Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2025
Non-invasive Assessments of Subjective and Objective Recovery Characteristics Following an Exhaustive Jump Protocol
Published on: June 8, 2017
The Validity of Perceptual Recovery Status on Monitoring Recovery During a High-Intensity Back-Squat Session
Nicholas A Buoncristiani1,2,3, Grant Malone3,4, Whitley J Stone3
1Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract:
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.
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to assess the validity of PRS on monitoring recovery during a high-intensity back-squat session.
Methods:
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.
Results:
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).
Conclusions:
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.
