journal article·2025-11-16Open access

Perceptual Demands in CrossFit®: Convergent Validity of sRPE and the Relative Role of Session Phases in a Prospective Observational Study

Eladio Domínguez-Antuña, David Suárez-Iglesias, Juan Rodríguez-Medina, Alba Niño, Jose A. Rodríguez-Marroyo

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 22

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the convergent validity and reliability of the session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) in complete CrossFit® sessions by comparing it with a weighted RPE measure (RPEW) obtained from different session phases. Twenty-four recreational practitioners (13 men and 11 women; age 34.5 ± 8.3 years; height 172.9 ± 11.2 cm; body mass 76.2 ± 15.2 kg) completed 28 standardized sessions (~60 min) consisting of warm-up, strength/skill, Workout of the Day (WOD), and cooldown phases. Phase-specific RPE values were collected after each session component, and a global sRPE was recorded ~30 min post-session. Results showed that RPEW (5.8 ± 1.5) was significantly lower than sRPE (6.8 ± 1.4; p < 0.001, d = 0.69), resulting in a higher training load estimated by sRPE (+15.5%). Bland–Altman analysis revealed a positive bias and wide limits of agreement, while relative reliability was moderate to good (ICC = 0.73–0.77). Multiple regression analysis indicated that WOD RPE explained 70% of the variance in sRPE (R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001), confirming its role as the primary perceptual determinant. In conclusion, sRPE represents a valid, simple, and cost-effective tool for monitoring internal load in CrossFit®. However, it tends to overestimate RPEW and shows substantial interindividual variability, limiting its precision for individualized monitoring. Coaches and practitioners should therefore interpret sRPE values with caution, especially considering the strong influence of the final session phase.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Sports Performance and Training · Sports injuries and prevention · Cardiovascular and exercise physiology

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Dark Lion Sport Management, 33510 Asturias, Spain

VALFIS Research Group, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Institute of Biomedicine (IBIOMED), University of Leon, 24071 León, Spain

Faculty of Health Science, University Isabel I, 09003 Burgos, Spain

References (31)

Show source-provided references
1. Feito, Y., Heinrich, K., Butcher, S., and Poston, W. (2018). High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT): Definition and research implications for improved fitness. Sports, 6.10.3390/sports6030076 ↗
2. Cardiometabolic and muscular fatigue responses to different CrossFit® workouts
3. Tibana, R.A., de Sousa, N.M.F., Cunha, G.V., Prestes, J., Fett, C., Gabbett, T.J., and Voltarelli, F.A. (2018). Validity of session rating of perceived exertion method for quantifying internal training load during high-intensity functional training. Sports, 6.10.3390/sports6030068 ↗
4. Tibana, R.A., de Sousa, N.M.F., Prestes, J., da Cunha Nascimento, D., Ernesto, C., Falk Neto, J.H., Kennedy, M.D., and Voltarelli, F.A. (2019). Is perceived exertion a useful indicator of the metabolic and cardiovascular responses to a metabolic conditioning session of functional fitness?. Sports, 7.10.3390/sports7070161 ↗
5. Toledo, R., Dias, M.R., Toledo, R., Erotides, R., Pinto, D.S., Reis, V.M., Novaes, J.S., Vianna, J.M., and Heinrich, K.M. (2021). Comparison of physiological responses and training load between different CrossFit® workouts with equalized volume in men and women. Life, 11.10.20944/preprints202105.0733.v1 ↗
6. Comparison of cardiovascular parameters and internal training load of different 1-h training sessions in non-elite CrossFit® athletes10.1007/s42978-022-00169-x ↗
7. Rios, M., Becker, K.M., Cardoso, F., Pyne, D.B., Reis, V.M., Moreira-Gonçalves, D., and Fernandes, R.J. (2024). Assessment of cardiorespiratory and metabolic contributions in an extreme intensity CrossFit® benchmark workout. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24020513 ↗
8. The quantification of training load, the training response and the effect on performance10.2165/11317780-000000000-00000 ↗
9. Sex-related Differences in the Acute Physiological Response to a High-Intensity CrossFit® Workout10.1016/j.crphys.2025.100148 ↗
10. A new approach to monitoring exercise training
11. Monitoring exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale
12. Crawford, D.A., Drake, N.B., Carper, M.J., Deblauw, J., and Heinrich, K.M. (2018). Validity, reliability, and application of the session-RPE method for quantifying training loads during high intensity functional training. Sports, 6.10.3390/sports6030084 ↗
13. Use of RPE-based training load in soccer10.1249/01.MSS.0000128199.23901.2F ↗
14. Comparison of heart rate and session rating of perceived exertion methods of defining exercise load in cyclists10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a4233 ↗
15. Physiological responses after two different CrossFit workouts10.5114/biolsport.2021.102928 ↗
16. Relative intensity of two types of CrossFit exercise: Acute circuit and high-intensity interval exercise
17. Acute physiological responses during CrossFit® workouts
18. Perceived demands and postexercise physical dysfunction in CrossFit® compared to an ACSM based training session10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06243-5 ↗
19. 48-hour recovery of biochemical parameters and physical performance after two modalities of CrossFit workouts10.5114/biolsport.2019.85458 ↗
20. Defining training and performance caliber: A participant classification framework10.1123/ijspp.2021-0451 ↗
21. Quantitation of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion method
22. Monitoring different types of resistance training using session rating of perceived exertion10.1123/ijspp.2.1.34 ↗
23. Effect of the cooldown type on session rating of perceived exertion10.1123/ijspp.2020-0225 ↗
24. Romdhani, A., Sahli, F., Trabelsi, O., Rebhi, M., Ghouili, H., Sahli, H., Salem, A., Trabelsi, K., Jahrami, H., and Ammar, A. (2024). Peer verbal encouragement is more effective than coach encouragement in enhancing CrossFit-specific 1-RM strength, functional endurance, and psychophysiological assessment performance. Sports, 12.10.3390/sports12030064 ↗
25. Session ratings of perceived exertion responses during resistance training bouts equated for total work but differing in work rate10.1519/JSC.0b013e31829b569c ↗
26. Comparisons of RPE before, during, and after self-regulated aerobic exercise10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818a0f09 ↗
27. Heart rate variability and blood pressure during and after three CrossFit® sessions10.47197/retos.v47.93780 ↗
28. Comparison of physiological and psychobiological acute responses between high intensity functional training and high intensity continuous training10.1016/j.smhs.2023.10.006 ↗
29. Expanding knowledge about the effect of measurement time on session rating of perceived exertion10.1519/JSC.0000000000004198 ↗
30. Hernandez-Lougedo, J., Cimadevilla-Pola, E., Fernandez-Rodriguez, T., Guodemar-Perez, J., Oteo-Campos, A., Lozano-Estevan, M.C., Cañuelo-Marquez, A.M., Jesus-Franco, F., Garnacho-Castaño, M., and García-Fernandez, P. (2021). Effects of introducing rest intervals in functional fitness training. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11209731 ↗
31. Observer effects on the rating of perceived exertion and affect during exercise in recreationally active males10.2466/25.07.05.PMS.115.4.213-227 ↗