RPE scale (Table 1). The Borg 15-point RPE scale is used to measure the level of physical strain or perceived exertion(8). The Borg 15-point RPE scale has been shown to be significantly correlated with heart rate. Moreover, this scale is considered a valid and inexpensive tool for monitoring exercise intensity (68). In clinical practice, patients are instructed to choose a number from the scale and rate their overall effort during RT. A rating of 6 is considered to represent no exertion, i.e. rest, and a rating of 20 represents maximal exertion, i.e. the most stressful exercise performed.

Table 1.

Borg 15-point RPE scale

Rating Descriptor
6 No Exertion at all
7 Extremely Light
8
9 Very light
10
11 Light
12
13 Somewhat Hard
14
15 Hard (Heavy)
16
17 Very Hard
18
19 Extremely Hard
20 Maximal Exertion
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: RPE = Rating of perceived exertion.

Borg category ratio (Borg CR-10)

The Borg CR-10 Scale is more useful than the Borg 15-point RPE scale on which it was based(5, 7). The scale is presented in Table 2. After completing each working set, the subjects are asked to rate their perceived exertion level by choosing a number from the scale. On this scale, a rating of 0 represents no effort, i.e. rest, and a rating of 10 represents maximal effort, i.e. the most stressful exercise performed.

Table 2.

Borg CR-10 scale

Rating Descriptor
0 Rest
1 Very, very easy
2 Easy
3 Moderate
4 Somewhat hard
5 Hard
6 –
7 Very hard
8 –
9 –
10 Maximal
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CR-10 = Category-Ratio 10.

OMNI-resistance exercise scale (OMNI-RES)

The OMNI-RES was developed by Robertson et al. as a substitute for the Borg RPE scales(66). This scale is presented in Figure 1. Subjects are instructed to use a number from the scale to rate their overall muscular effort level, and the investigator asks the patient “How hard do you feel your muscles are working?” An anchoring procedure is included in which the subject assigns the perceived level of exertion associated with lifting a very light weight as ‘Extremely easy’ and the feeling of exertion associated with lifting a very heavy weight as ‘Extremely hard’. Subjects are then instructed to report their RPE at the end of RT using a number from the OMNI-RES (0–10) scale(66). On the scale, a score of 0 represents maximal rest (i.e., a seated position), and 10 represents a sensation of effort above that which the patient could feel during the session.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise

Studies of the relationship between RPE and the load intensity of RT exercises

Since 2001, 61 articles have investigated the relationship between RPE and RT in healthy subjects (Table 3). The patient ages, types of exercise, load intensities of exercise, numbers of repetitions and sets, types of RPE scale used, and main results of the included studies are described below.

Table 3.

Study for the relationship RPE and RT

Author Year No. of Patients Sex Age Type of Exercise Load Intensity of Exercise Repetitions and Sets Type of RPE Main Results
Allman, et al.(1) 2003 6 young adults, 6 old adults Men Young adults: 25; Old adults: 84 Elbow flexion 60% of MVC Duration of voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 RPE increased with muscle contraction time
An, et al.(2) 2015 40 Men and Women 21 Chest press, seated leg curls, leg raise, donkey calf raises, lat pulldown, and leg press. 70% of 1RM As many repetitions as possible/1 set Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE increased with the number of repetitions and EMG activity
Aniceto, et al.(3) 2015 10 Men 21.3 Bench press, 45° leg press, seated row, leg curl, triceps pulley, leg extension, biceps curl, and adductor chair. 60% of 1RM 10 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE increased during circuit weight training and multiple-set sessions
Buckley, et al.(10) 2011 40 Men and Women 19–38 Elbow extension and knee extension. 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100% of 1RM 2 repetitions/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Buckley, et al.(10) 2011 16 Men and Women 19–38 Elbow extension and knee extension. CR rating 1.5, 3, 5 12 repetitions/1 set CR-10 Subjects produced muscle force corresponding to levels of the RPE scale. The number of repetitions of exercise increased with RPE.
Champagne, et al.(13) 2009 16 elderly and 20 young Men Young adults: 22.8; Old adults: 72.8 Back extension. Body weight only Longest duration of isometric contraction as possible/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with exercise duration
Colado, et al.(14) 2014 20 Men and Women 22 Lateral and front raises. 15RM 15 repetitions/1 set OMNI The RPE of the active muscle was greater than the RPE of the entire body during exercise
Colado, et al. (15) 2012 20 Men and Women 21 Front and lateral raises, Low and high-intensity 15 repetitions/1 set OMNI RPE increased with exercise intensity
Costa, et al.(16) 2015 12 Men 24 leg extension. 50% of 1RM As many repetitions as possible/3 sets CR-10 RPE increased with the number of sets
da Silva, et al.(17) 2007 12 Women 62.6 Bench press 10RM 10 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE increased with the number of sets
Day, et al.(18) 2004 19 Men and Women 23.4 Back squat, bench press, overhead press, biceps curl, and triceps. 50, 70, and 90% of 1RM 15 repetitions at 30% of 1RM, 10 repetitions at 50% of 1RM, 4–5 repetitions at 90% of 1RM (1 set each) CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Duncan, et al.(20) 2006 20 Men and Women 22.2 Leg extension 30, 60, and 90% of 1RM 1 repetition/1 set OMNI RPE increased with exercise intensity
Elsangedy, et al.(21) 2016 12 Men 35.8 Chest press, leg press, seated rows, knee extension, overhead press, biceps curl, and triceps pushdowns. 55% of 1RM 10 repetitions/3 sets OMNI The mean RPE for all exercises was 5–7
Eston, et al.(22) 2009 20 Men and Women 20.8 Bilateral biceps curl and bilateral knee extension. 20, 40, and 60% of 1RM 1 repetition/1 set Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE increased with exercise intensity
Farah, et al.(23) 2012 19 Men 23.9 Bench press, knee extension, seated row, knee curl, and front raise. 50% of 1RM 12, 9, and 6 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE increased with the number of sets
Focht, et al.(24) 2007 19 Women 20.6 Leg extension, chest press, torso-arm pull down, and overhead press. 75% of 1RM or a self selected intensity level 10 repetitions/3 sets Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE increased with the number of sets. Self-selected intensity RPE was lower than that at 75% of 1RM.
Gearhart, et al.(27) 2008 49 Men and Women 64 Leg press, lat pulldown, chest press, leg extension, leg curl, arm extension, and arm curl. RPE 4, 6, and 8 1 repetition/1 set OMNI Subjects produced muscle force corresponding to load at RPE 4, 6, and 8. Exercise intensity increased with RPE score.
Gearhart, et al.(25) 2001 20 Men and Women 22.5 Bench press, leg press, lat pulldown, triceps press, biceps curl, shoulder press, and calf raise. 90% or 30% of 1RM 5 repetitions/1 set at 90% of 1RM, 15 repetitions/1 set at 90% of 1RM Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE at 30% of 1RM was lower than that at 90% of 1RM
Gearhart, et al.(26) 2002 20 Men and Women 22.5 Bench press, leg press, lat pulldown, triceps press, biceps curl, shoulder press, and calf raise. 90% or 30% of 1RM 5 repetitions/1 set at 90% of 1RM, 15 repetitions/1 set at 90% of 1RM Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE at 30% of 1RM was lower than that at 90% of 1RM
Gomes, et al.(28) 2015 14 Men 24 Back squat 60 and 90% of 1RM 3 repetitions/1 set CR-10 RPE at 90% of 1RM was greater than that at 60% of 1RM
Heuser, et al.(31) 2010 20 Men and Women 19 Knee flexion 50% of %MVC Number of repetitions to the point of failure CR-10 RPE increased with exercise duration
Hollander, et al.(33) 2008 7 Men 25.7 Lat pull, leg press, bench press, leg extension, military press, and leg curl. 65% of 10RM 10 repetitions/4 sets OMNI RPE increased with the number of sets
Hollander, et al.(32) 2003 8 Men 18–30 Bench press, leg extension, military press, and leg curl. 80% of 1RM 12 repetitions/4 sets CR-10 RPE increased with the number of sets
John, et al.(34) 2009 15 young adults, 15 old adults Men and Women Young adults: 29.3; old adults: 70.8 Elbow flexion RPE 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 Voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 Subjects produced isometric torque corresponding to the effort levels of the RPE scale. Isometric torque increased in relation to RPE
Lagally, et al.(36) 2009 20 Women 21.3 Chest press and knee extension. 50, 69, and 88% of 1RM for chest press, and 56, 74, and 90% of 1RM for knee extension 1 repetition/1 set OMNI RPE 3, 6, and 9 were related to 50, 69, and 88% of 1RM during chest press. RPE 3, 6, and 9 were related to 56, 74, and 90% of 1RM during knee extension. Subjects selection resistance load.
Lagally, et al.(40) 2002 20 Women 25 Biceps curl 30, 60, and 90% of 1RM 12 repetitions at 30% of 1RM, 6 repetitions at 60% of 1RM, 4 repetitions at 90% of 1RM (1 set each) Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE increased with exercise intensity
Lagally, et al.(37) 2004 30 Men 21 Leg extension 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM 1 repetition/1 set Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE increased with exercise intensity
Lagally, et al.(39) 2006 40 Men and Women 22 Knee extension 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM 1 repetition/1 set OMNI, Borg 6-20 RPE scale Both OMNI and Borg 6–20 scale increased with exercise intensity
Lagally, et al.(38) 2004 28 Women 21.7 Bench press 60 and 80% of 1RM 8 repetitions/1 set at 60% of 1RM, 15 repetitions/6 sets at 80% of 1RM CR-10 RPE at 60% of 1RM was lower than that at 80% of 1RM
Lagally, et al.(35) 2007 38 Men and Women 22 Knee extension RPE 9, 13, and 17 1 repetition/1 set Borg 6-20 RPE scale Subjects produced muscle force corresponding to RPE. Exercise intensity during weightlifting increased with RPE.
Laur, et al.(41) 2003 32 Men and Women 25.3 Knee flexion 60% of 1RM As many repetitions as possible/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with the number of repetitions
Lazzarini, et al.(42) 2016 20 Men and Women 74 Chest press 5–30% (in 5% increments) of 1RM from 110% of 1RM 2 repetitions/1 set Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE significantly predicted the %1RM of chest press
Li, et al.(43) 2011 20 Men 22.1 Grip force RPE 2, 5, 7, and 10 Voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 Subjects produced isometric grip force corresponding to RPE. RPE increased with grip force
Lins-Filho, et al. (44) 2012 14 Men 22.9 Bench press, bent-over row, front raises, arm curl, and overhead triceps extension. 50 and 70% of 1RM 12, 9, and 6 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE was higher at 70% of 1RM than that at 50% of 1RM. RPE increased with the number of sets
McGuigan, et al.(46) 2004 17 Men and WoMen 21 Squat and bench press. 30 and 75% of 1RM 10 repetitions at 75% of 1RM, 10 repetitions at 30% of 1RM CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Murphy, et al.(49) 2014 10 children and 10 adults Men Children: 9.7; adults: 25.7 Knee extension > 80% of 1RM, 60% of 1RM 7 repetitions at > 80% of 1RM/3 sets, 17 repetitions at 60% of 1RM/3 sets Children’s Efforts Rating Table similar OMNI RPE increased with the number of sets among both children and adults. Children had higher RPE scores than adults during resistance exercise.
Naclerio, et al.(50) 2011 18 Men 22.1 Bench press 30–40, 40–50, 50–60, 60–70, 70–80, 80–90, and 90% of 1RM 3 repetitions/2 sets OMNI RPE increased with exercise intensity
Pincivero, et al.(55) 2003 30 Men and Women 24 Knee extension 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM 2 repetitions/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with intensity. RPE was not significantly different between men and women
Pincivero, et al.(57) 2001 30 Men and Women 26.5 Knee extension 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of %MVC 3–5 repetitions/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Pincivero, et al.(56) 2002 30 Men and Women 24 Knee extension RPE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 5-s maximal voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 Subjects produced muscle contractions corresponding to RPE. %MVC increased with RPE
Pincivero, et al.(62) 2010 27 Men and Women Young adults: 23.2; middle adults: 58.6 Shoulder abduction 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of MVC 10-s voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Pincivero, et al.(59) 2000 30 Men and Women 24 Knee extension 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of MVC 5-s voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Pincivero, et al.(60) 2000 17 Men 22.6 Knee extension 80% of MVC Duration of voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 RPE increased with muscle contraction duration
Pincivero, et al.(52) 2011 17 young adults, 15 old adults Unknown Young adults: 21.7; old adults: 75.5 Knee extension 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of %MVC 6-s isometric contraction CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity in both groups
Pincivero, et al.(52) 2011 17 young adults, 15 old adults Unknown Young adults: 21.7; old adults: 75.5 Knee extension RPE 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 6-s isometric contraction CR-10 Subjects produced muscle contractions corresponding to the RPE scale. %MVC increased with RPE.
Pincivero, et al.(61) 2010 30 Men and WoMen 23 Elbow flexion 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of %MVC 5 repetitions/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Pincivero, et al.(54) 2004 30 Men and Women 24 Knee extension 50% of 1RM As many repetitions as possible/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with the number of repetitions
Robertson, et al.(66) 2003 40 Men and Women 21 Biceps curl and knee extension. 65% of 1RM 4, 8, and 12 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE increased with the number of repetitions
Robertson, et al.(65) 2005 50 Men and Women 12 Biceps curl and knee extension. 50% of 1RM 14, 10, and 6 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE increased with the number of sets
Robertson, et al.(64) 2009 100 Men and Women 12.5 Biceps curl and knee extension. 30, 50, and 70% of 1RM 10 repetitions/3 sets OMNI RPE increased with exercise intensity
Robertson, et al.(63) 2008 70 Men and Women 11.9 Biceps curl and knee extension. 30 and 50% of 1RM 10 repetitions/2 sets OMNI RPE increased with the number of sets
Row, et al.(67) 2012 21 Men and Women 76.6 Leg press 34.9, 44, 52.1, 63, 73.9, 83.3, and 92.7% of 1RM 4–5 repetitions/1 set Borg 6-20 RPE scale RPE increased with exercise intensity
Shaner, et al.(69) 2014 25 Men 25 Back squat and leg press. 80% of 1RM 10 repetitions/6 sets CR-10 RPE following exercise was significantly higher than baseline RPE
Shimano, et al.(70) 2006 16 Men 25.5 Back squat, bench press, and arm curl. 60, 80, and 90% of 1RM As many repetitions as possible/1 set at 60, 80, and 90% of 1RM CR-10 RPE at 60% of 1RM was higher than that at 80% and 90% of 1RM during back squat. RPE was not different between the other conditions
Singh, et al.(71) 2007 15 Men 26.7 Bench press, squats, bench pull, shoulder press, and leg extension. 50, 70, and 90% of 1RM 5 repetitions/3 sets at 50% of 1RM, 10 repetitions/3 sets at 70% of 1RM, 5 repetitions/3 sets at 90% of 1RM CR-10 RPE at 50% of 1RM was lower than that at 70% and 90% of 1RM. Session RPE decreased over time
Spreuwenberg, et al.(72) 2006 9 Men 24 Back squat 85% of 1RM As many repetitions as possible/4 sets CR-10 RPE increased with the number of sets
Sweet, et al.(74) 2004 20 Men and Women 24 Bench press, lat pulldown, leg press, biceps curl, and triceps extension. 50, 70, and 90% of 1RM 6 repetitions/2 sets at 50% of 1RM, 10 repetitions/2 sets at 70% of 1RM, 4 repetitions/2 sets at 90% of 1RM CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Testa, et al.(75) 2012 80 Men and Women 22.1 Bench press 60–80% of 1RM or 80–100% of 1RM 5.5–17.5 repetitions at 60–80% of 1RM or 1.3–2.9 repetitions at 80–100% of 1RM CR-10 RPE increased with the maximum number of repetitions at 60–80% of 1RM or 80–100% of 1RM
Tiggemann, et al.(76) 2010 30 Men 24.6 Bench press and leg press. RPE 11, 13, 15, and 8 12 repetitions/3 sets Borg 6-20 RPE scale Subjects produced muscle force corresponding to RPE. Exercise intensity at %1RM of increased with RPE
Timmons, et al.(77) 2009 12 Men and Women 23.8 Shoulder abduction 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of MVC 10-s voluntary isometric contractions CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Vianna, et al.(79) 2011 17 Men 26.6 Bench press, half squat, lat pull down, and triceps extension. 12, 16, 20, and 24% of 2RM 1 repetition/1 set OMNI RPE increased with exercise intensity. RPE was related to energy cost during exercise
Woods, et al.(80) 2004 30 Men and Women 24.6 Knee extension 70% of 10RM 10 repetitions/3 sets CR-10 RPE increased with the number of repetitions and sets
Zourdos, et al.(81) 2016 21 Men and Women 24 Back squat 30, 60, 90, and 100% of 1RM 1 repetition/1 set CR-10 RPE increased with exercise intensity
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: No.= Number, RPE = Rating of perceived exertion; MVC = maximum voluntary contraction; CR = category ratio; RM = repetition maximum; EMG = electromyography

Age

The majority of studies included healthy 20–30-year-old subjects. Some studies investigated healthy middle-aged and elderly subjects(1, 13, 17, 27, 42, 62, 67, 77), and a few included healthy children(63–65).

Types of exercise

Many studies used resistance exercises such as knee extension, chest press, and elbow flexion. Some studies used exercises such as back extension(13), back squats(28, 72, 81), grip force(43), and shoulder abduction(15, 62, 77).

Load intensity of exercise using 1RM or maximum voluntary contraction (MVC)

Many studies used %1RM to investigate the relationship between RPE and load intensity during RT. RPE was correlated with %1RM (55). Using Borg CR-10, RPE 2 was approximately 20% of 1RM and RPE 7 was indicative of 70% of 1RM for RT (55). Similarly, using the Borg 15-point RPE scale, RPE 9 correlated with 40% of 1RM and RPE 15 correlated with 80% of 1RM for RT (67). In addition, some studies often used a percentage of MVC(1, 31, 53, 58–60, 62, 77). MVC represents the maximum contraction in a specific isometric exercise as determined using electromyography. A few articles used 10RM(17, 33, 80) and 15RM(15) to investigate the relationship between RPE and the load intensity of RT. The 10RM is a weight that can be lifted 10 times, but not 11 times. Similarly, the 15RM is a weight that can be lifted 15times, but not 16 times.

Load intensity of exercise using RPE

Some research articles used RPE as the sole measure of intensity(11, 27, 34, 35, 43, 53, 55, 76). In these studies, subjects produced muscular force corresponding to RPE.

Numbers of repetitions and sets of exercise

Many studies included several repetitions and 1–3 sets of exercise during RT. Some studies used voluntary isometric contractions (the maximum contraction force as determined by the individual subject)(1, 34, 43, 53, 56, 59, 60, 62).

Types of RPE scale used

Most studies used the Borg CR-10 to investigate the relationship between RPE and the load intensity of RT. The Borg 15-point RPE scale and OMNI-RES were also used in some studies.

Main results

RPE increased with the load intensity of exercise during RT, the number of repetitions of exercise performed, the number of sets performed, and the duration of exercise. Additionally, the reported RPE scale score increased in relation to increases in the number of repetitions of exercise, the intensity in terms of %1RM and %MVC, as well as isometric torque.

DISCUSSION

From this review of the literature, it appears that RPE is related to the load intensity of exercise in young adults. This issue has not been studied as intensely in children and older adults, and further research is therefore needed. This review revealed that many types of exercise have been assessed, with the upper and lower extremities being used more often than the neck and trunk muscles. Future research should aim to correct this imbalance and investigate the neck and trunk muscles in more detail.

Increasing the load intensity in terms of %1RM leads to corresponding increases in RPE during RT. However, it has proven difficult to confirm a reliable agreement between %1RM and RPE. It is not clear if 50% of 1RM represents an RPE of 5 in all subjects(9). We believe that the overall findings suggest a relationship between RPE and increased load intensity of exercise, but consistent agreement between %1RM and RPE is still difficult to determine.

RT is frequently used as a component of rehabilitation programs for patients with various diseases, such as osteoarthritis(51), heart failure(29), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(12, 78), stroke(48), and cancer(19, 30), and more. The findings of this review suggest that RPE is probably appropriate for determining the optimal load intensity of exercise during RT in order to ensure maximal rehabilitative benefit.

Future research

As the studies discussed in this review involved healthy subjects, future studies should aim to investigate the utility of RPE in patients with a variety of diseases. It should be expected that patients with certain diseases would report higher RPE scores than healthy subjects for the same RT tasks. Understanding how the relationship between RPE and the load intensity of exercise varies in certain disease states could produce significant benefits to the rehabilitation of these patients.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant-in-aid program from Niigata University of Health and Welfare. Supported in part by the MD Anderson Cancer Center support grant CA 016672. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: None Disclosure Statement: I have nothing to disclose

References

  • 1.Allman BL, Rice CL. Perceived exertion is elevated in old age during an isometric fatigue task. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;89:191–197. doi: 10.1007/s00421-002-0780-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.An HJ, Choi WS, Choi JH, Kim NJ, Min KO. Effects of muscle activity and number of resistance exercise repetitions on perceived exertion in tonic and phasic muscle of young Korean adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:3455–3459. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.3455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Aniceto RR, Ritti-Dias RM, Dos Prazeres TM, Farah BQ, de Lima FF, do Prado WL. Rating of Perceived Exertion During Circuit Weight Training: A Concurrent Validation Study. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:3336–3342. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 3rd. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Borg G. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Human kinetics; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2:92–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16(Suppl 1):55–58. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14:377–381. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bove AM, Lynch AD, DePaul SM, Terhorst L, Irrgang JJ, Fitzgerald GK. Test-Retest Reliability of Rating of Perceived Exertion and Agreement With 1-Repetition Maximum in Adults. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46:768–774. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2016.6498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Buckley JP, Borg GA. Borg’s scales in strength training; from theory to practice in young and older adults. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36:682–692. doi: 10.1139/h11-078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Buckley JP, Borg GA. Borg’s scales in strength training; from theory to practice in young and older adults. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36:682–692. doi: 10.1139/h11-078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Casaburi R, Bhasin S, Cosentino L, Porszasz J, Somfay A, Lewis MI, Fournier M, Storer TW. Effects of testosterone and resistance training in men with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170:870–878. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200305-617OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Champagne A, Descarreaux M, Lafond D. Comparison between elderly and young males’ lumbopelvic extensor muscle endurance assessed during a clinical isometric back extension test. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009;32:521–526. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Colado JC, Garcia-Masso X, Triplett NT, Calatayud J, Flandez J, Behm D, Rogers ME. Construct and concurrent validation of a new resistance intensity scale for exercise with thera-band® elastic bands. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13:758–766. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Colado JC, Garcia-Masso X, Triplett TN, Flandez J, Borreani S, Tella V. Concurrent validation of the OMNI-resistance exercise scale of perceived exertion with Thera-band resistance bands. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:3018–3024. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318245c0c9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Costa E, Moreira A, Cavalcanti B, Krinski K, Aoki M. Effect of unilateral and bilateral resistance exercise on maximal voluntary strength, total volume of load lifted, and perceptual and metabolic responses. Biol Sport. 2015;32:35–40. doi: 10.5604/20831862.1126326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.da Silva RP, Novaes J, Oliveira RJ, Gentil P, Wagner D, Bottaro M. High-velocity resistance exercise protocols in older women: effects on cardiovascular response. J Sports Sci Med. 2007;6:560–567. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Day ML, McGuigan MR, Brice G, Foster C. Monitoring exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:353–358. doi: 10.1519/R-13113.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.De Backer IC, Schep G, Backx FJ, Vreugdenhil G, Kuipers H. Resistance training in cancer survivors: a systematic review. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30:703–712. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1225330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Duncan MJ, Al-Nakeeb Y, Scurr J. Perceived exertion is related to muscle activity during leg extension exercise. Res Sports Med. 2006;14:179–189. doi: 10.1080/15438620600854728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Elsangedy HM, Krinski K, Machado DG, Agrícola PM, Okano AH, Gregório da Silva S. Self-selected intensity, ratings of perceived exertion, and affective responses in sedentary male subjects during resistance training. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28:1795–1800. doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.1795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Eston R, Evans HJL. The validity of submaximal ratings of perceived exertion to predict one repetition maximum. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2009;8:567–573. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Farah BQ, Lima AH, Lins-Filho OL, Souza DJ, Silva GQ, Robertson RJ, Cyrino ES, Ritti-Dias RM. Effects of rest interval length on rating of perceived exertion during a multiple-set resistance exercise. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;115:273–282. doi: 10.2466/06.05.25.PMS.115.4.273-282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Focht BC. Perceived exertion and training load during self-selected and imposed-intensity resistance exercise in untrained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:183–187. doi: 10.1519/00124278-200702000-00033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gearhart RE, Goss FL, Lagally KM, Jakicic JM, Gallagher J, Robertson RJ. Standardized scaling procedures for rating perceived exertion during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:320–325. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gearhart RF, Goss FL, Lagally KM, Jakicic JM, Gallagher J, Gallagher KI, Robertson RJ. Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:87–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gearhart RF, Lagally KM, Riechman SE, Andrews RD, Robertson RJ. RPE at relative intensities after 12 weeks of resistance-exercise training by older adults. Percept Mot Skills. 2008;106:893–903. doi: 10.2466/pms.106.3.893-903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gomes WA, Brown LE, Soares EG, da Silva JJ, de Silva FH, Serpa É, Corrêa DA, Vilela GeB, Junior, Lopes CR, Marchetti PH. Kinematic and sEMG Analysis of the Back Squat at Different Intensities With and Without Knee Wraps. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:2482–2487. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hambrecht R, Gielen S, Linke A, Fiehn E, Yu J, Walther C, Schoene N, Schuler G. Effects of exercise training on left ventricular function and peripheral resistance in patients with chronic heart failure: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2000;283:3095–3101. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.23.3095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hanson ED, Wagoner CW, Anderson T, Battaglini CL. The Independent Effects of Strength Training in Cancer Survivors: a Systematic Review. Curr Oncol Rep. 2016;18:31. doi: 10.1007/s11912-016-0511-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Heuser M, Pincivero D. The effects of stretching on knee flexor fatigue and perceived exertion. J Sports Sci. 2010;28:219–226. doi: 10.1080/02640410903460718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hollander DB, Durand RJ, Trynicki JL, Larock D, Castracane VD, Hebert EP, Kraemer RR. RPE, pain, and physiological adjustment to concentric and eccentric contractions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1017–1025. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000069749.13258.4E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hollander DB, Kilpatrick MW, Ramadan ZG, Reeves GV, Francois M, Blakeney A, Castracane VD, Kraemer RR. Load rather than contraction type influences rate of perceived exertion and pain. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1184–1193. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a8bc2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.John EB, Liu W, Gregory RW. Biomechanics of muscular effort: age-related changes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:418–425. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181884480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lagally KM, Amorose AJ. The validity of using prior ratings of perceive exertion to regulate resistance exercise intensity. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;104:534–542. doi: 10.2466/pms.104.2.534-542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lagally KM, Amorose AJ, Rock B. Selection of resistance exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion from the OMNI-RES. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;108:573–586. doi: 10.2466/PMS.108.2.573-586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lagally KM, Costigan EM. Anchoring procedures in reliability of ratings of perceived exertion during resistance exercise. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98:1285–1295. doi: 10.2466/pms.98.3c.1285-1295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lagally KM, McCaw ST, Young GT, Medema HC, Thomas DQ. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity during the bench press exercise in recreational and novice lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:359–364. doi: 10.1519/R-12782.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lagally KM, Robertson RJ. Construct validity of the OMNI resistance exercise scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:252–256. doi: 10.1519/R-17224.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lagally KM, Robertson RJ, Gallagher KI, Goss FL, Jakicic JM, Lephart SM, McCaw ST, Goodpaster B. Perceived exertion, electromyography, and blood lactate during acute bouts of resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:552–559. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200203000-00025. discussion 560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Laur DJ, Anderson T, Geddes G, Crandall A, Pincivero DM. The effects of acute stretching on hamstring muscle fatigue and perceived exertion. J Sports Sci. 2003;21:163–170. doi: 10.1080/0264041031000070886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lazzarini BR, Dropp M, Lloyd W. Upper Extremity Explosive Resistance Training with Older Adults Can Be Regulated Using the Rating of Perceived Exertion. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Li KW, Yu R. Assessment of grip force and subjective hand force exertion under handedness and postural conditions. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:929–933. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lins-Filho OeL, Robertson RJ, Farah BQ, Rodrigues SL, Cyrino ES, Ritti-Dias RM. Effects of exercise intensity on rating of perceived exertion during a multiple-set resistance exercise session. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:466–472. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822602fa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.McBride JM, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Nuzzo JL, Cavill MJ, Triplett NT. Comparison of methods to quantify volume during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:106–110. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31818efdfe. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.McGuigan MR, Egan AD, Foster C. Salivary Cortisol Responses and Perceived Exertion during High Intensity and Low Intensity Bouts of Resistance Exercise. J Sports Sci Med. 2004;3:8–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.McKelvie RS, Teo KK, Roberts R, McCartney N, Humen D, Montague T, Hendrican K, Yusuf S. Effects of exercise training in patients with heart failure: the Exercise Rehabilitation Trial (EXERT) Am Heart J. 2002;144:23–30. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2002.123310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Morris SL, Dodd KJ, Morris ME. Outcomes of progressive resistance strength training following stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:27–39. doi: 10.1191/0269215504cr699oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Murphy JR, Button DC, Chaouachi A, Behm DG. Prepubescent males are less susceptible to neuromuscular fatigue following resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114:825–835. doi: 10.1007/s00421-013-2809-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Naclerio F, Rodríguez-Romo G, Barriopedro-Moro MI, Jiménez A, Alvar BA, Triplett NT. Control of resistance training intensity by the OMNI perceived exertion scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:1879–1888. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e501e9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Petersen SG, Beyer N, Hansen M, Holm L, Aagaard P, Mackey AL, Kjaer M. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or glucosamine reduced pain and improved muscle strength with resistance training in a randomized controlled trial of knee osteoarthritis patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1185–1193. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pincivero DM. Older adults underestimate RPE and knee extensor torque as compared with young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:171–180. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e91e0d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Pincivero DM. Older adults underestimate RPE and knee extensor torque as compared with young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:171–180. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e91e0d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Campy RM. Gender differences in perceived exertion during fatiguing knee extensions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:109–117. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000106183.23941.54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Campy RM. Perceived exertion and maximal quadriceps femoris muscle strength during dynamic knee extension exercise in young adult males and females. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;89:150–156. doi: 10.1007/s00421-002-0768-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Campy RM, Salfetnikov Y, Bright A. The effects of voluntary contraction effort on quadriceps femoris electromyogram median frequency in humans: a muscle and sex comparison. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;87:448–455. doi: 10.1007/s00421-002-0658-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Campy RM, Salfetnikov Y, Bright A. The effects of voluntary contraction intensity and gender on perceived exertion during isokinetic quadriceps exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001;84:221–226. doi: 10.1007/s004210170008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Campy RM, Salfetnikov Y, Bright A. The effects of voluntary contraction intensity and gender on perceived exertion during isokinetic quadriceps exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001;84:221–226. doi: 10.1007/s004210170008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Erikson WH. Perceived exertion during isometric quadriceps contraction. A comparison between men and women. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2000;40:319–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pincivero DM, Gear WS. Quadriceps activation and perceived exertion during a high intensity, steady state contraction to failure. Muscle Nerve. 2000;23:514–520. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4598(200004)23:4<514::aid-mus9>3.0.co;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Pincivero DM, Polen RR, Byrd BN. Gender and contraction mode on perceived exertion. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31:359–363. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Pincivero DM, Timmons MK, Elsing D. RPE angle effects in young and middle-aged adults. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31:257–260. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Aaron DJ, Gairola A, Kowallis RA, Liu Y, Randall CR, Tessmer KA, Schnorr TL, Schroeder AE, White B. One repetition maximum prediction models for children using the OMNI RPE Scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:196–201. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f6283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Aaron DJ, Nagle EF, Gallagher M, Kane IR, Tessmer KA, Schafer MA, Hunt SE. Concurrent muscle hurt and perceived exertion of children during resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:1146–1154. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181930321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Andreacci JL, Dubé JJ, Rutkowski JJ, Frazee KM, Aaron DJ, Metz KF, Kowallis RA, Snee BM. Validation of the Children’s OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:819–826. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000162619.33236.f1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Rutkowski J, Lenz B, Dixon C, Timmer J, Frazee K, Dube J, Andreacci J. Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:333–341. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000048831.15016.2A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Row BS, Knutzen KM, Skogsberg NJ. Regulating explosive resistance training intensity using the rating of perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:664–671. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822ac367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Scherr J, Wolfarth B, Christle JW, Pressler A, Wagenpfeil S, Halle M. Associations between Borg’s rating of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113:147–155. doi: 10.1007/s00421-012-2421-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Shaner AA, Vingren JL, Hatfield DL, Budnar RG, Duplanty AA, Hill DW. The acute hormonal response to free weight and machine weight resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28:1032–1040. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL, Silvestre R, Vingren JL, Fragala MS, Maresh CM, Fleck SJ, Newton RU, Spreuwenberg LP, Häkkinen K. Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:819–823. doi: 10.1519/R-18195.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Singh F, Foster C, Tod D, McGuigan MR. Monitoring different types of resistance training using session rating of perceived exertion. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007;2:34–45. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2.1.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Spreuwenberg LP, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL, Silvestre R, Vingren JL, Fragala MS, Häkkinen K, Newton RU, Maresh CM, Fleck SJ. Influence of exercise order in a resistance-training exercise session. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:141–144. doi: 10.1519/R-18185.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Sugiura Y, Hatanaka Y, Arai T, Sakurai H, Kanada Y. Estimations of One Repetition Maximum and Isometric Peak Torque in Knee Extension Based on the Relationship Between Force and Velocity. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30:980–988. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Sweet TW, Foster C, McGuigan MR, Brice G. Quantitation of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion method. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:796–802. doi: 10.1519/14153.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Testa M, Noakes TD, Desgorces FD. Training state improves the relationship between rating of perceived exertion and relative exercise volume during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:2990–2996. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824301d1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Tiggemann CL, Korzenowski AL, Brentano MA, Tartaruga MP, Alberton CL, Kruel LF. Perceived exertion in different strength exercise loads in sedentary, active, and trained adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:2032–2041. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d32e29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Timmons MK, Stevens SM, Pincivero DM. The effect of arm abduction angle and contraction intensity on perceived exertion. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;106:79–86. doi: 10.1007/s00421-009-0992-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Troosters T, Probst VS, Crul T, Pitta F, Gayan-Ramirez G, Decramer M, Gosselink R. Resistance training prevents deterioration in quadriceps muscle function during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181:1072–1077. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200908-1203OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Vianna JM, Reis VM, Saavedra F, Damasceno V, Silva SG, Goss F. Can Energy Cost During Low-Intensity Resistance Exercise be Predicted by the OMNI-RES Scale? J Hum Kinet. 2011;29A:75–82. doi: 10.2478/v10078-011-0062-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Woods S, Bridge T, Nelson D, Risse K, Pincivero DM. The effects of rest interval length on ratings of perceived exertion during dynamic knee extension exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:540–545. doi: 10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18<540:TEORIL>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Garcia Merino S, Blanco R. Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30:267–275. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES