ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Are Perceived Effort Scales (OMNI-RES) Appropriate for Defining and Controlling Strength Training Intensity?
Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most significant challenges for exercise professionals in designing strength training programs is determining the intensity or effort level of each set performed. One of the most studied methodologies has been the use of Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scales. This study aims to analyze the application of the OMNI-RES scale for monitoring training intensity across different relative loads and fatigue levels in various training protocols.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, participants completed nine exercise sessions, with one week separating each session. The first session involved a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test in the bench press (BP) to identify the load-velocity relationship. Subsequently, each participant randomly performed two maximum repetition (MNR) protocols at 60% and 90% of 1RM, and two protocols with a 30% velocity loss (VL) at 60% of 1RM and a 10% VL at 90% of 1RM. These sessions were repeated one week later.
resultssignificant differences were found between the four bench press protocols regarding the number of repetitions and the percentage of velocity loss per set (
conclusionsThe most important finding of this study is that the OMNI-RES scale may not be a reliable indicator of exercise intensity. This is because the highest values on the scale were observed at the lowest relative intensity (60% 1RM) during the maximum number of repetitions (MNR) protocol, corresponding to the maximum volume.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.