The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A Comparison of Subjective Estimations and Objective Velocities at Quantifying Proximity to Failure for the Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men and Women

ABSTRACT

Hickmott, LM, Butcher, SJ, and Chilibeck, PD. A comparison of subjective estimations and objective velocities at quantifying proximity to failure for the bench press in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1206-1212, 2024-The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of quantifying repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the bench press among 18 men and 18 women between 2 conditions: (a) subjective estimations and (b) objective velocities. Subjects performed 4 sessions over 10 days: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test; (b) repetition-to-failure test at 80% of 1RM; (c) 3 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM; and (d) 3 sets to failure at 75, 80, and 85% of 1RM. During sessions 2, 3, and 4, subjects verbally stated their perceived 4 and 2 RIR intraset, whereas average concentric velocity was recorded on all repetitions. The dependent variable for the subjective estimations condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the subject's subjective estimated number of RIR at the verbally stated 4 and 2 RIR. The dependent variable for the objective velocities condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the number of RIR calculated from the subject's baseline individualized last repetition average concentric velocity-RIR profile. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Sessions 3 and 4 had significant ( p < 0.001) condition × set and condition × load interactions, respectively, at both 4 and 2 RIR. Objective velocities were significantly more accurate than subjective estimations on set 1 and set 2 at both RIRs during session 3 and for 75 and 80% of 1RM at both RIRs during session 4. Objective velocities exhibit significantly greater accuracy than subjective estimations at quantifying RIR during initial sets and lower loads.

Application of a New Monitoring Variable: Effects of Power Loss During Squat Training on Strength Gains and Sports Performance

ABSTRACT

Zhang, M, Chen, L, Dai, J, Yang, Q, Huang, Z, He, J, Ji, H, Sun, J, and Li, D. Application of a new monitoring variable: Effects of power loss during squat training on strength gains and sports performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 656-670, 2024-This study aimed to compare the effects of power loss (PL) autoregulated volume (PL10 and PL20) with standardized fixed-load (FL) prescription on strength, sports performance, and lean body mass (LBM). Thirty-five female basketball players from a sports college were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (PL10, n = 12; PL20, n = 12; and FL, n = 11, respectively) that performed a resistance training (RT) program with wave-like periodization for 10 weeks using the back squat exercise. Assessments performed before (Pre) and after (Post) intervention included assessed 1 repetition maximum (1RM), body composition, 20-m sprint (T20M), change of direction (COD), and jump performance, including countermovement jump with arm swing, maximum vertical jump, and reactive strength index. Three groups showed significant improvements in strength (effect size [ES]: PL10 = 2.98, PL20 = 3.14, and FL = 1.90; p < 0.001) and jump performance (ES: PL10 = 0.74, PL20 = 1.50, and FL = 0.50; p <0.05-0.001). However, PL10 and PL20 demonstrated different advantages in sports performance compared with FL (group × time interaction, p <0.05). Specifically, PL10 significantly improved COD performance (ES = -0.79 ∼ -0.53, p <0.01), whereas PL20 showed greater improvements in sprint (ES = -0.57, p <0.05) and jump performance (ES = 0.67-1.64, p <0.01-0.001). Moreover, PL10 resulted in similar gains to PL20 and beneficial improvements compared with FL in LBM, despite performing the least repetitions. Overall, the study indicates that power loss-based autoregulation induces greater gains in LBM and sports performance, as well as eliciting a higher efficiency dose response than standardized FL prescriptions, particularly for PL10. Therefore, incorporating PL monitoring in training programs is recommended, and further studies on power-based RT would be worthwhile.

The Importance of Recovery in Resistance Training Microcycle Construction

Systemic resistance training aims to enhance performance by balancing stress, fatigue and recovery. While fatigue is expected, insufficient recovery may temporarily impair performance. The aim of this review was to examine evidence regarding manipulation of resistance training variables on subsequent effects on recovery and performance. PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies that investigated recovery between resistance training sessions were selected, with a total of 24 articles included for review. Training to failure may lengthen recovery times, potentially impairing performance; however, it may be suitable if implemented strategically ensuring adequate recovery between sessions of similar exercises or muscle groups. Higher volumes may increase recovery demands, especially when paired with training to failure, however, with wide variation in individual responses, it is suggested to start with lower volume, monitor recovery, and gradually increase training volume if appropriate. Exercises emphasising the lower body, multi-joint movements, greater muscle recruitment, eccentric contractions, and/or the lengthened position may require longer recovery times. Adjusting volume and frequency of these exercises can affect recovery demands depending on the goals and training logistics. Daily undulating programming may maximise performance on priority sessions while maintaining purposeful and productive easy days. For example, active recovery in the form of training opposing muscle groups, light aerobic cardio, or low-volume power-type training may improve recovery and potentially elicit a post activation potentiation priming effect compared to passive recovery. However, it is possible that training cessation may be adequate for allowing sufficient recovery prior to sessions of importance.

Similar muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance training to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistance-trained individuals

This study examined the influence of resistance training (RT) proximity-to-failure, determined by repetitions-in-reserve (RIR), on quadriceps hypertrophy and neuromuscular fatigue. Resistance-trained males (n = 12) and females (n = 6) completed an 8-week intervention involving two RT sessions per week. Lower limbs were randomised to perform the leg press and leg extension exercises either to i) momentary muscular failure (FAIL), or ii) a perceived 2-RIR and 1-RIR, respectively (RIR). Muscle thickness of the quadriceps [rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL)] and acute neuromuscular fatigue (i.e., repetition and lifting velocity loss) were assessed. Data was analysed with Bayesian linear mixed-effect models. Increases in quadriceps thickness (average of RF and VL) from pre- to post-intervention were similar for FAIL [0.181 cm (HDI: 0.119 to 0.243)] and RIR [0.182 cm (HDI: 0.115 to 0.247)]. Between-protocol differences in RF thickness slightly favoured RIR [-0.036 cm (HDI: -0.113 to 0.047)], but VL thickness slightly favoured FAIL [0.033 cm (HDI: -0.046 to 0.116)]. Mean volume was similar across the RT intervention between FAIL and RIR. Lifting velocity and repetition loss were consistently greater for FAIL versus RIR, with the magnitude of difference influenced by the exercise and the stage of the RT intervention.

Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): A Checklist Developed Using an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies.

METHODS

PubMed (which covers Medline) and Scopus (which covers Medline, EMBASE, Ei Compendex, World Textile Index, Fluidex, Geobase, Biobase, and most journals in Web of Science) were searched for systematic reviews that comprised the primary studies directly comparing different resistance training methods. Basic data on the selected reviews, including on authors, publication years, and objectives, were summarized. The reporting items for the checklist were identified based on the objective of the reviews. Additional items from an existing checklist, namely the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template, a National Strength and Conditioning Association handbook, and an article from the EQUATOR library were incorporated into the final reporting checklist.

RESULTS

Our database search retrieved 3595 relevant records. After automatic duplicate removal, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 2254 records were screened. The full texts of 137 records were then reviewed, and 88 systematic reviews that met the criteria were included in the umbrella review.

CONCLUSION

Developed primarily by an umbrella review method, this checklist covers the research questions which have been systematically studied and is expected to improve the reporting completeness of future resistance exercise studies. The PRIRES checklist comprises 26 reporting items (39 subitems) that cover four major topics in resistance exercise intervention: 1) exercise selection, performance, and training parameters, 2) training program and progression, 3) exercise setting, and 4) planned vs actual training. The PRIRES checklist was designed specifically for reporting resistance exercise intervention. It is expected to be used with other reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. This article presents only the development process and resulting items of the checklist. An accompanying article detailing the rationale for, the importance of, and examples of each item is being prepared.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title "Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES)." PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.

Next steps to advance general physical activity recommendations towards physical exercise prescription: a narrative review

Physical inactivity is a major health concern, associated with the development of several non-communicable diseases and with an increased mortality rate. Therefore, promoting active lifestyles has become a crucial public health necessity for enhancing overall health and quality of life. The WHO guidelines for physical activity (PA) present valuable contributions in this respect; however, we believe that greater specificity should be added or complemented towards physical exercise (PE) testing, prescription and programming in future recommendations. In this review article, we suggest simple and practical tools accessible to the entire population to improve the specificity of this approach, highlighting aspects of PE programming used by trained subjects. By adopting these suggestions, exercise professionals, clinicians and physical trainers can optimise the current general PA recommendations towards PE prescription to improve fitness status and encourage PE adherence in the general population.

Exercise Training in Non-Hospitalized Patients with Post-COVID-19 Syndrome-A Narrative Review

Post COVID-19 Syndrome (PCS) is the persistence of symptoms after an infection with SARS-CoV-2 in both hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. Exercise was proposed as a rehabilitation measure for PCS and early studies focused on patients post-hospital discharge. The objective of this review is to summarize the results of trials investigating exercise interventions in non-hospitalized subjects with PCS and propose practical recommendations concerning safe exercise programming. A literature search in the databases MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted until 26 July 2023 and resulted in seven studies that met the criteria. In total, 935 subjects with PCS were investigated. Exercise enhanced aerobic fitness and physical function and relieved symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue and depression. Participants reported lower Post COVID-19 Functional Status scores post-intervention. The exercise programs were well tolerated with no adverse events. To ensure safety, medical examinations should take place in advance and there should be a regular evaluation of the individual responses to the training. Caution is advised when working with patients suffering from post-exertional malaise or diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. There is a growing need for additional randomized controlled trials to investigate the effectiveness and safety of exercise in individuals with PCS.

The Effects of the "Sling Shot" Device on Bench Press Performance, Mechanical Properties of Muscle, and Movement Kinematics

ABSTRACT

Wojdała, G and Krzysztofik, M. The effects of the "sling shot" device on bench press performance, mechanical properties of muscle, and movement kinematics. J Strength Cond Res 37(4): 780-786, 2023-This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the sling shot support device at various external loads and intensities of effort, taking into account acute changes in power performance, mechanical muscle properties, and bench press kinematics. For this purpose, 12 resistance-trained men (age: 27.1 ± 4.2 years, body mass: 90.3 ± 16.9 kg, bench press [BP] 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 112.7 ± 23.1 kg) (resistance training experience: 6.9 ± 3.8 years) participated in the study. Each subject completed 2 experimental sessions that differed in the use of the sling shot (SS) or nonuse (CONT) of the SS and an appropriate external load. The 2 experimental sessions consisted of the 1RM test, 3 sets of 2 repetitions of BP with the load increased in each set (50-70-90% 1RM), and a fourth set of the BP efforts to muscle failure with a 70% 1RM load. Before and after each set, the changes in triceps brachii oscillation frequency and stiffness were assessed by means of myotonometry. Results indicated a significant main effect of the SS to increase peak power ( p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.733). Furthermore, a significantly higher 1RM (129 ± 26 vs. 113 ± 23 kg, p < 0.001, effect size [ES]: 0.63), number of repetitions (15 ± 3 vs. 13 ± 2, p = 0.013, ES: 0.76), and time under tension (34 ± 10 vs. 29 ± 6 seconds, p = 0.017, ES: 0.59) were found during the set to failure for SS in comparison to the CONT condition. Moreover, there was a significant main effect of time to increase oscillation frequency ( p = 0.001; η 2 = 0.666) and stiffness ( p = 0.002; η 2 = 0.613) from pre- to postset measure. In addition, the main effect of the side ( p = 0.034; η 2 = 0.348) was reported to show higher stiffness on the dominant than on the nondominant side in the CONT condition. The results suggest that an independent 1RM measurement and a correspondingly higher workload are required to take full advantage of the SS device. Moreover, the SS can also be used successfully to increase training volume and the involvement of nondominant limbs during a bench press.

Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy.

METHODS

Literature searches in the PubMed, SCOPUS and SPORTDiscus databases identified a total of 15 studies that measured muscle hypertrophy (in healthy adults of any age and resistance training experience) and compared resistance training performed to: (A) momentary muscular failure versus non-failure; (B) set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure; or (C) different velocity loss thresholds.

RESULTS

There was a trivial advantage for resistance training performed to set failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy in studies applying any definition of set failure [effect size=0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.00, 0.37), p=0.045], with no moderating effect of volume load (p=0.884) or relative load (p=0.525). Given the variability in set failure definitions applied across studies, sub-group analyses were conducted and found no advantage for either resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure for muscle hypertrophy [effect size=0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.13, 0.37), p=0.343], or for resistance training performed to high (>25%) versus moderate (20-25%) velocity loss thresholds [effect size=0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.16, 0.32), p=0.529].

CONCLUSION

Overall, our main findings suggest that (i) there is no evidence to support that resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure resistance training for muscle hypertrophy and (ii) higher velocity loss thresholds, and theoretically closer proximities-to-failure do not always elicit greater muscle hypertrophy. As such, these results provide evidence for a potential non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and muscle hypertrophy.

Effects of Velocity-Based versus Percentage-Based Resistance Training on Explosive Neuromuscular Adaptations and Anaerobic Power in Sport-College Female Basketball Players

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on anaerobic ability, sprint performance, and jumping ability. Eighteen female basketball players from a Sport College were randomly divided into two groups: VBRT (n = 10) and PBRT (n = 8). The six-week intervention consisted of two sessions per week of free-weight back squats with linear periodization from 65% to 95%1RM. In PBRT, the weights lifted were fixed based on 1RM percentage, while in VBRT, the weights were adjusted based on individualized velocity profiles. The T-30m sprint time, relative power of countermovement jump (RP-CMJ), and Wingate test were evaluated. The Wingate test assessed peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), maximal velocity (Vmax), and total work (TW). Results showed that VBRT produced a very likely improvement in RP-CMJ, Vmax, PP, and FI (Hedges' g = 0.55, 0.93, 0.68, 0.53, respectively, p < 0.01). On the other hand, PBRT produced a very likely improvement in MP (Hedges' g = 0.38) and TW (Hedges' g = 0.45). Although VBRT showed likely favorable effects in RP-CMJ, PP, and Vmax compared to PBRT (p < 0.05 for interaction effect), PBRT produced greater improvements in MP and TW (p < 0.05 for interaction effect). In conclusion, PBRT may be more effective in maintaining high-power velocity endurance, while VBRT has a greater impact on explosive power adaptations.

The Effect of Velocity Loss on Strength Development and Related Training Efficiency: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis

The velocity loss method is often used in velocity-based training (VBT) to dynamically regulate training loads. However, the effects of velocity loss on maximum strength development and training efficiency are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis aiming to fill this research gap. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on VBT with the velocity loss method via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane. Controlled trials that compared the effects of different velocity losses on maximum strength were considered. One-repetition maximum (1RM) gain and 1RM gain per repetition were the selected outcomes to indicate the maximum strength development and its training efficiency. Eventually, nine studies with a total of 336 trained males (training experience/history ≥ 1 year) were included for analysis. We found a non-linear dose-response relationship (reverse U-shaped) between velocity loss and 1RM gain (pdose-response relationship < 0.05, pnon-linear relationship < 0.05). Additionally, a negative linear dose-response relationship was observed between velocity loss and 1RM gain per repetition (pdose-response relationship < 0.05, pnon-linear relationship = 0.23). Based on our findings, a velocity loss between 20 and 30% may be beneficial for maximum strength development, and a lower velocity loss may be more efficient for developing and maintaining maximum strength. Future research is warranted to focus on female athletes and the interaction of other parameters.

The effects of velocity-based versus percentage-based resistance training on athletic performances in sport-collegiate female basketball players

Introduction: The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players. Methods: Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT (n = 8) or PBRT (n = 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM. Results: No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showed likely to very likely favorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showed likely to very likely improvements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showed unclear effects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT (p < 0.05) for the same subjects. Conclusion: Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.

Effects of Low- Versus High-Velocity-Loss Thresholds With Similar Training Volume on Maximal Strength and Hypertrophy in Highly Trained Individuals

AIMS

In the present intervention study, low-velocity-loss (LVL) versus high-velocity-loss (HVL) thresholds in the squat and bench press were compared for changes in muscle strength, power, and hypertrophy.

METHODS

Strength-trained volunteers (7♀ and 9♂; age: 27.2 [3.4] y; height: 174.6 [8.0] cm; body mass: 75.3 [10.1] kg) were randomized into an LVL or HVL threshold group (LVL n = 3♀ + 5♂, and HVL n = 4♀ + 4♂). Training took place 3 times per week over 6 weeks (loads: ∼75%-90% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]). The thresholds of LVLs and HVLs were set at 20% and 40% of maximal velocity, respectively, for the squat, and at 30% and 60%, respectively, for the bench press. Before and after the intervention, 1RM, leg press power, and squat jump were tested. The load (∼45% of 1RM) corresponding to 1-m/s velocity was assessed in all sessions for both exercises. In addition, the thickness of the vastus lateralis and triceps brachii and body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DEXA]) were measured.

RESULTS

Squat and bench-press 1RM increased similarly in both groups by 7% to 11% (SD: 4%-6%, P < .05). No group differences were observed for changes in jump height, leg press power, or DEXA lean mass. However, HVL showed a small increase in muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis compared with LVL (6 ± 6% [95% CI] group difference, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For strength-trained individuals, high-volume lower-velocity-loss thresholds were as effective as higher thresholds for improvements in 1RM strength; but local hypertrophy was seemingly elicited faster with higher velocity-loss thresholds.

Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review

While proximity-to-failure is considered an important resistance training (RT) prescription variable, its influence on physiological adaptations and short-term responses to RT is uncertain. Given the ambiguity in the literature, a scoping review was undertaken to summarise evidence for the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage and perceived discomfort. Literature searching was performed according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and identified three themes of studies comparing either: i) RT performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, ii) RT performed to set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, and iii) RT performed to different velocity loss thresholds. The findings highlight that no consensus definition for "failure" exists in the literature, and the proximity-to-failure achieved in "non-failure" conditions is often ambiguous and variable across studies. This poses challenges when deriving practical recommendations for manipulating proximity-to-failure in RT to achieve desired outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy, but may exacerbate neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and post-set perceived discomfort versus non-failure RT. Together, these factors may impair post-exercise recovery and subsequent performance, and may also negatively influence long-term adherence to RT.KEY POINTS This scoping review identified three broad themes of studies investigating proximity-to-failure in RT, based on the specific definition of set failure used (and therefore the research question being examined), to improve the validity of study comparisons and interpretations.There is no consensus definition for set failure in RT, and the proximity-to-failure achieved during non-failure RT is often unclear and varies both within and between studies, which together poses challenges when interpreting study findings and deriving practical recommendations regarding the influence of RT proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy and other short-term responses.Based on the limited available evidence, performing RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT to maximise muscle hypertrophy, but the optimal proximity to failure in RT for muscle hypertrophy is unclear and may be moderated by other RT variables (e.g., load, volume-load). Also, RT performed to set failure likely induces greater neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort than non-failure RT, which may negatively influence RT performance, post-RT recovery, and long-term adherence.