3.8 Article

Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 333-341

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000048831.15016.2A

关键词

differentiated RPE; sex effect; blood lactic acid; total weight lifted

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Concurrent validity of the newly developed OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale (OMNI-RES) of perceived exertion was examined for 18- to 30-yr-old women (N = 20) and men (N = 20) performing biceps curl (BC) and knee extension (KE) exercise. Methods: The criterion variables were total weight lifted (Wt(tot)) determined separately for women and men during BC and KE, and blood lactic acid concentration ([Hla]) determined for a combined female (N = 10) and male (N = 10) subset during BC. Subjects performed three separate sets of 4, 8, and 12 repetitions for BC and KE at 65% one-repetition maximum. Rating of perceived exertion for the active muscles (RPE-AM) was measured during the mid and final repetition and RPE for the overall body (RPE-O) during the final repetition. Results: For both female and male groups across the three sets: (a) RPE-AM ranged from 3.6 to 8.2 for BC and 5.1 to 9.6 for KE and (b) RPE-O ranged from 2.4 to 6.7 for BC and 4.2 to 7.6 for KE. Positive linear regressions ranged from r = 0.79 to 0.91 (P < 0.01) between Wt(tot) and RPE-AM (mid), RPE-AM (final), and RPE-O for both BC and KE in both sex groupings. A positive (P < 0.01) linear regression was found between [Hla] and RPE-AM (final) (r = 0.87) during BC. RPE did not differ between women and men at any measurement point within each set for BC and KE. RPE-AM (final) was greater (P < 0.01) than RPE-O in the three sets of BC and KE. Conclusion: Findings provided concurrent validation of the OMNI-RES to measure RPE for the active muscle and overall body in young recreationally trained female and male weight lifters performing upper- and lower-body resistance exercise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据