Strength Tracking Using the OMNI Resistance Exercise Scale in Older Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strength tracking uses ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) as a reference value to determine changes in strength as a function of a resistance training program. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the OMNI Resistance Exercise Scale (OMNI-RES) could be used to track training-induced strength changes in older adults. Twenty-two men (64.3 + 3.2 years) and 27 women (63.8 + 2.8 years) volunteered to participate. Subjects underwent a maximal lifting test, during which they estimated perceived exertion before and following 12 weeks of resistance exercise training. Leg press (LP), latissimus dorsi pull-down (LA), chest press (CP), leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC), arm extension (AE), and arm curl (AC) were performed. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare resistance lifted pre- and post-training at each criterion RPE (4, 6, and 8). One repetition maximum increased from pretraining to post-training (p < 0.05) for all exercises. The resistance lifted at each criterion RPE also increased (p < 0.05) during the 12-week training session for every exercise. Older adults lifted more weight at 3 criterion RPEs as their strength increased, providing an RPE-based procedure to track strength training changes using the OMNI-RES. As such, it seems that RPE from the OMNI-RES can be used to track strength in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".