Rate of Perceived Exertion based on Repetitions in Reserve versus Percentage of One-Repetition Maximum for Resistance Training exercise prescription in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study

The aims of the study were to assess the efficacy of the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) scale based on the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) for the prescription of resistance training in cardiac rehabilitation and to compare it to the percentage of one-repetition maximum (1RM) prescription method. Sixteen male pa-tients (age 59.8 ± 7.6) with history of coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to two resistance training rehabilitation protocols lasting nine weeks and consisting of three sessions per week, with the same exercise selection, number of sets and repetitions, rest periods, but different load prescription method (RPE vs %1RM). Patients’ strength was evaluated pre- and post-intervention. Patients in the RPE group increased leg press by 24.25 ± 17.07 kg (p = 0.005; ES = 0.71), chest press by 7.25 ± 3.41 kg (p = 0.001; ES = 0.61), seated row by 13.88 ± 7.57 kg (p = 0.001; ES = 0.77), leg extension by 14.24 ± 4.53 kg (p < 0.000; ES = 0.76), shoulder press by 5.75 ± 4.06 kg (p = 0.005; ES = 0.80), lat pulldown by 7.50 ± 4.66 kg (p = 0.003; ES = 0.73). Post-intervention between-group analysis showed no statistically significant differences in strength gains (leg press p = 0.955; chest press p = 0.965; seated row p = 0.763; leg extension p = 0.565; shoulder press p = 0.868; lat pulldown p = 0.780) and trivial effect sizes for one prescription method over the other (leg press ES = -0.03; chest press ES = 0.00; seated row ES = 0.10; leg extension ES = -0.29; shoulder press ES = 0.18; lat pulldown ES = 0.05). RPE based on RIR seems to be an effective prescription method for resistance training in cardiac rehabilitation, showing similar efficacy to the standardized practice of percentage of 1RM.