23

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(1), 23–28� 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association

INFLUENCE OF EXERCISE ORDER ON THE NUMBER OFREPETITIONS PERFORMED AND PERCEIVED EXERTIONDURING RESISTANCE EXERCISE IN WOMEN

ROBERTO SIMAO,1,2,3 PAULO DE TARSO VERAS FARINATTI,2 MARCOS D. POLITO,2,3

LUIS VIVEIROS,3 AND STEVEN J. FLECK4

1Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2Rio de Janeiro State University, Physical Activity andHealth Promotion Laboratory (LABSAU), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 3Gama Filho University, Physical EducationPost-Graduation Program, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 4Colorado College, Department of Sports Science, ColoradoSprings, Colorado 80903.

ABSTRACT. Simao, R., P. de Tarso Veras Farinatti, M.D. Polito,L. Viveiros, and S.J. Fleck. Influence of exercise order on thenumber of repetitions performed and perceived exertion duringresistance exercise in women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(1):23–28. 2007.—The purpose of this study was to investigate the in-fluence of different resistance exercise orders on the number ofrepetitions performed to failure and on the ratings of perceivedexertion (RPE) in trained women. Twenty-three women with aminimum of 2 years of resistance training experience volun-teered to participate in the study (age, 24.2 � 4.5 years; weight,56.9 � 4.7 kg; height, 162.3 � 5.9 cm; percent body fat, 18.2 �2.9%; body mass index, 22.2 � 2 kg·m�2). Data were collected in2 phases: (a) determination of a 1 repetition maximum (1RM)for the leg-press (LP), bench press (BP), leg extension (LE), seat-ed machine shoulder press (SP), leg curl (LC), and seated ma-chine triceps extension (TE); and (b) execution of 3 sets, with 2-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises, until fatigueusing 80% of 1RM in 2 exercise sequences of the exact oppositeorder—Sequence A: BP, SP, TE, LP, LE, and LC, and SequenceB: LC, LE, LP, TE, SP, and BP. The RPE (Borg CR-10) wasaccessed immediately after each sequence and analyzed using aWilcoxon test. A 2-way analysis of variance with repeated mea-surements, followed by a post hoc Fisher least significant differ-ence test where indicated was used to analyze the number ofrepetitions per set of each exercise during the 2 sequences. TheRPE was not significantly different between the sequences. Themean number of repetitions per set was always less when anexercise was performed later in the exercise sequence. The dataindicate that in trained women, performance of both large- andsmall-muscle group exercises is affected by exercise sequence.

KEY WORDS. strength training, performance, Borg scale,strength

INTRODUCTION

Exercise order refers to the sequence of resis-tance exercises in a training session. It hasbeen recommended that exercises involvinglarge-muscle groups be placed at the beginningof training sessions (5), because this exercise

sequence results in the ability to utilize the heaviest re-sistances possible when performing the large-musclegroup exercises and may result in the greatest long-termstrength gains in these exercises (1, 5, 7). Exercise se-quence has also been recommended to be such to allowthe use of training resistances and volumes that optimizetraining adaptations (2, 5). The rationale for performinglarge-muscle group exercises first in a training session isthat the total force production (repetitions � resistance)in a session with this exercise order is greater than when

performing small-muscle group exercises or single-jointexercises first in a training session (17).

The American College of Sports Medicine (1) recom-mends that large-muscle group exercises generally beperformed first in a training session based on the ratio-nale described above. However, although the rationale forperforming large-muscle group exercises first in a train-ing session is generally believed and followed, little re-search on exercise sequencing is available. Sforzo andTouey (17), utilizing only men as subjects found that per-formance of small-muscle group exercises prior to large-muscle group exercises resulted in significantly less totalforce production in the large-muscle group exercises andin the total training session. These investigators also re-ported greater total force production in some, but not all,single-joint exercises when the exercises were performedearly in a training session that was composed of both up-per- and lower-body large-muscle (multi-joint) and small-muscle (single-joint) group exercises. Results of a previ-ous study (19) by researchers involved in the presentstudy using a combination of men and women as subjectssupport the conclusion reached by Sforzo and Touey (17).However, information on the effect of exercise sequencingwhen a session is composed of upper- and lower-body ex-ercises in women only appears to be lacking. It is possiblethat women, due to their greater fiber Type I comparedto Type II A and B cross-sectional area (21), may expe-rience less fatigue as a resistance training session pro-gresses compared to men. This could result in less or nofatigue in women when an exercise is preceded by an ex-ercise involving the same general muscle groups.

Due to the lack of data on women only and the pos-sibility of a gender effect on fatigue caused by exerciseorder during a resistance training session, the purpose ofthe present study was to examine the effect of exerciseorder in women only on the number of repetitions per-formed and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) in aresistance training session composed of upper- and lower-body exercises. It is hypothesized that both large- andsmall-muscle group exercises will be negatively affectedin terms of total number of repetitions performed to vo-litional fatigue when they are performed late in a trainingsession compared to early in a session.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

To investigate the effect of 2 different exercise orders onfatigue and RPE, data were assessed on 4 nonconsecutive

24 SIMAO, FARINATTI, POLITO ET AL.

days. The 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of all subjects forall exercises performed was determined on the first day.On day 2 1RM was retested. On days 3 and 4, the 2 dif-ferent exercise sequences were performed.

Subjects performed 2 exercise sessions separated by48 hours using a counter balanced cross-over design. The2 sessions were composed of the same exercises per-formed in the opposite exercise order. Sequence A (SEQA) began with large-muscle group exercises and pro-gressed toward small-muscle group exercises. The exer-cise order for SEQ A was free-weight bench press (BP),seated machine shoulder press (SP), seated machine tri-ceps extension (TE), leg-press (LP), leg extension (LE),and leg curl (LC). Sequence B (SEQ B) was the exact op-posite order and began with small-muscle group exercisesand progressed toward large-muscle group exercises. Theexercise order for SEQ B was LC, LE, LP, TE, SP, andBP. The performance of SEQ A and B was separated by48 to 72 hours. All exercises in both sequences were per-formed for 3 sets to volitional fatigue using the predeter-mined 80% of 1RM of each subject for each exercise. Setsand exercises in both sequences were separated by 2-min-ute rest intervals of passive recovery. The testing sessionswere designed to mimic actual resistance training ses-sions performed by many individuals. Meta-analysesdemonstrate multiple sets result in greater strengthgains than lower volume programs (15, 16, 23); anecdot-ally, many individuals train with 3 sets of each exercise.Meta-analyses have also shown for trained individuals amean of 80–85% 1RM is optimal for strength development(16, 23). Rest periods of 2–3 minutes between sets andexercises have been recommended when training to in-crease strength (1); anecdotally, many individuals utilizerest periods of approximately this length. Sets carried tofailure or close to failure have also been recommended tobring about optimal strength gains (5). The total numberof repetitions performed was determined in each set ofeach exercise for both sequences.

Using the Borg CR-10 Scale, RPE was assessed im-mediately after completion of each sequence, with em-phasis on local fatigue (3). Prior to the warm-up of theexperimental sessions, subjects were asked to read thescaling instructions for the Borg CR-10 Scale (3) andasked to rate their perceived exertion following the com-pletion of each exercise sequence. For assessing RPE im-mediately after completion of each sequence, standard in-structions and anchoring procedures were explained (13).Subjects were asked to use any number on the scale torate their overall effort. A rating of 0 was to be associatedwith no effort (rest), and a rating of 10 was considered tobe maximal effort and to be associated with the moststressful exercise sequence ever performed. All individu-als had a familiarization session using the Borg CR-10Scale (3), and the scale was used during a session 2 weeksbefore the experimental procedures during a normaltraining session of each subject. The session RPE repre-sents a single global rating of the perceived intensity forthe entire session. During a previous investigation theauthors did not encounter difficulties with the subjectsunderstanding the Borg-10 Scale, using the same verbalanchors as in the present study (19).

Subjects

Twenty-three women (age, 24.2 � 4.5 years; body mass,56.9 � 4.7 kg; height, 162.3 � 5.9 cm; body fat, 18.2 �2.9%; body mass index, 22.2 � 2 kg·m�2) with at least 2years of recreational resistance training experience par-

ticipated as subjects in the study. All subjects had at least2 years of experience performing the LP, LE, LC, and BPexercises and at least 3 months of experience performingthe SP and TE exercises. Percent body fat was deter-mined using skinfolds and the Siri equation (9, 20).

All subjects answered the Physical Activity ReadinessQuestionnaire—PAR-Q (18) and signed an informed con-sent form prior to participation in the study according tothe Declaration of Helsinki.

1 Repetition Maximum Testing

The mass of all weight plates and bars used for measur-ing 1RM was determined with a precision scale. The ac-tual mass of all plates and bars was used to calculate the1RM of each exercise. Data were assessed during 4 non-consecutive days. The 1RM tests (2) were performed inthe following order: BP, LP, SP, LE, TE, and LC. All ex-ercises except the BP, which was performed using free-weights, were performed using resistance training ma-chines (Life Fitness Inc., Franklin Park, IL). To minimizepossible errors in the 1RM tests, the following strategieswere adopted: (a) all subjects received standard instruc-tions on the general routine of data assessment and theexercise technique of each exercise before testing, (b) theexercise technique of subjects during all testing sessionswas monitored and corrected as needed, and (c) all sub-jects received verbal encouragement during testing.

During the 1RM test, each subject had a maximum of5 1RM attempts of each exercise with 2- to 5-minute restintervals between attempts. After the 1RM load in a spe-cific exercise was determined, an interval not shorterthan 10 minutes was allowed before the 1RM determi-nation of the next exercise. Standard exercise techniqueswere followed for each exercise. No pause was allowedbetween the eccentric and concentric phase of a repetitionor between repetitions. For a repetition to be successful,a complete range of motion, as is normally defined for theexercise, had to be completed. Excellent day-to-day 1RMreliability for each exercise was shown using this protocol.One RM testing on the 2 occasions separated by 48 hoursshowed intraclass correlation coefficients of BP, r � 0.94;LP, r � 0.92; SP, r � 0.94; LE, r � 0.96; TE, r � 0.96;and LC, r � 0.94. Additionally, for no exercise did apaired Student’s t-test show a significant difference be-tween the 2 occasions the 1RM tests were performed.

The following is a brief description of the range of mo-tion used to define a successful repetition for each exer-cise: BP, moving the bar from a chest touch to a fullyextended elbows position; SP, starting with the bar slight-ly above shoulder height and moving the bar to a fullyextended elbows position; TE, starting with the elbows ata 90� angle and fully extending the elbows; LP, startingwith the knees at an 80� angle and fully extending theknees; LE, starting with the knees at a 90� angle and fullyextending the knees; LC, starting with the knees at a 180�angle and flexing the knees to a 90� angle.

Exercise Sessions

Forty-eight to 72 hours after the retesting of the 1RMsfor each exercise, subjects performed 1 of the 2 exercisesequences in a counter balanced cross-over design. Forty-eight to 72 hours after performing the first exercise se-quence the second sequence was performed. Twelve sub-jects performed SEQ A first and 11 subjects performedSEQ B first. Warm-up before each exercise sequence con-sisted of 20 repetitions of the first exercise of the session(BP for SEQ A and LC for SEQ B) at 40% of the 1RM

INFLUENCE OF EXERCISE 25

TABLE 1. Number of repetitions per set in both exercise sequences (mean � SD).*

BP SP TE LP LE LC

SEQ A First setSecond setThird setTotal mean

10.2 � 3.1†8.2 � 2.86.7 � 2.58.4 � 3.1�

9.4 � 5.47.9 � 3.97.3 � 5.18.2 � 4.9�

8.8 � 2.7†8.5 � 3.08.4 � 2.88.6 � 2.8�

23.9 � 8.7†20.3 � 6.5‡19.3 � 7.8§21.1 � 7.8�

9.4 � 3.7†9.9 � 3.9‡9.8 � 3.99.7 � 3.8�

15.7 � 6.1†14.3 � 5.5‡13.4 � 5.5§14.5 � 5.7�

SEQ B First setSecond setThird setTotal mean

6.7 � 2.56.0 � 2.55.3 � 2.06.0 � 2.4

7.9 � 3.96.7 � 2.45.7 � 2.06.8 � 3.0

12.4 � 3.110.3 � 2.89.6 � 2.8

10.8 � 3.1

20.0 � 7.616.3 � 6.816.2 � 6.917.5 � 7.2

12.7 � 4.413.0 � 4.812.0 � 4.512.5 � 4.5

18.4 � 4.816.6 � 6.116.1 � 6.617.0 � 5.9

* SEQ A � sequence A; SEQ B � sequence B; BP � bench press; SP � shoulder press; TE � triceps extension; LP � leg press;LE � leg extension; LC � leg curl.

† Significant difference when compared to the first set of SEQ B.‡ Significant difference when compared to the second set of SEQ B.§ Significant difference when compared to the third set of SEQ B.� Significant difference when compared to the total mean of SEQ B.

FIGURE 1. Number of repetitions per set in sequence A (up-per body). BP � bench press; SP � shoulder press; TE � tri-ceps extension; gray bars � first set; cross-bars � second set;white bars � third set; 2 � significant difference to the secondset of the same exercise; 3 � significant difference to the thirdset of the same exercise.

load. A 2-minute rest interval was allowed after thewarm-up set before subjects performed the assigned ex-ercise sequence. Both exercise sequences consisted of 3sets of each exercise to failure using 80% of 1RM with 2-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises. The ex-ercise order for SEQ A was BP, SP, TE, LP, LE, and LC.The exercise order for SEQ B was LC, LE, LP, TE, SP,and BP.

During the exercise sessions, subjects were verballyencouraged to perform all sets to concentric failure, andthe same definitions of a complete range of motion usedduring the 1RM testing were used to define completion ofa successful repetition. No attempt was made to controlthe velocity with which repetitions were performed. Thetotal number of repetitions for each set of each exercisewas recorded. Immediately after completion of each ex-ercise sequence, the Borg CR-10 Scale was used to assessRPE with emphasis on local fatigue (3).

Statistical Analyses

Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to testdifferences in total number of repetitions and repetitionsper set between sequences. A 1-way ANOVA was used tocompare the number of repetitions per set within eachsequence. A Fisher least significant difference (LSD) posthoc test was performed where indicated by an ANOVA.The RPE at the end of the sequences was analyzed by aWilcoxon test. The level of significance was set at p �0.05 for all statistical procedures. Statistical software wasused for all analyses (version 6.0; Statsoft, Tulsa, OK).

RESULTS

Number of Repetitions of Each Exercise in BothSequences

The mean number of repetitions of each exercise for the3 sets varied between sequences in all exercises. Totalrepetitions performed in the BP, SP, and LP (sum of allsets) were higher in SEQ A, whereas total repetitions per-formed in the TE, LE, and LC were significantly higherin SEQ B (Table 1).

Number of Repetitions in Each Sequence

Comparison between SEQ A and corresponding SEQ Bsets demonstrated significant differences in several setsand exercises. Significantly more repetitions per set wereperformed in the first set of SEQ A in the BP and LP.While significantly more repetitions were performed inthe first set of SEQ B in the TE, LE, and LC (Table 1).

Significantly more repetitions were performed in the sec-ond and third set of SEQ A in the LP and in SEQ B inthe LE and LC. The total mean number of repetitions perset was significantly higher in SEQ A in the BP, SP, andLP and significantly higher in SEQ B in the TE, LE, andLC.

For all exercises except TE and LE in SEQ A and LEin SEQ B the number of repetitions in the first set withineach sequence was significantly greater in the first setthan the third set (Figures 1–4). The number of repeti-tions in the first set was also significantly greater thanthe third set within each sequence in the BP, SP, and LPin SEQ A and in the SP, TE, LP, and LC in SEQ B, whilethe number of repetitions in the second set was signifi-cantly greater than the third set in the BP in SEQ A andin the BP and LE in SEQ B.

Rating of Perceived Exertion

Comparison between sequences showed no significant dif-ferences for RPE, SEQ A (8 � 1) and SEQ B (8 � 1). Themedian of both sequences was 8. The results suggest thatexercise order did not influence RPE immediately afterthe utilized exercise sequences.

DISCUSSION

The main conclusion of the present study is that intrained women the total number of repetitions in 3 sets

26 SIMAO, FARINATTI, POLITO ET AL.

FIGURE 2. Number of repetitions per set in sequence B (up-per body). BP � bench press; SP � shoulder press; TE � tri-ceps extension; gray bars � first set; cross-bars � second set;white bars � third set; 2 � significant difference to the secondset of the same exercise; 3 � significant difference to the thirdset of the same exercise.

FIGURE 3. Number of repetitions per set in sequence A (low-er body). LP � leg press; LE � leg extension; LC � leg curl;gray bars � first set; cross-bars � second set; white bars �third set; 2 � significant difference to the second set of thesame exercise; 3 � significant difference to the third set of thesame exercise.

FIGURE 4. Number of repetitions per set in sequence B (low-er body). LP � leg press; LE � leg extension; LC � leg curl;gray bars � first set; cross-bars � second set; white bars �third set; 2 � significant difference to the second set of thesame exercise; 3 � significant difference to the third set of thesame exercise.

of an exercise is directly influenced by the exercise orderused in a resistance training session, composed of bothupper- and the lower-body exercises. Whether an upper-or lower-body exercise was large-muscle group (multi-joint) or small-muscle group (single-joint) in nature, if itwas preceded by exercises for the same body part (i.e.,upper or lower body) the total number of repetitions in 3sets decreased. For example, in a multi-joint exercise theLP total number of repetitions decreased 29% in SEQ Bwhen it was preceded by the LC and LE exercises com-pared to SEQ A where it was the first lower-body exerciseperformed. Similarly, the TE total number of repetitionsperformed in a single-joint exercise decreased 11% inSEQ A when it was preceded by the performance of 2multi-joint upper-body exercises (BP and SP) comparedto SEQ B when it was the first upper-body exercise per-formed. This pattern of a significant decrease in the totalnumber of repetitions in 3 sets when an exercise was pre-ceded by exercises for the same general body part (i.e.,upper or lower body) was true for all exercises in bothSEQ A and SEQ B. Several (5 of a possible 12 compari-sons) significant differences between the number of rep-etitions in the second and third sets of SEQ A and B werefound. However, all but 1 (SP) comparison between SEQA and B showed a significant difference in the number ofrepetitions in the first set. Thus, the decrease in the totalnumber of repetitions in 3 sets when an exercise is pre-ceded by exercises involving the same general body partis in large part due to a decrease in the number of repe-titions in the first set performed.

Our results demonstrate that trained women experi-enced significant reductions in the total number of repe-titions performed in both multi-joint and single-joint up-per- and lower-body exercises when the exercise is pre-ceded by exercises for the same general body part (i.e.,upper and lower body). Generally significant decreases inthe number of repetitions in the 3 sets of an exercise weredemonstrated (Figures 1–4). This decrease in the totalnumber of repetitions of an exercise appears to be in parta result of increasing fatigue as the exercise session pro-gresses.

Results of the present study are in agreement with 2previous studies (17, 19) examining the effect of exercisesequence during a resistance training session. Simao etal. (19) investigated the influence of different exercise se-quences on the number of repetitions performed in an up-per-body only exercise sequence in a group composed ofboth men and women. The exercise sessions consisted ofperforming 3 sets of each exercise with a resistance of10RM with 2-minute rest periods between sets and ex-ercises. One session began with exercises for the majormuscle groups and progressed to small-muscle group ex-ercises (exercise order: BP, machine lat pull-down, SP,standing free-weight biceps curl, and TE), while the othersession utilized the exact opposite exercise order. Wheth-er an exercise was major muscle or small-muscle groupwhen it was performed last in the sequences, significantlyfewer numbers of repetitions were performed. When anexercise was always in the middle of the exercise se-quence (i.e., SP), no significant change in the number ofrepetitions performed was observed. The data of the pres-ent study indicate a similar phenomenon of a decrease inthe total number of repetitions performed when both up-per- and lower-body exercises are performed in the sameexercise sequence.

Sforzo and Touey (17) demonstrated that exercise or-der affects exercise performance (total force � resistance

INFLUENCE OF EXERCISE 27

� repetitions) in a group of trained men. The exercisesequence utilized by Sforzo and Touey (17) was squat, legextension, leg flexion, bench press, military press, and tri-ceps pushdown in one sequence and the exact opposite ina second exercise sequence. Their results indicate thatwhen multi-joint exercises are preceded by single-joint ex-ercises for the same general body part (i.e., upper andlower body), performance decreases in the multi-joint ex-ercises, and that the opposite is also true—when multi-joint exercises for the same body part precede single-jointexercises, performance decreases. Their data also indicatethat this effect is greater for upper-body compared to low-er-body exercises. For example, the BP (61% decline intotal force when performed last in the exercise sequence)was more affected by preceding exercises for the samegeneral body part than the squat (25% decline in totalforce when performed last in the exercise sequence).

In the present study the exercises and the sequencesadopted are similar to the ones utilized by Sforzo andTouey (17). However, there are 3 differences between the2 studies: (a) the resistance utilized, (b) the length of therest intervals, and (c) the subject population (men vs.women). The study of Sforzo and Touey (17), used 8RMresistances, a 2-minute rest interval between sets, a 3-minute rest interval between exercises, and 5-minute restinterval whenever switching from upper- to lower-bodyexercises and vice-versa. In our study 80% of 1RM to fail-ure was utilized as a resistance and 2-minute intervalswere always utilized both between sets and exercises, aswell as whenever switching from upper- to lower-body ex-ercises. Sforzo and Touey (17) evaluated trained men,while in the present study trained women were evaluat-ed. Despite these methodologic differences, the studiesagree that when exercises for the same body part precedeanother exercise of the same body part, performance de-creases.

One interesting observation that can be derived fromthe present study relates to the question of the numberof repetitions possible at a certain percentage of 1RM. Inthe present study all exercises were performed using 80%of 1RM to volitional fatigue. Hoeger et al. (7, 8), demon-strated that the number of repetitions may vary consid-erably for different machine type exercises at the samepercent of 1RM, due to the characteristics of the jointsinvolved, the size of the muscle groups involved, and thesubject’s physical conditioning. This indicates that usinga particular percent of 1RM for all exercises results inlarge variations in the number of repetitions per setamong exercises during a training program when sets areperformed to volitional fatigue. For example, in the pres-ent study the total number of repetitions possible using80% of 1RM varied considerably from exercise to exercise(approximately 5 to 24 repetitions per set) and varied de-pending upon the exercise sequence. The present dataand the previous data (8) on trained women agree con-cerning the number of repetitions possible in 1 set to fail-ure for some exercises, but not for others. For example,the present data for the first set in an exercise sequenceand previous data for one set at 80% 1RM were: LP, 20.0–23.9 and 22.4; BP, 6.7–10.2 and 14.3; LE, 9.4–12.7 and9.4; and LC, 15.7–18.4 and 5.3 repetitions, respectively.Some of the variation may be explained by the use of dif-ferent manufacturer’s machines and differences in studydesign. The present data reflect numbers of repetitionspossible during a simulated training session where exer-cises may have preceded other exercises. In the previousstudy the number of repetitions reflect the number pos-

sible in a testing session of 1 set of a certain exercise sofatigue due to other exercises was not present. All exer-cises in the previous study (8), and all but 1 exercise (free-weight BP) in the present study were performed usingresistance training machines. Interestingly, comparisonof the 2 studies indicates that the number of repetitionsto failure may be less when the BP is performed with freeweights. However, the results of comparing the LC rep-etitions to failure indicate that large differences may alsobe present when the same exercise is performed usingdifferent manufacturer’s resistance training machines(Life Fitness Inc. in the present study and Universal gymin the previous study).

Recent evidence suggests that the Borg CR-10 Scalecan be used reliably to determine RPE during resistanceexercise (10, 11). The RPE is often used as an intensityindicator for continuous aerobic activities, but it is notfrequently used for resistance exercise. Some data sug-gest that RPE may reflect the intensity of resistance ex-ercise (4, 6, 12, 22), and is more sensitive as a local mea-sure of muscular fatigue compared to measuring centralfatigue (14). Therefore, we chose to use this variable atthe end of each sequence as a measure of localized musclefatigue. In the present study no significant difference inRPE between sequences was found. These results confirmour previous study (19) where only upper-body exerciseswere performed in 2 different sequences. Collectively,these 2 studies indicate that RPE is not affected by ex-ercise order when sets are carried to volitional fatigue.The lack of significant differences in RPE between the 2exercise sequences may, in part, be due to all sets in bothsequences being performed to concentric failure resultingin a high RPE irrespective of exercise order. This appearsto be true even when large variations in the number ofrepetitions per set occur. In the present study 6 to 24repetitions per set were performed using 80% of 1RM,while in our previous study (12) 6 to 10 repetitions perset were performed using a 10RM. The results of the pres-ent study and our previous work (19) indicate RPE maynot differentiate between different exercise sequenceswhen all sets are performed to failure.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that ex-ercise sequence during a resistance training session in-volving both upper- and lower-body single-joint and mul-ti-joint exercises does influence the total number of rep-etitions performed of an exercise by trained women.When exercises are preceded by either single-joint or mul-ti-joint exercises involving the same muscle group the to-tal number of repetitions decreases. This is true for bothupper- and lower-body single- and multi-joint exercises.The present data also indicate that RPE immediately fol-lowing an exercise sequence is not affected by exerciseorder when all sets are performed to concentric failure.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The implications of this study are relevant to the designof training sessions with the goal of maximizing musclestrength and hypertrophy in trained women. The com-mon exercise order of performing large-muscle group ex-ercises first in a training session will meet the traininggoals of many individuals. However, the present study’sresults suggest that whenever an exercise is performedlast in an exercise sequence or training session, perfor-mance of that exercise will be negatively affected. This istrue whether the exercise is a large- or small-musclegroup exercise. This negative effect on exercises per-formed late in a training session needs to be considered

28 SIMAO, FARINATTI, POLITO ET AL.

when designing programs for both female athletes andfitness enthusiasts. This study’s results indicate if an ex-ercise is considered of primary importance to meet thetraining goals of a program, it should be performed earlyin a training session. This is true for both large- andsmall-muscle group exercises.

REFERENCES

1. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE. Position stand on progressionmodels in resistance training for healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.34:364–380. 2002.

2. BAECHLE, T.R., AND R.W. EARLE. Essentials of Strength Training andConditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.

3. BORG, G. Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics, 1998.

4. DAY, M.L., M.R. MCGUIGAN, G. BRICE, AND C. FOSTER. Monitoring ex-ercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale.J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:353–358. 2004.

5. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Training Pro-grams. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.

6. GEARHART, R.F. JR, F.L. GOSS, K.M. LAGALLY, J.M. JAKICIC, J. GAL-LAGHER, K.I. GALLAGHER, AND R.J. ROBERTSON. Ratings of perceived ex-ertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resis-tance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:87–91. 2002.

7. HOEGER, W.W.K., S.L. BARETTE, D.F. HALE, AND D.R. HOPKINS. Rela-tionship between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetitionmaximum. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 1:11–13. 1987.

8. HOEGER, W.W.K., D.R. HOPKINS, S.L. BARETTE, AND D.F. HALE. Rela-tionship between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetitionmaximum: A comparison between untrained and trained males and fe-males. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 4:47–54. 1990.

9. JACKSON, A.S., AND M.L. POLLOCK. Generalized equations for predictingbody density of women. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 12:175–182. 1980.

10. LAGALLY, K.M., R.J. ROBERTSON, K.I. GALLAGHER, AND F.L. GOSS. Rat-ings of perceived exertion during low-and high-intensity resistance ex-ercise by young adults. Percep. Motor Skills 94:723–731. 2002.

11. LAGALLY, K.M., R.J. ROBERTSON, K.I. GALLAGHER, F.L GOSS, J.M. JAKI-CIC, S.M. LEPHART, S.T. MCCAW, AND B. GOODPASTER. Perceived exer-tion, electromyography, and blood lactate during acute bouts of resis-tance exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34:552–559. 2002.

12. NOBLE, B.J., G. BORG, I. JACOBS, R. CECI, AND P. KAISER. A category-ratio perceived exertion scale: Relationship to blood and muscle lactateand heart rate. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 15:523–528. 1983.

13. NOBLE, B.J., AND R.J. ROBERTSON. Perceived Exertion. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics, 1996.

14. PINCINVERO, D.M., S.M. LEPHART, AND R.G. KARUNAKARA. Effects of restinterval on isokinetic strength and functional performance after short-term high intensity training. Br. J. Sports Med. 31:229–234. 1997.

15. RHEA, M.R., B.A. ALAVAR, AND L.N. BURKETT. Single versus multiple setsfor strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res. Quart.Exerc. Sport 73:485–488. 2002.

16. RHEA, M.R., B.A. ALAVAR, L.N. BURKETT, AND S.D. BALL. A meta-anal-ysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc. 35:456–464. 2003.

17. SFORZO, G.A., AND P.R. TOUEY. Manipulating exercise order affects mus-cular performance during a resistance exercise training session. J.Strength Cond. Res. 10:20–24. 1996.

18. SHEPHARD, R.J. PAR-Q, Canadian home fitness test and exercise screen-ing alternatives. Sports Med. 5:185–195. 1988.

19. SIMAO, R., P.T.V. FARINATTI, M.D. POLITO, A.S. MAIOR, AND S.J. FLECK.Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed andperceived during resistive exercises. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:152–156.2005.

20. SIRI, W.E. Body composition from fluid spaces and density. Techniques formeasuring body composition. Washington: National Academy Science.1961.

21. STARON, R.S., F.C. HAGERMAN, R.S. HIKIDA, T.F. MURRAY, D.P. HOSTLER,D.P. CRILL, K.E. RAGG, AND K. TOMA. Fiber type composition of the vas-tus lateralis muscle of young men and women. J. Histochem. Cytochem.48:623–629. 2000.

22. TOMPOROWSKI, P.D. Men’s and women’s perception of effort during pro-gressive-resistance strength training. Percep. Motor Skills 92:368–372.2001.

23. WOLFE, B.L., L.M. LEMURA, AND P.J. COLE. Quantitative analysis of sin-gle- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training. J. Strength Cond.Res. 18:35–47. 2004.

Address correspondence to Steven J. Fleck, sfleck@coloradocollege.edu.