Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial examines the link between perceived exertion and objective intensity in resistance training, suggesting optimal intensity prescription methods.
Lyristakis, P, Wundersitz, D, Cousins, S, Zadow, E, and Gordon, BA. The relationship between subjective and objective intensity across a multiset resistance training program. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2026—This study aimed to explore the relationship between rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and objective intensity (relative: percentage of 1 repetition maximum [1RM], absolute: kilograms lifted) across multiple sets, exercises, and training sessions. A total of 104 subjects were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 exercise interventions. Subjects performed 3 resistance training (RT) sessions per week for 8 weeks, which incorporated 5–6 exercises at 50% or 80% of 1RM, across 2–3 sets for 6 or 14 repetitions; RPE was recorded after each exercise set. Generalized estimating equation models of fixed effects were used to assess the relationship between RPE and objective intensity, individual exercises, sets, repetitions, and training sessions. Significant differences in RPE between exercises were identified despite the same objective relative intensity prescription, with the shoulder press resulting in the highest RPE (17.2 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), and the calf raise producing the lowest (13.3 ± 2.6; p < 0.001). Objective relative intensity, set number, and repetition number predicted RPE across most exercises ( p < 0.001). Higher relative intensities ( β = 0.6 to 2.0) and fewer repetitions ( β = −0.1 to −0.3) were associated with greater changes in RPE. Between sets, pairwise comparisons showed that RPE increased at different rates between exercises. A statistically significant relationship exists between RPE and objective relative intensity, sets, and repetitions, with higher intensities and fewer repetitions associated with greater RPE. Despite the same objective relative intensity prescription, RPE was not consistent between individual exercises; therefore, %1RM might be the most appropriate method to prescribe RT intensity and ensure appropriate and desired training stimulus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lyristakis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: