The Validity of Perceptual Recovery Status on Monitoring Recovery During a High-Intensity Back-Squat Session.

perception resistance training

Journal

International journal of sports physiology and performance
ISSN: 1555-0273
Titre abrégé: Int J Sports Physiol Perform
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101276430

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 27 06 2023
revised: 27 10 2023
accepted: 03 11 2023
medline: 23 12 2023
pubmed: 23 12 2023
entrez: 22 12 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Adaptations to resistance training and subsequent performance can be undermined by inadequate interset recovery. Methods typically used to monitor recovery were developed for longitudinal use, making them time-inefficient within singular exercise bouts. If valid, perceptual recovery status (PRS) may be used as an efficient and inexpensive assessment tool to monitor individual recovery. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of PRS on monitoring recovery during a high-intensity back-squat session. Ten healthy men participated in the 2-session study (separated by at least 48 h). Session 1 included anthropometrics, PRS familiarization, and a 1-repetition-maximum back squat. Session 2 included a high-intensity protocol (5 sets of 5 repetitions; 5-min interset recovery; 85% of 1-repetition maximum). PRS was obtained before the first set and during the last 30 seconds of each 5-minute recovery; rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also collected. A linear position transducer collected mean barbell velocity (MBV). Repeated-measures correlations assessed the common intraindividual relationships of PRS scores to intraset MBV and RPE, respectively. A very large, positive correlation appeared between PRS and MBV (r [95% CI] = .778 [.613 to .878]; P < .0001). A large, negative correlation emerged between PRS and RPE (r [95% CI] = -.549 [-.737 to -.282]; P < .001). Results indicate that PRS can be a means for practitioners to monitor individualized recovery. PRS tracked well with RPE, strengthening its utility in a practitioner-based setting. Findings provide insight into the practicality of PRS for recovery monitoring. It could be used alongside other measures (eg, MBV and countermovement jump) to individually program and maintain performance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38134896
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2023-0241
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-7

Auteurs

Nicholas A Buoncristiani (NA)

Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.

Grant Malone (G)

School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.
Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.

Whitley J Stone (WJ)

School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.

Scott Arnett (S)

School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.

Mark A Schafer (MA)

School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.

Danilo V Tolusso (DV)

School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.

Classifications MeSH