A New Approach to Monitoring
Resistance Training
Michael R. McGuigan, PhD
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
Carl Foster, PhD
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La-Crosse,Wisconsin
© National Strength and Conditioning Association
Volume 26, Number 6, pages 42–47
Keywords: exercise intensity; perceived exertion; periodization
One of the problems facingstrength athletes, coaches, and re-searchers is how to monitor the
intensity of the training. Unlike en-
durance training, where researchers have
consistently used measures such as per-
cent V˙O2max (8), blood lactate concen-
tration (15), and percent of max heart
rate (15) to monitor intensity, there has
been no single accepted method to moni-
tor how hard subjects are working during
a resistance-training session. This is very
important because optimal periodization
plans have not been created with resis-
tance-training programs. Resistance
training is a high-intensity exercise that
cannot readily be quantified using objec-
tive measurements.
For athletes training for strength or
power, the use of volume of training is
an inadequate tool because of the over-
riding importance of training intensity
(3). Monitoring exercise training load
and intensity during resistance training
is an integral part of a successful peri-
odized exercise plan because careful ma-
nipulation of intensity, volume, and re-
covery phases is vital for optimal results
(7, 16). The effects of resistance training
are related to the type of exercise used,
its intensity, and its volume (4). This
problem supports the need for a valid
and reliable method of monitoring
training intensity. Resistance training
represents a complex milieu of perceptu-
al signals including muscle mass recruit-
ed in an exercise, type of exercise used,
metabolic acidosis, and loading, all of
which interact with the type of resis-
tance-exercise protocol that is used.
In this article, we outline the session rat-
ing of perceived exertion (RPE) method
that can be used to monitor the intensity
of resistance training. This method allows
for easy and reliable resistance-training
program manipulations required for con-
tinued increases in strength. We suggest
that the session RPE is a practical and ac-
curate assessment tool that can be used in
training and competitive settings for ath-
letes and coaches.
Defining Intensity and Volume
Training volume in resistance exercise is
a composite of the number of sets, repe-
titions, and the amount of mass lifted
(4). This is an important difference from
other types of training where the total
duration of exercise in minutes is the ap-
propriate volume measure. This has
been expanded to account for various
physiological zones based on relative in-
tensity (7). With the use of a differential
multiplier based on time in zone, a sin-
gle number representing the provocative
stimulus provided by that training ses-
sion can be derived. Because of the long
periods of recovery required in resis-
tance training, particularly in high-in-
tensity resistance training, time per se is
clearly an inappropriate measure of
training volume. Monitoring the inten-
sity of a resistance-training workout can
be accomplished in a number of ways.
Percentage of one repetition maximum
(1RM) is one of the most common
methods. Varying methods are also pro-
posed that involve calculating intensity
and volume. However, if we consider in-
s u m m a r y
Monitoring the training load during
resistance training is problematic.
There is no universally accepted
method of monitoring resistance
training. Session rating of perceived
exertion (RPE) can delineate intensi-
ties and may be a useful tool for
strength coaches and athletes.
42 December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal

tensity to be a measure of how hard the
exercise or workout is, we also need to
consider other factors, such as rest peri-
ods between sets, number of repetitions
completed in each set, and speed of the
exercise. The combination of all these
factors will impact on how hard the ex-
ercise is perceived to be. When we also
add in other variables such as the train-
ing status of the exerciser and the impact
of residual fatigue during hard periods
of training, it becomes an even more
complex situation.
In practical terms, intensity of resistance
training has been defined as the magni-
tude of the load used in a training ses-
sion or the rate of work performed (2).
As previously stated, percentage of 1RM
is often used for program design. For
athletes doing resistance training with
weights, an important measure of rela-
tive intensity is the RM; for example,
80% of 1RM is 80% of the weight that
an athlete can only lift once. The use of
relative intensity simplifies description
or prescription of intensity for athletes
who differ in ability. This is analogous to
a runner who has a prescription of run-
ning a certain number of repetitions at a
certain pace. RM ranges can be pre-
scribed for most exercises, and lifters can
alter the resistances based on their per-
ception of effort, just as runners can
speed up or slow down as needed. It is
important for coaches to have a singular
method for measuring the entire work-
load. This is particularly important
when developing effective periodization
plans where variation of rest and loading
are critical (16). Whereas there is not a
clearly agreed upon physiological signal
that turns on protein synthesis and leads
to hypertrophic responses, the total
magnitude of stimulus is obviously very
critical to the response.
It has been suggested that in strength and
power exercises, total workload is the
sum of the number of repetitions per-
formed and the loads used for each exer-
cise (21). Workload intensity can then be
calculated as a percentage of workload
volume in the high-load exercises (sug-
gested as 90–100%) divided by the total
workload. Examples of other approaches
include calculating intensity as the aver-
age load (volume load and repetitions),
which provides an estimate of the work
rate across a training session (16). This
can then be calculated as an average
daily, weekly, or monthly measure and
also be expressed relative to 1RM. These
approaches are somewhat unsatisfying
simply because they are too complicated.
RPE
It has been proposed that RPE may be a
practical way of monitoring the intensi-
ty of resistance training. The Borg 15-
category scale has been widely used to
evaluate exercise intensity in clinical and
sporting settings (15). The application
has mainly been during aerobic exercise,
but recently a number of investigators
have studied its use with resistance
training. Several studies have demon-
strated the Borg scale to be an effective
method of quantifying resistance train-
ing (9, 11). The results of these studies
show that performing few repetitions
with a heavier weight is perceived as
being more difficult than lifting lighter
weights for more repetitions and that
RPE is related to the percentage of
1RM. Kraemer et al. (11) used the Borg
CR-10 scale to monitor the perceptual
responses of trained bodybuilders and
power lifters during high-intensity exer-
cise. A recent article outlines the differ-
ent RPE scales that are in use and specif-
ic strategies for their effective use (19).
Gearhart et al. (9) examined the RPE in
active muscle (RPE-AM) during a high-
intensity (HIP) and low-intensity (LIP)
strength-training protocol. Each proto-
col consisted of performing one set of
each of 7 exercises. The HIP involved
lifting 90% of 1RM for 5 repetitions,
with RPE-AM values obtained after each
repetition. The LIP involved lifting 30%
of 1RM for 15 repetitions, with RPE-
AM values obtained after every third rep-
etition. The authors of this study showed
that performing fewer repetitions using
heavier weights was perceived as more
difficult than performing more repeti-
tions of a lighter weight when total exter-
nal work was held constant.
During aerobic exercise, researchers
often anatomically differentiate RPE to
the involved body regions, in addition to
measuring the undifferentiated signal
from the whole body (19). Several inves-
tigations have also used this approach for
resistance exercise (12, 17). Lagally et al.
(12) examined the RPE during resistance
training in women by having subjects
perform 3 sets of the biceps curl exercise.
Each subject was randomly assigned to
the intensity she would complete first
(30, 60, or 90% of 1RM), performing
12, 6, and 4 repetitions, respectively.
This combination of intensity and repe-
titions allowed for total work to be held
constant. Data for the RPE-AM and
overall RPE (RPE-O) were collected
upon the completion of each set. Results
of this study indicated corresponding in-
creases in RPE-AM and RPE-O with in-
creases in exercise-training intensity.
Another study examined the concurrent
validity of a OMNI-Resistance Exercise
Scale to measure RPE in women and
men performing leg extensions and
bicep curls at 65% of 1RM (17). This
scale uses both verbal and pictorial de-
scriptors to rate the intensity of the exer-
cise. RPE for the active muscles and the
overall body were directly related to the
total weight lifted (0.79–0.91). There
were no sex differences in RPE. Clearly,
RPE is a valid measure with resistance
exercise, but it is important that stan-
dardized instructions are provided for
the subjects (19). Further research is also
required with more compound exercis-
es, because the majority of studies have
used isolation exercises such as curls and
leg extensions.
Session RPE
Recently, the session RPE has been pro-
posed as a method for monitoring exer-
cise intensity (6, 7, 8). The session RPE
allows the subject to provide a global rat-
43December 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal