Exploring the acute affective responses to resistance training: A comparison of the predetermined and the estimated repetitions to failure approaches

Assessing affective valence and activation in resistance training with the feeling scale and the felt arousal scale: A systematic review

Evidence suggests affective responses to exercise can influence exercise adherence. However, there is a limited understanding of how and when to measure core affect in resistance training. As such, the objective of this systematic review was to analyze how the Feeling Scale and/or the Felt Arousal Scale have been used in resistance training to assess core affect. Focus was given to the contextual feasibility, timing, and frequency of assessment. A search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases was conducted (last search date July, 2022) with the purpose of including experimental and non-experimental studies, utilizing the Feeling Scale and/or the Felt Arousal Scale in resistance training, and focused on apparently healthy individuals of any age. Twenty-seven studies (N = 718 participants) published between 2009-2022 were qualitatively analyzed. Both scales appeared to be able to detect core affect within a wide array of intensities, ages, and equipment. As for the timing and frequency of measurement, no apparent standardization was evident. The use of the Feeling Scale, the Felt Arousal Scale, or both, to measure core affect appears to be feasible in resistance training practices. However, a lack of methodological background raises concerns regarding the quality of previous studies' assessments and comparisons of results across studies.

Comparison of finger flexor resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on perceptional and physiological responses in advanced climbers

This study compared perceptional and physiological responses of finger flexor exercise performed with free flow and blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirteen male advanced climbers completed three sessions of finger flexor resistance exercise at (1) 40% of MVC (Low) and (2) 75% of MVC (High) and (3) BFR at 40% of MVC (Low + BFR) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE) and discomfort (RPD), session pleasure/displeasure (sPDF), exercise enjoyment (EES), lactate concentration and oxygen saturation were recorded after the last set. Both low-intensity sessions induced higher RPD than High (p = 0.018-0.022, ES = 1.01-1.09) and High was perceived as more enjoyable than Low-BFR (p = 0.031, ES = 1.08). No differences were found for RPE or sPDF (p = 0.132-0.804). Lactate was elevated more after High than the Low-sessions (p < 0.001, ES = 1.88-2.08). Capillary oxygen saturation was lower after Low + BFR compared to the other sessions (p = 0.031, ES = 1.04-1.27). Finally, the exercise volume was greater in Low compared to High (p = 0.022, ES = 1.14) and Low + BFR (p = 0.020, ES = 0.77). In conclusion, among advanced male climbers, performing Low + BFR led to a similar exercise volume but was perceived as more discomforting and less enjoyable compared to High. The Low session yielded similar responses as the Low + BFR but required a much greater exercise volume.

Effects of one long vs. two short resistance training sessions on training volume and affective responses in resistance-trained women

The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of performing a lower body resistance training program in one long or two shorter sessions in 1 day on training volume and affective measures. Employing a randomized-crossover design, 23 resistance-trained women (22 ± 2 years, 166 ± 6 cm, and 66.4 ± 7.5 kg) performed two training days consisting of (i) one long (46 min) or (ii) two short sessions (total of 43 min) separated by 3.5–5 h. Each training day was separated by 4-6 days and consisted of three sets to failure for six exercises. Training volume (number of repetitions lifted) were recorded during the sessions. Rating of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rating of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF) and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 10 min after each session. Participants also completed a readiness to train questionnaire (7 questions), 24 h after each session, and which training protocol they preferred, 48 h after the last session. The long session led to higher RPE (+1 point, p < 0.001, ES = 1.07), RPD (+1 point, p = 0.043, ES = 0.53) and sPDF (p = 0.010, ES = 0.59) compared to the short sessions. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.118, ES = 0.33). The short sessions had 3% higher training volume than the long session (p = 0.002, ES = 0.42). There were no differences in perceived readiness to train 24 h after the sessions (range: p = 0.166–0.856 and ES = 0.08–0.32). Twenty-two participants preferred the long session, while one preferred the short sessions. In conclusion, performing a longer, lower body, resistance training session led to greater perceptions of effort, discomfort and session pleasure than splitting the same program into two shorter sessions among resistance-trained women. However, two shorter sessions led to a greater training volume.

A Comparison of Affective Responses Between Time Efficient and Traditional Resistance Training

The aim of the study was to compare the acute effects of traditional resistance training and superset training on training duration, training volume and different perceptive measures. Twenty-nine resistance-trained participants (27 ± 7 years, 173 ± 9 cm, and 70 ± 14 kg) performed a whole-body workout (i) traditionally and (ii) as supersets of exercises targeting different muscle groups, in a randomized-crossover design. Each session was separated by 4–7 days, and consisted of eight exercises and three sets to failure. Training duration and number of repetitions lifted were recorded during the sessions. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE), rate of perceived exertion for discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF), and exercise enjoyment (EES) were measured 15 min after each session. Forty-eight hours after the final session participants reported which session they preferred. The superset session led to significantly higher values for RPE (1.3 points, p < 0.001, ES = 0.96) and RPD (1.0 points, p = 0.008, ES = 0.47) and tended to be higher for sPDF, i.e., more pleasurable, (p = 0.059, ES = 0.25) compared to the traditional session. There was no difference in EES (p = 0.661, ES = 0.05). The traditional session led to significantly increased training volume (4.2%, p = 0.011, ES = 0.34) and lasted 23 min (66%, p < 0.001, ES = 7.78) longer than the superset session. Eighteen of the participants preferred the superset session, while 11 preferred the traditional session. In conclusion, performing a whole-body workout as a superset session was more time-efficient, but reduced the training volume and was perceived with greater exertion for effort and discomfort than a traditional workout.

Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review

While proximity-to-failure is considered an important resistance training (RT) prescription variable, its influence on physiological adaptations and short-term responses to RT is uncertain. Given the ambiguity in the literature, a scoping review was undertaken to summarise evidence for the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage and perceived discomfort. Literature searching was performed according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and identified three themes of studies comparing either: i) RT performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, ii) RT performed to set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, and iii) RT performed to different velocity loss thresholds. The findings highlight that no consensus definition for "failure" exists in the literature, and the proximity-to-failure achieved in "non-failure" conditions is often ambiguous and variable across studies. This poses challenges when deriving practical recommendations for manipulating proximity-to-failure in RT to achieve desired outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy, but may exacerbate neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and post-set perceived discomfort versus non-failure RT. Together, these factors may impair post-exercise recovery and subsequent performance, and may also negatively influence long-term adherence to RT.KEY POINTS This scoping review identified three broad themes of studies investigating proximity-to-failure in RT, based on the specific definition of set failure used (and therefore the research question being examined), to improve the validity of study comparisons and interpretations.There is no consensus definition for set failure in RT, and the proximity-to-failure achieved during non-failure RT is often unclear and varies both within and between studies, which together poses challenges when interpreting study findings and deriving practical recommendations regarding the influence of RT proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy and other short-term responses.Based on the limited available evidence, performing RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT to maximise muscle hypertrophy, but the optimal proximity to failure in RT for muscle hypertrophy is unclear and may be moderated by other RT variables (e.g., load, volume-load). Also, RT performed to set failure likely induces greater neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort than non-failure RT, which may negatively influence RT performance, post-RT recovery, and long-term adherence.

Prescribing Intensity in Resistance Training Using Rating of Perceived Effort: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales are used to prescribe intensity in resistance training (RT) in several ways. For instance, trainees can reach a specific RPE value by modifying the number of repetitions, lifted loads, or other training variables. Given the multiple approaches of prescribing intensity using RPE and its growing popularity, we compared the effects of two RPE prescription approaches on adherence rates, body composition, performance and psychological outcomes, in an online RT intervention. Methods: We randomly assigned 57 healthy participants without RT experience (60% females, age range: 18-45) to one of two groups that received two weekly RT sessions using a resistance-band for 8 weeks. In the fixed-repetition group, participants adjusted the band resistance with the goal of completing 10 repetitions and reaching a 7-RPE on a 0-10 scale by the 10th repetition. In the open-repetition group, participants selected their preferred band resistance and completed repetitions until reaching a 7-RPE by the final repetition. We measured body composition, performance, and program satisfaction rates. Results: We assessed 46 participants at post-test, 24 from the fixed-repetition group and 22 from the open-repetition group. We observed non-significant and trivial differences between groups in all outcomes (p > 0.05). We then combined the pre-post change scores of the two groups. We found that adherence rates began at 89% and gradually decreased to 42%. On average, participants increased their fat-free mass [0.3 kg (95% CI: 0.1-0.6)], isometric mid-thigh pull [5.5 kg (95% CI: 0.8-10.4)], isometric knee-extension [2.2 kg (95% CI: 0.8-3.7)], and push-ups [6.3 repetitions (95% CI: 4.5-8.2)]. We observed non-significant and trivial changes in bodyweight, grip-force, and countermovement jump. Participants reported high satisfaction rates with all components of the program. Conclusion: Participants in both groups improved their body composition and physical capacity to a similar extent, and reported comparable satisfaction rates with the programs they followed. Accordingly, either prescription approach can be used to deliver online RT sessions based on personal preferences and logistical constraints. However, since adherences rates declined over the course of the study, future research should test additional strategies aiming to maintain adherence rates.