Practices and Perceptions of Resistance Training Load Quantification

The aim of this study was to examine how practitioners currently quantify resistance training (RT), evaluate the perceived effectiveness of popular quantification methods, and identify barriers to quantifying RT load.

One hundred and fourteen practitioners (n = 114) who prescribe RT completed an international cross-sectional online survey between November 2023 and April 2024. The survey contained 41 questions, including open-ended, multiple-choice, and Likert-scale items. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to analyze quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative responses.

Absolute volume load (82.5%) and session rating of perceived exertion load (77.2%) were the most common, whereas more complex methods like total work (12.3%) and system mass volume load (7.9%) were less commonly used. The most important variables identified by the practitioners were training frequency (75%), working sets (72%), and load (72%). Perceived efficacy of quantification methods was similar across experience groups; however, practitioners' perceptions of maximum dynamic strength volume load was significantly different, with a small to moderate effect. Practitioners with more than 10 years of experience rated relative volume load (75%) and session rating of perceived exertion load (73%) the highest, whereas those with less experience preferred absolute volume load (76%) and session rating of perceived exertion load (76%). The main barriers to RT quantification were measurement/methodological problems (50.5%), athlete-related difficulties (26.3%), and logistical/practical limitations (23.2%). Time constraints (46.7%) were the most common reason against monitoring RT, whereas tracking adaptation/progression (41.1%) and informing periodization/planning (24.7%) were the main reasons for doing so.

The methods used to quantify RT load varied widely, with a clear preference for practical approaches. These findings highlight the need for improved education and standardized, practitioner-friendly methods to bridge the research-practice gap.