Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Program

Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Dynamic Strength Index on Sprinting, Jumping and Change of Direction Performance in Basketball Players: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The dynamic strength index (DSI) is calculated as the ratio between countermovement jump (CMJ) peak force and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) peak force and is said to inform whether ballistic or strength training is warranted for a given athlete. This study assessed the impact of an individualized in-season resistance training program, guided by DSI on basketball players' physical performance. Forty-three elite players (19.4 ± 2.9 years; 1.97 ± 0.08 cm; 89.1 ± 9.5 kg) were divided into an intervention group (IG) (27 players) and a control group (CG) (16 players). The IG was further split based on DSI into a ballistic group (DSI ≤ 0.90, 11 players) and a strength group (DSI > 0.90, 16 players). Over five weeks, participants underwent two weekly resistance sessions, with the IG following a DSI-based program and the CG a standard program. Performance was measured pre- and post-intervention through 20-m sprints, 505 change of direction test, CMJ, and IMTP. There were statistically significant improvements in the IG, notably in sprint times (η2 = 0.12-0.21, p < 0.05) and 505 test (η2 = 0.15-0.16, p < 0.05), predominantly in the strength group. The CG's performance was either unchanged or declined for different variables. Our results suggest that DSI-guided training effectively enhances basketball players' physical performance within a competitive season.

Barbell load distribution and lifting velocity affect bench press exercise volume and perceived exertion

OBJECTIVE

The intensity of barbell bench press exercise is generally prescribed as the load to be lifted for a specific number of repetitions; however, other factors (e.g., execution velocity) can affect bench press exercise intensity. Moreover, no study assessed whether load distribution (i.e., the distance between the disc stacks on the two sides of the barbell) affects exercise intensity. The present study aims to assess how different combinations of load, velocity, and barbell load distribution affect the number of repetitions to failure (REPfailure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPEfatigue) and number of repetitions (REPfatigue) at fatigue onset.

METHODS

Ten males (age 23.3±1.8 years) performed bench press exercises to exhaustion using random combinations of three loads (50%, 65%, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum), three execution velocities (50%, 70%, and 90% of maximal concentric velocity), and two load distributions (narrow and wide). Three separate three-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess the effect of load, velocity, and load distribution on REPfailure, RPEfatigue, and REPfatigue expressed as a percentage of REPfailure.

RESULTS

REPfailure was affected by load (p<0.001), velocity (p<0.001), and distribution (p = 0.005). The interactions between load and velocity (p<0.001) and load and distribution (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect on REPfailure, whereas the interaction between velocity and distribution was not significant (p = 0.360). Overall, more REPfailure were performed using lower loads, higher velocities, and a wider distribution. RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were affected by load (p<0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and velocity (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and not by distribution (p = 0.510 and p = 0.571, respectively) or the two-way interaction effects. Overall, using higher loads yielded higher RPEfatigue but lower REPfatigue, while RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were higher when slower velocities were used.

CONCLUSION

The current investigation shows that not only load but also velocity and barbell load distribution may influence bench press training volume and perceived exertion.

Are Trainees Lifting Heavy Enough? Self-Selected Loads in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so.

OBJECTIVE

Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM.

DESIGN

Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis.

SEARCH AND INCLUSION

We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants.

RESULTS

Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49-58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) =  - 0.09 [95% CI - 0.16 to - 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5-15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.

Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.

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

Background

Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy.

Methods

This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable.

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI – 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.28) than velocity loss thresholds > 25%. No significant differences between velocity loss thresholds > 25% and 20–25% were demonstrated for hypertrophy (MD = 0.36, 95% CI – 0.29 to 1.00 cm², p = 0.28, SMD = 0.13); however, velocity loss thresholds > 25% demonstrated significantly greater hypertrophy compared to thresholds ≤ 20% (MD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.34).

Conclusions

Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20–25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume.

Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9.

The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required for 1RM Strength in Powerlifters

The aim of this multi-experiment paper was to explore the concept of the minimum effective training dose (METD) required to increase 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) strength in powerlifting (PL) athletes. The METD refers to the least amount of training required to elicit meaningful increases in 1RM strength. A series of five studies utilising mixed methods, were conducted using PL athletes & coaches of all levels in an attempt to better understand the METD for 1RM strength. The studies of this multi-experiment paper are: an interview study with elite PL athletes and highly experienced PL coaches (n = 28), an interview and survey study with PL coaches and PL athletes of all levels (n = 137), two training intervention studies with intermediate-advanced PL athletes (n = 25) and a survey study with competitive PL athletes of different levels (n = 57). PL athletes looking to train with a METD approach can do so by performing ~3-6 working sets of 1-5 repetitions each week, with these sets spread across 1-3 sessions per week per powerlift, using loads above 80% 1RM at a Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) of 7.5-9.5 for 6-12 weeks and expect to gain strength. PL athletes who wish to further minimize their time spent training can perform autoregulated single repetition sets at an RPE of 9-9.5 though they should expect that strength gains will be less likely to be meaningful. However, the addition of 2-3 back-off sets at ~80% of the single repetitions load, may produce greater gains over 6 weeks while following a 2-3-1 squat-bench press-deadlift weekly training frequency. When utilizing accessory exercises in the context of METD, PL athletes typically utilize 1-3 accessory exercises per powerlift, at an RPE in the range of 7-9 and utilize a repetition range of ~6-10 repetitions.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training for Lower Limb Tendinopathy: A Potential Method for Addressing Individual Factors, Intervention Issues, and Inadequate Outcomes

Musculoskeletal disorders, such as tendinopathy, are placing an increasing burden on society and health systems. Tendinopathy accounts for up to 30% of musculoskeletal disorders, with a high incidence in athletes and the general population. Although resistance training has shown short-term effectiveness in the treatment of lower limb tendinopathy, more comprehensive exercise protocols and progression methods are required due to poor long-term outcomes. The most common resistance training protocols are predetermined and standardized, which presents significant limitations. Current standardized protocols do not adhere to scientific resistance training principles, consider individual factors, or take the importance of individualized training into account. Resistance training programs in case of tendinopathy are currently not achieving the required intensity and dosage, leading to high recurrence rates. Therefore, better methods for individualizing and progressing resistance training are required to improve outcomes. One potential method is autoregulation, which allows individuals to progress training at their own rate, taking individual factors into account. Despite the finding of their effectiveness in increasing the strength of healthy athletes, autoregulation methods have not been investigated in case of tendinopathy. The purpose of this narrative review was 3-fold: firstly, to give an overview and a critical analysis of the individual factors involved in tendinopathy and current resistance training protocols and their limitations. Secondly, to give an overview of the history, methods, and application of autoregulation strategies both in sports performance and physiotherapy. Finally, a theoretical adaptation of a current tendinopathy resistance training protocol using autoregulation methods is presented, providing an example of how the method could be implemented in clinical practice or future research.

The implementation of resistance training principles in exercise interventions for lower limb tendinopathy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of this systematic review is to examine the literature on resistance training interventions for lower limb tendinopathy to evaluate the proportion of interventions that implemented key resistance training principles (specificity, progression, overload, individualisation) and reported relevant prescription components (frequency, intensity, sets, repetitions) and reported intervention adherence.

METHODS

Two reviewers performed a systematic review after screening titles and abstracts based on eligibility criteria. Identified papers were obtained in full text, with data extracted regarding the implementation of resistance training principles. Included articles were evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with a scoring tool out of 10 used for implementation and reporting of the 5 key principles. Scientific databases were searched in November 2020 and included Medline, CINAHL, AMED, and Sportsdiscus.

RESULTS

52 randomised controlled trials investigating resistance training in five different lower limb tendinopathies were included. Although most studies considered the principles of progression (92%) and individualisation (88%), only 19 studies (37%) appropriately described how this progression in resistance was achieved, and only 18 studies (35%) reported specific instruction on how individualisation was applied. Adherence was considered in 27 studies (52%), with only 17 studies (33%) reporting the levels of adherence. In the scoring criteria, only 5 studies (10%) achieved a total maximum score of 10, with 17 studies (33%) achieving a maximum score of 8 for implementing and reporting the principles of specificity, overload, progression and individualisation.

CONCLUSION

There is meaningful variability and methodological concerns regarding the application and reporting of resistance training principles, particularly progression and individualisation, along with intervention adherence throughout studies. Collectively, these findings have important implications for the prescription of current resistance training interventions, including the design and implementation of future interventions for populations with lower limb tendinopathies.

Autoregulated and individualised resistance training versus predetermined and standardised resistance training in tendinopathy: A systematic review protocol

REVIEW OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that have used autoregulated and individualised resistance training versus predetermined and standardised resistance training in treating any tendinopathy.

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence suggests that individualised exercise may be more effective than standardised exercise for musculoskeletal disorders such as tendinopathy. However, no systematic reviews have been conducted on the topic and optimal treatment protocols and clinical recommendations are lacking.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of autoregulated and individualised resistance training versus predetermined and standardised resistance training for tendinopathy in adults will be included.

METHODS

The authors will search for a wide range of sources to find both published and unpublished studies via EBSCOhost, including, but not limited to, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Studies published in a language other than English will only be considered if a translation is available. The Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review methodology will be followed when conducting the review. Data synthesis will be conducted using meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, where appropriate.

Autoregulated heavy slow resistance training combined with radial shockwave therapy for plantar heel pain: Protocol for a mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain (PHP) is considered a tendinopathy and it affects up to 10% of the population. Both heavy slow resistance training (HSRT) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) have shown effectiveness for treating PHP in isolation. However, more comprehensive exercise protocols and progression methods are needed due to poor long-term outcomes, and better standardisation of ESWT protocols are required. Autoregulation of resistance training involves self-selecting exercise dosage based on individual factors. Although autoregulation has proven effective for strength gains in athletes, it has not been investigated in tendinopathy. Recent studies recommend that PHP should not be treated by one treatment intervention in isolation. However, there is a dearth of research investigating the feasibility and effectiveness of combined treatment interventions for PHP. Currently, no studies have investigated autoregulated HSRT combined with ESWT, despite their individual efficacy. The optimal treatment protocol for PHP is unknown, and there is a need to ascertain whether the addition of ESWT to autoregulated HSRT leads to better outcomes compared to either alone.

METHODS

A three-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing these groups would be the ideal way to investigate this question, with a pilot RCT testing trial procedures and process evaluation required prior to a definitive RCT. Patients expectations, feasibility and acceptability of combined ESWT and exercise for PHP also remain unknown. Therefore, the addition of qualitative interviews in a mixed-methods pilot RCT would help ascertain acceptability and help explain the intervention outcomes.

Rating of Perceived Exertion and Velocity Relationships Among Trained Males and Females in the Front Squat and Hexagonal Bar Deadlift

ABSTRACT

Odgers, JB, Zourdos, MC, Helms, ER, Candow, DG, Dahlstrom, B, Bruno, P, and Sousa, CA. Rating of perceived exertion and velocity relationships among trained males and females in the front squat and hexagonal bar deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S23-S30, 2021-This study examined the accuracy of intraset rating of perceived exertion (RPE) to predict repetitions in reserve (RIR) during sets to failure at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) on the front squat and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD). Furthermore, the relationship between RPE and average concentric velocity (ACV) during the sets to failure was also determined. Fourteen males (29 ± 6 years, front squat relative 1RM: 1.78 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1, and HHBD relative 1RM: 3.0 ± 0.1 kg·kg-1) and 13 females (30 ± 5 years, front squat relative 1RM: 1.60 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1, and HHBD relative 1RM: 2.5 ± 0.3 kg·kg-1) visited the laboratory 3 times. The first visit tested 1RM on both exercises. During visits 2 and 3, which were performed in a counterbalanced order, subjects performed 4 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM for both exercises. During each set, subjects verbally indicated when they believed they were at "6" and "9" on the RIR-based RPE scale, and ACV was assessed during every repetition. The difference between the actual and predicted repetitions performed was recorded as the RPE difference (RPEDIFF). The RPEDIFF was significantly (p < 0.001) lower at the called 9 RPE versus the called 6 RPE in the front squat for males (9 RPE: 0.09 ± 0.19 versus 6 RPE: 0.71 ± 0.70) and females (9 RPE: 0.19 ± 0.36 versus 6 RPE: 0.86 ± 0.88) and in the HHBD for males (9 RPE: 0.25 ± 0.46 versus 6 RPE: 1.00 ± 1.12) and females (9 RPE: 0.21 ± 0.44 versus 6 RPE: 1.19 ± 1.16). Significant inverse relationships existed between RPE and ACV during both exercises (r = -0.98 to -1.00). These results indicate that well-trained males and females can gauge intraset RPE accurately during moderate repetition sets on the front squat and HHBD.

Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review

Background

Maximal strength is a critical determinant of performance in numerous sports. Autoregulation is a resistance training prescription approach to adjust training variables based on the individuals’ daily fluctuations in performance, which are a result of training-induced fitness and fatigue, together with readiness from daily non-training stressors.

Objective

This review aimed to summarise the effects of different subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Google Scholar. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (1) estimation of 1-RM or a 1-RM test for both pre-test and post-test to measure progression in strength assessment during the training intervention, (2) a training comparison group, (3) participants were healthy, (4) the article had a detailed description of training intensity, training volume, and training frequency during the training intervention, (5) the training intervention lasted for more than four weeks, (6) studies with objective autoregulation methods utilised a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, (7) English-language studies.

Results

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 30 training groups and 356 participants. Effect size and percentage differences were calculated for 13 out of 14 studies to compare the effects of different training interventions. All autoregulation training protocols resulted in an increase in 1-RM, from small ES to large ES.

Conclusion

Overall, our findings suggest that using both subjective autoregulation methods for intensity, such as repetitions in reserve rating of perceived exertion and flexible daily undulation periodisation, together with objective autoregulation methods for autoregulation intensity and volume, such as velocity targets and velocity loss, could be effective methods for enhancing maximal strength. It is speculated that this is because the implementation of autoregulation into a periodised plan may take into account the athletes’ daily fluctuations, such as fluctuations in fitness, fatigue, and readiness to train. When training with a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, this may provide objective augmented intra- and interset feedback during the resistance exercise who could be beneficial for increasing maximal strength. Coaches, practitioners, and athletes are encouraged to implement such autoregulation methods into a periodised plan when the goal is to enhance maximal strength.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies

Autoregulation is a process that is used to manipulate training based primarily on the measurement of an individual's performance or their perceived capability to perform. Despite being established as a training framework since the 1940s, there has been limited systematic research investigating its broad utility. Instead, researchers have focused on disparate practices that can be considered specific examples of the broader autoregulation training framework. A primary limitation of previous research includes inconsistent use of key terminology (e.g., adaptation, readiness, fatigue, and response) and associated ambiguity of how to implement different autoregulation strategies. Crucially, this ambiguity in terminology and failure to provide a holistic overview of autoregulation limits the synthesis of existing research findings and their dissemination to practitioners working in both performance and health contexts. Therefore, the purpose of the current review was threefold: first, we provide a broad overview of various autoregulation strategies and their development in both research and practice whilst highlighting the inconsistencies in definitions and terminology that currently exist. Second, we present an overarching conceptual framework that can be used to generate operational definitions and contextualise autoregulation within broader training theory. Finally, we show how previous definitions of autoregulation fit within the proposed framework and provide specific examples of how common practices may be viewed, highlighting their individual subtleties.

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

Individualisation can improve resistance training prescription. This is accomplished via monitoring or autoregulating training. Autoregulation adjusts variables at an individualised pace per performance, readiness, or recovery. Many autoregulation and monitoring methods exist; therefore, this review’s objective was to examine approaches intended to optimise adaptation. Up to July 2019, PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies on methods of athlete monitoring useful for resistance-training regulation, or autoregulated training methods were included. Eleven monitoring and regulation themes emerged across 90 studies. Some physiological, performance, and perceptual measures correlated strongly (r ≥ 0.68) with resistance training performance. Testosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, cell-free DNA, jump height, throwing distance, barbell velocity, isometric and dynamic peak force, maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and sessional, repetitions in reserve-(RIR) based, and post-set Borg-scale ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were strongly associated with training performance, respectively. Despite strong correlations, many physiological and performance methods are logistically restrictive or limited to lab-settings, such as blood markers, electromyography or kinetic measurements. Some practical performance tests such as jump height or throw distance may be useful, low-risk stand-ins for maximal strength tests. Performance-based individualisation of load progression, flexible training configurations, and intensity and volume modifications based on velocity and RIR-based RPE scores are practical, reliable and show preliminary utility for enhancing performance.

Repetitions in reserve vs. maximum effort resistance training programs in youth female athletes

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze and compare the effects of two different resistance training programs.

METHODS

Fourteen under-17 youth female basketball players were randomly assigned to repetitions in reserve (RIR, N.=7) or maximum effort (RM, N.=7) resistance training programs. The programs consisted of 3-4 sets of 4 exercises x 7-10 repetitions with 2 min of passive recovery between sets and exercises, twice a week for a period of 8 weeks. The RIR group was instructed to perform the exercises with 3 repetitions remaining (rate of perceived exertion [RPE] =7). The physical assessment included jumping, agility, and sprinting tests. Moreover, the maximum strength (one maximum-repetition [1-RM]) and muscle power output at 60% 1RM were assessed for back-squat and bench-press exercises.

RESULTS

The within-group analysis showed improvements in all tests for both groups (RIR=1.3-43.9%; RM=1.3-17.2%). Between-group analyses showed a significant interaction effect (group x time) on 1-RM bench-press (F=8.07, P<0.05, η²<inf>p</inf>=0.40), favoring RIR group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports for the first time that the use of RIR-based RPE resistance training protocol promotes improvements in high-intensity actions (sprinting, jumping, and cutting), muscle power output, and maximum strength, particularly in youth athletes. Considering the advantages of non-failure training, RIR training may be a suitable in-season training strategy. However, more studies are needed to confirm whether the training-induced benefits of this novel training strategy are significantly better as compared to other approaches.

Impact of resistance training program configuration on the circulating brain-derived neurotrophic factor response

This study examined the acute and resting changes of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and inteleukin-6 (IL-6) and if changes in these biomarkers were correlated during resistance training (RT). Fifteen men with ≥2 years of RT experience (age: 23 ± 3 years, body mass: 84.4 ± 12.3 kg) participated. Subjects performed RT 3×/week for 6 weeks in either a high-repetition (HR; n = 8) or low-repetition (LR; n = 7) group. Protocols during week 1 were HR – Monday: 4 (sets) × 12 (repetitions) at 60% of 1-repetition maximum, Wednesday: 4 × 10 at 65%, Friday: 5 × 8 at 70%; LR – Monday: 8 × 6 at 75%, Wednesday 9 × 4 at 80%, Friday: 10 × 2 at 85%. Total volume was equated for the 6 weeks but not for individual sessions. Greater volume and intensity were performed in LR versus HR (p < 0.01) on Mondays. Plasma was collected immediately before and after exercise of the Monday session. There were no significant interactions or main effects for BDNF (p > 0.05). There was a moderate between-group effect size (0.57) in favor of LR in week 6, suggesting a potentially greater acute increase in BDNF in LR versus HR. For IL-6, a statistically significant main effect was observed for training (p < 0.0001), showing an acute increase in IL-6 in both weeks (p < 0.01); however, no other 3-way or 2-way interactions existed (p > 0.05). A minimum volume threshold of RT may be needed to induce acute elevations in BDNF.

Novelty A minimum RT volume threshold may be needed to elicit BDNF. A close proximity to failure may be needed to elicit BDNF. BDNF and IL-6 did not correlate.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: A Comparison of Subjective Versus Objective Methods

Shattock, K and Tee, JC. Autoregulation in resistance training: A comparison of subjective versus objective methods. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Autoregulation (AR) is a resistance training periodization approach that adjusts training prescription in response to individual rates of athlete adaptation. AR training prescription can make use of either subjective (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) or objective (barbell velocity) intensity descriptors. The aim of this research was to compare the efficacy of these 2 approaches in improving sport-specific physical performance measures. Using a randomized crossover design, 20 amateur rugby union players completed two 6-week blocks of training with training intensity prescribed using either objective velocity-based (VB) (measured using a wearable accelerometer device) or objective RPE-based intensity prescriptions. Training volume was matched for both groups while training intensity was equivalent but prescribed using either VB or RPE measures. Performance measurements were countermovement jump (CMJ), 1 repetition maximum back squat and bench press, and 10-, 20-, and 40-m sprint. Testing was conducted before and immediately after each training block. The likelihood that observed changes in performance measures were meaningful was assessed using magnitude-based decisions. Both training programs induced practically meaningful improvements in CMJ (VB most likely +8.2, ±1.1%; RPE likely +3.8, ±0.9%), back squat (VB most likely +7.5, ±1.5%; RPE possibly +3.5, ±1.8%), and bench press (VB most likely +7.7, ±2.1%; RPE possibly +3.8, ±0.9%). Changes in sprint test performance were very likely trivial for both programs. Objective AR programming resulted in larger improvements in CMJ (likely 4.2, ±1.2%), squat (likely 3.7, ±1.5%) performance, and bench press (possibly 3.7, ±1.5%) performance. Autoregulation periodization improved strength and CMJ, but not sprint performance. Autoregulation effects are augmented through the use of objective intensity prescription.

Classic Powerlifting Performance: A Systematic Review

Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all scientific publications related to able-body drug-tested classic powerlifting performance since January 1, 2012, and to regroup them into a brief narrative review. Three electronic databases were systematically searched in August 2018 using the wildcard: powerlift*. A manual search was performed from the reference list of all retained articles. The search and selection strategy permitted to gather a total of 16 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Results show that practitioners should prioritize a low-bar squat and a wide grip bench press because they generally contribute to moving greater loads, bring more attention to preventing injuries, since a fair amount of powerlifters seem to train injured and prioritize a hypertrophy-power-strength model when prescribing 3 times a week daily undulating periodization on nonconsecutive days for squat and bench. Practitioners could also introduce respiratory muscle training, use daily 1 repetition maximum training combined with down sets on experienced athletes and use a rate of perceived exertion scale based on repetitions in reserve combined with an individual velocity profile when prescribing intensity. Before competition, powerlifters seem to taper in this order: the deadlift, the squat, and lastly the bench press. The Slingshot does help to move more weight because it helps to generate more inertia, but it also deactivates the triceps. Finally, the present work was limited by the present literature but could serve as a reference in the field of powerlifting. Further research should include more details about the circumstances under which they were conducted.

The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization

Recent reviews have attempted to refute the efficacy of applying Selye's general adaptation syndrome (GAS) as a conceptual framework for the training process. Furthermore, the criticisms involved are regularly used as the basis for arguments against the periodization of training. However, these perspectives fail to consider the entirety of Selye's work, the evolution of his model, and the broad applications he proposed. While it is reasonable to critically evaluate any paradigm, critics of the GAS have yet to dismantle the link between stress and adaptation. Disturbance to the state of an organism is the driving force for biological adaptation, which is the central thesis of the GAS model and the primary basis for its application to the athlete's training process. Despite its imprecisions, the GAS has proven to be an instructive framework for understanding the mechanistic process of providing a training stimulus to induce specific adaptations that result in functional enhancements. Pioneers of modern periodization have used the GAS as a framework for the management of stress and fatigue to direct adaptation during sports training. Updates to the periodization concept have retained its founding constructs while explicitly calling for scientifically based, evidence-driven practice suited to the individual. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide greater clarity on how the GAS serves as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize the periodization of training.

Heart Rate Variability Responses to an Undulating Resistance Training Program in Free-Living Conditions: A Case Study in a Collegiate Athlete

The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the response in heart rate variability via the parasympathetically-mediated metric of the log-transformed root mean square of successive R-R interval differences (lnRMSSD) to weekly variations in total volume-load (TVL) during an 18-week periodized strength training program in a competitive collegiate hockey athlete. The program consisted of three 60–90 min full-body exercise sessions per week with at least 24-h of rest between each session. Daily lnRMSSD measurements were taken immediately after waking using a validated smartphone application and the pulse-wave finger sensor. The weekly lnRMSSD values were calculated as the mean (lnRMSSD_MEAN) and the coefficient of variation (lnRMSSD_CV). A Pearson’s bivariate correlation of lnRMSSD_MEAN and TVL revealed no statistically significant correlation between the two variables; TVL (r = −0.105, p = 0.678). However, significant correlations were found between lnRMSSD_CV and both total load (TL) (r = −0.591, p = 0.013) and total volume (TV) (r = 0.765, p < 0.001). Additionally, weekly ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) mean values were statistically significantly correlated to TVL, r = 0.853, p < 0.001. It was concluded that lnRMSSD_CV increased or decreased proportionally to an increase or decrease in TVL during the periodized resistance training program with TV being the strongest, independent indicator of these changes.

Field-Based and Lab-Based Assisted Jumping: Unveiling the Testing and Training Implications

Purpose: Assisted jumping can supplement resistance training and traditional plyometric training to increase vertical jump performance. However, as coaches may choose to make field-based decisions based on lab-based research, this study determined whether a field-based assisted jumping set-up results in different ground contact times (CT), take off forces (TOF), flight times (FT), and impact forces (IF) compared to a lab-based set-up.

Methods: Eighteen active males (24.8 ± 3.0 yr; 178.8 ± 7.8 cm; 77.8 ± 7.8 kg) performed two sessions of assisted jumping: one with each hand holding a commercially available resistance band (1m) that was attached to a pull-up bar (_FIELD), and the other with assistance from a custom-built system of ropes, pulleys, and long (3 m) elastic bands (_LAB). With each set-up, subjects performed five sets of five countermovement jumps on a force plate. Each set was performed with either bodyweight (BW), 90, 80, 70, or 60% of BW, which was achieved by either grabbing higher or lower on the bands during _FIELD, or by being pulled upward via a full-body harness during _LAB. The order of each visit was counter-balanced, and the order of jumps within each visit was quasi-randomized. Data from the 90, 80, 70, and 60% trials for each set-up were then expressed relative to the data of BW jumps, and these relative values were then used for analysis.

Results: CT_FIELD was less than CT_LAB at 80, 70, and 60%. FT_FIELD was greater than FT_LAB at 90 and 80%, but FT_LAB became greater at 60%. TOF and IF remained unchanged during _LAB, but TOF_FIELD was consistently less than TOF during BW, with IF_FIELD generally being greater than IF_LAB.

Conclusion: If the purpose of assisted jumping is to spend less time on the ground without decreasing force, systems with finite adjustments and longer bands like _LAB should be used. However, shorter bands similar to _FIELD may also be used; but due to the larger variability of assistance throughout the range of motion, such systems may alter the neuromuscular characteristics of the jump in other ways that should be investigated in future research.

RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions

Purpose: To investigate differences between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and percentage one-repetition maximum (1RM) load assignment in resistance-trained males (19-35 years) performing protocols with matched sets and repetitions differentiated by load-assignment. Methods: Participants performed squats then bench press 3x/weeks in a daily undulating format over 8-weeks. Participants were counterbalanced by pre-test 1RM then assigned to percentage 1RM (1RMG, n = 11); load-assignment via percentage 1RMs, or RPE groups (RPEG, n = 10); participant-selected loads to reach target RPE ranges. Ultrasonography determined pre and post-test pectoralis (PMT), and vastus lateralis muscle thickness at 50 (VLMT50) and 70% (VLMT70) femur-length. Results: Bench press (1RMG +9.64 ± 5.36; RPEG + 10.70 ± 3.30 kg), squat (1RMG + 13.91 ± 5.89; RPEG + 17.05 ± 5.44 kg) and their combined-total 1RMs (1RMG + 23.55 ± 10.38; RPEG + 27.75 ± 7.94 kg) increased (p < 0.05) in both groups as did PMT (1RMG + 1.59 ± 1.33; RPEG +1.90 ± 1.91 mm), VLMT50 (1RMG +2.13 ± 1.95; RPEG + 1.85 ± 1.97 mm) and VLMT70 (1RMG + 2.40 ± 2.22; RPEG + 2.31 ± 2.27 mm). Between-group differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). Magnitude-based inferences revealed 79, 57, and 72% chances of mean small effect size (ES) advantages for squat; ES 90% confidence limits (CL) = 0.50 ± 0.63, bench press; ES 90% CL = 0.28 ± 0.73, and combined-total; ES 90% CL = 0.48 ± 0.68 respectively, in RPEG. There were 4, 14, and 6% chances 1RMG had a strength advantage of the same magnitude, and 18, 29, and 22% chances, respectively of trivial differences between groups. Conclusions: Both loading-types are effective. However, RPE-based loading may provide a small 1RM strength advantage in a majority of individuals.