Recently, I was asked how I go about dosing and quantifying load during early rehabilitation.
During the early stages of care, dosing load can be a challenge due to the presence of pain. There are no clear dosing guidelines during this time, which makes the application of load difficult — you don’t want to add too much too quickly. Too much, and pain increases and recovery takes longer. Too little, and there isn’t enough stimulus to elicit meaningful change.
This makes early rehabilitation the “Goldilocks” zone of loading. Since this is a common area of confusion for many clinicians, let’s spend some time on it.
If you recall from some of my previous posts, I’ve said repeatedly that load is the language of human performance. It is kind of my thing. Load is the external burden placed on the individual; stress is the internal physiological response to that load. With that in mind, every intervention we use in rehabilitation is an application of load. Every single one.
Early rehabilitation can be defined as the Acute Management and Foundational Kinematics stages of care. This is typically when pain is highest and tissues are most sensitive to load. During these stages, an individual’s tolerance to load is at its lowest — and because pain is the primary metric, determining load dosage can be quite challenging.
The main priority here is protection. We are working on the right joint or muscle group, and the keyword is reduce. We are using low-threshold graded exposure to load in a highly controlled environment.
Goals:
Provide a safe healing environment
Reduce pain
Decrease tissue sensitivity
Reduce swelling and haemorrhaging
Decrease excessive inflammation
Interventions used in this stage include patient education, functional nutrition, diaphragmatic breathing, static and dynamic taping, low-level laser, dry needling, electrical stimulation, vibration/percussion, diathermic therapy, and acoustic wave.
Exit criteria: reduce pain and swelling by 75%.
The main priority here is alteration. We are working on range and direction of motion, and the keyword is reset. We are using moderate-threshold graded exposure to load in a moderately controlled environment.
Goals:
Enhance connective tissue repair
Prevent tissue contracture
Increase afferent input to the central nervous system
Reset joint motion
Improve tissue sliding and gliding
Interventions used in this stage include myofascial decompression, compression flossing, direction-specific movement, nerve flossing, joint mobilization, manipulation, peripheral nerve entrapment treatment, manual therapy, and instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization.
Exit criteria: normal joint range of motion, movement symmetry with the opposite limb, and less than 3/10 pain on activity.
Pain is often considered a poor metric for measuring progress in musculoskeletal care. It is highly subjective and influenced by complex neurological, psychological, and social factors. It also becomes increasingly difficult to use because structural healing and pain level do not always correlate.
Pain is an alarm system — not a direct measure of tissue damage. Factors like stress, sleep deprivation, anxiety, and past trauma can amplify pain perception, even while underlying tissues are healing. Relying on simple, unidimensional pain scores often fails to capture the multidimensional impact of musculoskeletal conditions.
Another complication: many patients believe that zero pain means zero pathology. Extensive evidence tells a different story. Significant structural issues are frequently found on imaging in completely asymptomatic individuals. Conversely, significant pain can persist long after an injury has structurally healed.
This is why, during rehab, we must emphasize measuring function over pain reduction. Functional metrics include:
Range of motion
Movement symmetry
Isolated strength measurements
Global movement patterns
Capacity tasks such as walking distances, lifting objects, or sport/work-specific activities
In current practice, we increasingly see validated, multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures replacing single-item pain scales. These assess general physical function, social and work participation, mental health and coping strategies, and overall health-related quality of life.
All of that said — pain alone is a poor metric for measuring progress during rehabilitation. But I have found it to be a very useful guide for determining the progression of load application within individual stages of care. Using pain to determine progress and using pain to guide the application of load are two very different propositions. When used as one data point alongside other metrics, pain can provide valuable insight into how much load to apply and when to apply it.
The Rule of 10
The first method I use is called the “Rule of 10.” I originally came across this concept on social media years ago, described by Ben Cormack from CorKinetic.
The Rule of 10 describes an inverse proportional relationship between pain and perceived rate of exertion (RPE) during exercise. The patient’s subjective pain score (Borg scale, 1–10) and their RPE must together equal 10.
Examples:
Pain is 7/10 → RPE available for exercise is 3/10
Pain is 4/10 → RPE available for exercise is 6/10
We have general loading guidelines for exercise based on well-established research:
Endurance: 2–3 sets / 12–20 reps
Hypertrophy: 4–6 sets / 8–12 reps
Power: 3–5 sets / 4–8 reps
Strength: 3–6 sets / 1–4 reps
These guidelines are well-established within exercise science. Unfortunately, none of them relate well to pain — and we know that pain is a multidimensional experience. These parameters are also better suited to exercise, which is traditionally introduced in the middle stages of care during Motor Control and Functional Integration.
So how do we apply the Rule of 10 in early rehabilitation?
During early rehab, I modify the rule slightly: instead of using RPE as the second variable, I substitute load. The patient’s subjective pain score and the potential load to be applied must still equal 10. If pain is 8/10, the available load for that session is only 2/10. If pain is 4/10, the available load is 6/10.
Remember — every intervention we apply is a load application, with both a volume (how much) and an intensity (magnitude). This gives us a fluid, session-by-session metric.
A practical example:
A patient presents with mild-to-moderate low back pain. We’ve identified disc-related pain and have been using direction-specific movement into lumbar extension. In the last session, he performed 4 sets of 15 reps of repeated end-range lumbar extension. Today he reports his pain has increased from 5/10 to 7/10.
By the Rule of 10, our available load this session is 3/10 or less. That reduction could take several forms:
Same intervention (lumbar extension), but reduce sets from 4 to 2
Keep 4 sets, but reduce reps from 15 to 5
Temporarily revert to a static prone-on-elbows position repeated throughout the day
These are all lateralizations of load — same intervention, manipulated variables.
Alternatively, we could regress the intervention entirely. Maybe for this session we perform low-level laser therapy and dry needling with electrical stimulation. Yes, these are passive rather than active interventions — but sometimes taking a step backward is the most appropriate way to ensure forward progress. Temporarily reducing load while tissues are sensitive is exactly what is needed to calm them down so future loading can be more successful.
The wellness questionnaire and readiness score
In addition to the Rule of 10, I use a wellness score questionnaire with each patient at the start of every visit. It is a 10-question form completed before the session begins, with five possible responses per question, for a total possible score of 50 points.
The questions address:
Sleep duration
Sleep quality
Soreness
Energy
General mood
Stress levels
Mental focus
Food quantity
Food quality
Hydration
I take the total score, divide by 50, and multiply by 2 to convert it to a percentage out of 100. That percentage represents the patient’s readiness for that specific day — reflecting how they are currently responding to the loads being placed on them.
Example: A patient scores 35/50 = 70% readiness. That puts them in a “yellow” category — proceed with caution. They are adapting fairly well, but some conservatism is warranted. Compare this to their Rule of 10 score: if their pain is 5/10, their available load is 5/10 — also moderate, also yellow. For this patient, the choice is to either proceed with the planned load progression or apply a lateralization — same intervention with reduced volume or intensity. That is a clinical judgment call, and these metrics are tools to inform it, not to replace it.
Combining the Rule of 10 (load tolerance) with the wellness questionnaire (acute response to load) allows us to become more specific in our intervention choices. Any intervention selected must: (1) meet the therapeutic goals of the patient’s needs, and (2) utilize the lowest systems load to the organism.
The CNS Tap Test
Because both tools above are subjective, it is helpful to also have objective data when possible. One tool I have found useful is the CNS Tap Test — a simple adaptation of the traditional finger tapping test that measures central nervous system fatigue by evaluating fine motor control and motor speed. It can be administered using an inexpensive smartphone application.
To perform the test: open the app and tap your dominant hand’s finger on the screen as fast as possible for 10 seconds. Compare the score to the patient’s baseline (taken at the initial visit). The percentage of change from baseline indicates the current level of CNS fatigue.
This test has been used for decades in neurological disease monitoring and has shown applicability in measuring fatigue in athletic populations. A large deviation from baseline indicates elevated CNS fatigue — and when that’s present, load application should be reduced accordingly.
I personally use the CNS Tap Test App by Smudge.io. It is simple, reliable, and generates useful data on fine motor control.
Early rehabilitation — the Acute Management and Foundational Kinematics stages — is where we must be most careful with loading strategies. Too much too soon prolongs pain. Too little stalls progress.
To be specific and individualized in our loading decisions, I use three metrics in combination:
The Rule of 10 — Pain score (Borg 1–10) plus available load must equal 10. Inverse relationship: high pain = low load available; low pain = more load available. This gives us a starting point for each session.
The Readiness Score — A 10-question wellness questionnaire scored out of 50, doubled to give a readiness percentage. Compare against the Rule of 10 to determine whether to progress, lateralize, or regress the planned intervention.
The CNS Tap Test — An objective measure of CNS fatigue. High deviation from baseline = reduce load. Low deviation = proceed with loading. Adds an objective layer to the two subjective metrics above.
These tools don’t make the decision for you. But they give you the data to make a better one.
If you’re new to this series, start with the introduction to the Periodic Table of Performance Elements — the framework that underpins these staging decisions. You’ll find it in the previous issues.
Have a question about how you’re applying load dosage in your clinic? Drop it in the comments.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.