Heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance training produce similar strength increases, but different perceptual responses, in healthy males and females

View article
PeerJ
Using a 0–10 scale for effort and discomfort these have been anchored as 0 = no exertion and 10 = maximal effort, and 0 = no discomfort and 10 = maximal discomfort, respectively.
Inclusion criteria required participants to rate themselves as ‘moderately fit’ on a customised screening form for physical activity readiness, but not be undertaking structured resistance exercise, or have specific aesthetic or fitness goals (e.g., fat loss, build muscle, compete in any physical contest, event or sport, etc.). Furthermore, all participants were asymptomatic of low back pain and confirmed that they had never undertaken isolated lumbar extension exercise.
RPE-E; 0 = no exertion, 1 = extremely easy, 3 = easy, 5 = somewhat hard, 7 = hard, 9 = very hard, 10 = maximal effort.
RPE-D; 0 = no discomfort, 1 = minor discomfort, 3 = mild discomfort, 5 = moderate discomfort, 7 = severe discomfort, 9 = very severe discomfort, 10 = maximal discomfort.

Main article text

 

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Supplemental Information

Raw data for HL and LL 6-week training intervention

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6001/supp-1

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

James P. Fisher conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Charlotte Stuart conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

James Steele conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Paulo Gentil analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Jürgen Giessing contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Southampton Solent University, Health Exercise and Sport Sciences ethical review board granted ethical approval for this research (#687).

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are provided in the Supplemental Files.

Funding

The authors received no funding for this work.

6 Citations 4,183 Views 584 Downloads

Your institution may have Open Access funds available for qualifying authors. See if you qualify

Publish for free

Comment on Articles or Preprints and we'll waive your author fee
Learn more

Five new journals in Chemistry

Free to publish • Peer-reviewed • From PeerJ
Find out more