Affective And Perceptual Responses During A 4-week Low- Vs. High-load Resistance Training Intervention

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study examined affective (like/dislike; pleasant/unpleasant) and perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) responses during a 4-week resistance training (RT) to failure intervention. METHODS: Eighteen women (20.9 ± 1.9 yrs) completed 2 sets of repetitions to failure for the leg extension (LE), seated military press (SMP), leg curl (LC), and lat pull-down (LPD) at either 30% one-repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 9) or 80% 1RM (n = 9) 2 times per week for 4 weeks. Pre- and post-intervention 1RM testing was performed for all 4 lifts. A Likert scale ranked from 1 (dislike/unpleasant) to 7 (like/pleasant) was used to assess session enjoyment. Borg 6-20 and OMNI-RES 0-10 scales were used to assess RPE after each set. The 1RM strength was examined with a 2 (group: 30% 1RM, 80% 1RM) x 2 (time: pre- and post-intervention) x 4 (exercise: LE, SMP, LC, LPD) mixed model (MM) ANOVA. Total volume and time under tension (TUT) were examined with separate 2 (group: 30% 1RM, 80% 1RM) x 4 (exercise: LE, SMP, LC, LPD) MM ANOVAs. Affective responses were examined with separate 2 (group: 30% 1RM, 80% 1RM) x 2 (session: first and last session) MM ANOVAs. Perceptual responses were examined with separate 2 (group: 30% 1RM, 80% 1RM) x 4 (time: Week 1 Set 1, Week 1 Set 2, Week 4 Set 1, Week 4 Set 2) x 4 (exercise: LE, SMP, LC, LPD) MM ANOVAs. RESULTS: For 1RM strength, there was a significant time x exercise interaction (p = 0.001) that demonstrated an increase from pre- to post-intervention for all 4 lifts (p < 0.001). The 30% 1RM group accumulated more total volume (23,859 ± 10,527 kg) and TUT (2,499 ± 962 sec) than the 80% 1RM group (4,222 ± 739 kg; 367 ± 56 sec) (p < 0.05). For affective measures, no group x time interaction (p = 0.617-0.163) or main effect for group (p = 0.760-0.211) or time (p = 0.247-0.608) was found. There was a main effect for time for Borg 6-20 and OMNI-RES RPE responses (p < 0.001) that demonstrated a higher RPE for the second sets (Week 1 Set 2: 17.1, 7.2; Week 4 Set 2: 17.6, 7.8) compared to the first sets (Week 1 Set 1: 15.2, 5.6; Week 4 Set 1: 16.7, 6.9). CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in training volume and TUT, session enjoyment and RPE responses did not differ between the 30% and 80% 1RM groups. This may suggest increased training volume and TUT do not dictate RT enjoyment or perceptions of effort in untrained women when repetitions are completed to failure. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR