(17) DIFFERENCES IN RATE OF PERCEIVED EXERTION DURING RELATIVE OR ABSOLUTE AUTOREGULATORY PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE EXERCISE TRAINING

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of relative (r-APRE) and absolute (a-APRE) load adjustments on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) over a 4-week training period. Methods: Fifteen resistance trained males were separated into an a-APRE (n=6; m ± sd; age: 21.1 ± 2.6yrs; height: 171.9 ± 6.5cm; weight: 90.5 ± 28.6kg) or r-APRE (n=9; age: 21.3 ± 2.2yrs; height: 175.8 ± 6.7cm; weight: 65.6 ± 17.8kg) group. Each group underwent 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing for back squat (BS), bench press (BP), deadlift (DL), and overhead press (OP). A 4-week a-APRE or r-APRE program was then employed. This protocol was administered 4 days per week, emphasizing a different pre-test 1RM exercise each day, in conjunction with 2-3 accessory movements at a self-selected weight equivalent to an 8 on the OMNI RPE scale. Intra- and inter-session adjustments were made by reestablishing a predicted 85% 1RM (6RM) using the Brzycki 1 RM equation, for the r-APRE group. For the a-APRE group, individuals selected ±0-15lb adjustments based on the number of repetitions completed during working sets. Immediately after each working set of BS, BP, DL, and OP, participants reported an RPE score using the OMNI RPE scale. A 3-way mixed factorial analysis of variance (group [a-APRE v r-APRE] x set [set 1 v set 2] x time [week 1 v week 2 v week 3 v week 4]) was used to compare the RPE values throughout the training study. Results: There was a significant group x set interaction (p = 0.27) in which there was an increase from set 1 to set 2 for a-APRE (7.979 ± 0.239 to 8.323 ± 0.257; mean ± SE) and r-APRE (7.65 ± 0.195 to 8.396 ± 0.210; mean ± SE) when collapsed by time. Additionally, there was a significant main effect of set (p < 0.001) with set 2 increasing from set 1 (7.813 ± 0.154 to 8.359 ± 0.166) and time (p = 0.011) with week 4 RPE being significantly higher than week 1 (p = 0.41)(8.278 ± 0.154; 7.830 ± 0.174; mean ± SE; respectively.) Lastly, there were no significant interactions or main effects for group x set x time (p = 0.258), group x time (p = 0.925), set x time (p = 0.207), or group (p = 0.673). Conclusions: These results suggest a- and r-APRE adjustment protocols do not differ in reported RPE, and therefore, produce similar internal workload measures. The significant increase from set 1 to 2 and week 1 to week 4 indicates that APRE simulates progressive overload while allowing for autoregulation. Further research is needed to compare external workload between APRE approaches. Practical Applications: Because r-APRE produces similar internal workload measures, it is a comparable training strategy that allows lifters to relatively scale weight, providing more individualized training. Acknowledgements: None