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

Does Fatigue Affect the Perception of Velocity Accuracy During Resistance Training?

ABSTRACT

Romagnoli, R and Piacentini, MF. Does fatigue affect the perception of velocity accuracy during resistance training? J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1243-1247, 2024-The purpose of this study was to investigate whether perception of barbell velocity (PV) is affected by fatigue induced by 2 different training protocols. Twenty-two subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups: 10% velocity loss group (VL10) and repetitions to failure group (EX). Both protocols included 5 sets at 75% 1 repetition maximum but differed in the number of repetitions performed (Reps). Perception of barbell velocity was assessed in the back squat exercise during a test with 3 blinded loads (heavy, medium, light) 1 day rested (REST) and 1 day immediately following 1 of the 2 designated training protocols (POST). The accuracy of the PV was analyzed by calculating the delta score (ds), that is, the difference between perceived velocity (Vp) and real velocity of the barbell (Vr). During training, each group performed significantly different Reps per set (VL10: 3.9 ± 1.4; EX: 13.8 ± 6.3, p < 0.001) and consequently reported different levels of perceived exertion and repetitions in reserve ( p < 0.001). Real velocity and ds did not change between REST and POST-VL10 conditions at all loads. Although a significant decrease in Vr was found at light and medium loads ( p < 0.05) between REST and POST in the EX-Group, no significant differences were detected in the ds. These results demonstrate that Vp is a stable parameter on which practitioners can base their training despite different levels of fatigue.

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

The intensity of resistance training (RT) exercise is an important consideration for determining relevant health and performance-related outcomes. Yet, current objective exercise intensity measures present concerns in terms of viability or cost. In response to these concerns, repetition-in-reserve (RIR) scales may represent an adequate method of measuring and regulating intensity. However, no recent review has focused on how RIR scales have been used for this purpose in prior research. We prepared the present scoping review to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in selecting RT intensity. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (last search date April 2023) for experimental and non-experimental studies that utilized an RIR scale to measure proximity to failure in RT activities with apparently healthy individuals of any age. We qualitatively analyzed 31 studies (N = 855 mostly male adult participants) published between 2012-2023. RIR scales appeared to be contextually feasible and useful in prescribing and adjusting RT intensity. The most common trend in this research was to prescribe a target RIR and adjust the exercise load for a desired proximity to muscle failure. Additionally, when measuring proximity to failure as an outcome of interest, the literature suggests that the RIR prediction should be made close to task failure to increase its accuracy. Future research should further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection, and muscle conditioning on the overall RIR approach.

Can mental fatigue affect perception of barbell velocity in resistance training?

Perception of Velocity (PV) is the ability to estimate single repetition velocity during resistance training (RT) exercises. The main purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Mental Fatigue (MF) on the accuracy of barbell PV. The secondary aims were to evaluate whether MF affected RT performance and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE; OMNI-RES) in the back squat. Twenty-four (14 Females, 10 Males) resistance-trained participants underwent 2 familiarization sessions and 1RM test for the back squat. In two separate sessions, PV was tested for light, medium, and heavy loads in 2 conditions in random order: at rest (REST) and in MF condition (POST-MF) induced by previous incongruent Stroop color-word task. MF and Motivation were assessed through visual analog scales (VAS; 0-100) before and after the Stroop task. For each load subjects performed 2 repetitions and reported the RPE value. Mean propulsive velocity (Vr) of the barbell was recorded with a linear encoder, while the perceived velocity (Vp) of the subjects was self-reported using the Squat-PV scale. The PV accuracy was calculated through the delta score (ds: Vp-Vr). Following the Stroop task MF increased significantly (p < 0.001; F (1, 23) = 52.572), while motivation decreased (p < 0.05; F (1, 23) = 7.401). Ds, Vr, and RPE did not show significant differences between conditions (p > 0.05) for the three loads analyzed. MF induced by previous demanding cognitive task did not affect PV accuracy. Furthermore, subjects maintained unchanged both RT performance and RPE values associated with each load, even when mentally fatigued.

Concurrent validation of the resistance intensity scale for exercise for monitoring velocity-based training with elastic bands

The aim was to evaluate the concurrent validity and reliability of the Resistance Intensity Scale for Exercise [RISE], which uses verbal descriptors, to quantify the intensity in velocity-based training with elastic bands. Eighteen trained volunteers performed parallel squats at maximum speed at 40%, 55%, 70%, and 85%1RM in four sessions, two for familiarization and two for reliability. Each set was stopped at a 10% intra-set velocity loss. Participants reported the perceived effort (easy-low-moderate-hard-maximal) at the first and last repetition. The concurrent validation was conducted with external load (i.e., mean propulsive velocity, weight, repetitions, and maximum power) and internal load parameters (i.e., heart rate). Participants' relative strength was calculated to assess its influence on the dependent variable. Acceptable concurrent validity and reliability (ICC>0.77, CV<21%) were observed, with the perceived effort being appropriate to differentiate between intensities and not being influenced by the participants' relative strength (p = 0.88). A categorical linear regression showed significant (p < 0.001) associations between the RISE scores and the weight, repetitions, and mean propulsive velocity (r = 0.43-0.63). The findings certify the usefulness of the perceived exertion for quantifying the intensity during velocity-based training with elastic bands. The perceived exertion of the first and last repetition favors a proper dosage of the training load.

The enhancement of explosive power contributes to the development of anaerobic capacity: A comparison of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise and velocity-based resistance training

Objectives

Due to the character of the taekwondo, the adenosine triphosphate-phosphocreatine system provides the energy for each kick, the glycolytic system supports the repeated execution of kicks, and the aerobic system promotes recovery between these movements and the bout. Therefore, taekwondo athletes require high explosive power and anaerobic capacity in order to carry out sustained and powerful attacks. So, the purpose of this study is to compare the effects of APRE and VBRT on lower-limb explosive power and anaerobic capacity in college taekwondo players.

Methods

A total of 30 taekwondo players completed an 8-week training intervention with autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE; n = 15) and velocity-based resistance training (VBRT; n = 15). Testing included the one-repetition maximum squat, countermovement jump (CMJ), taekwondo anaerobic intermittent kick test (TAIKT), and 30-s Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT).

Results

(1) Intragroup comparisons revealed significant effects for one-repetition maximum squat, peak power of CMJ (CMJPP), relative peak power of CMJ (CMJRPP), and total number of TAIKT (TAIKTTN) in both the APRE and VBRT groups. The VBRT group exhibited small effect sizes for time at peak power of WAnT (WAnTPPT) and moderate effect sizes for peak power of WAnT (WAnTPP), relative peak power of WAnT (WAnTRPP), and fatigue index of TAIKT (TAIKTFI), whereas the APRE group exhibited small effect sizes for TAIKTFI. (2) Intergroup comparisons revealed no significant effects in any of the results. However, VBRT demonstrated a moderate advantage in WAnTPP and WAnTRPP, whereas APRE had a small advantage in CMJPP and CMJRPP.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that APRE improved explosive power (CMJPP and CMJRPP) more, whereas VBRT improved anaerobic power output (WAnTPP and WAnTRPP) more. Both methods were found to have similar effects in improving the anaerobic endurance (WAnTPPT and TAIKTTN) and fatigue index (power drop of WAnT and TAIKTFI).

Resistance Training Intensity Prescription Methods Based on Lifting Velocity Monitoring

Resistance training intensity is commonly quantified as the load lifted relative to an individual's maximal dynamic strength. This approach, known as percent-based training, necessitates evaluating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) for the core exercises incorporated in a resistance training program. However, a major limitation of rigid percent-based training lies in the demanding nature of directly testing the 1RM from technical, physical, and psychological perspectives. A potential solution that has gained popularity in the last two decades to facilitate the implementation of percent-based training involves the estimation of the 1RM by recording the lifting velocity against submaximal loads. This review examines the three main methods for prescribing relative loads (%1RM) based on lifting velocity monitoring: (i) velocity zones, (ii) generalized load-velocity relationships, and (iii) individualized load-velocity relationships. The article concludes by discussing a number of factors that should be considered for simplifying the testing procedures while maintaining the accuracy of individualized L-V relationships to predict the 1RM and establish the resultant individualized %1RM-velocity relationship: (i) exercise selection, (ii) type of velocity variable, (iii) regression model, (iv) number of loads, (v) location of experimental points on the load-velocity relationship, (vi) minimal velocity threshold, (vii) provision of velocity feedback, and (viii) velocity monitoring device.

Deloading Practices in Strength and Physique Sports: A Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

This study explored the deloading practices of competitive strength and physique athletes. A 55-item anonymised web-based survey was distributed to a convenience-based, cross-sectional sample of competitive strength and physique athletes (n = 246; males = 181 [73.6%], females = 65 [26.4%]; age = 29.5 ± 8.6 years) who had 8.2 ± 6.2 years of resistance training and 3.8 ± 3.1 years of competition experience.

RESULTS

All athletes deloaded within training with energy and fatigue management being the main reasons to do so. The typical duration of a deload was 6.4 ± 1.7 days, integrated into the training programme every 5.6 ± 2.3 weeks. Deloading was undertaken using a proactive, pre-planned strategy (or in combination with an autoregulated approach) and undertaken when performance stalled or during periods of increased muscle soreness or joint aches. Athletes reported that training volume would decrease (through a reduction in both repetitions per set and sets per week), but training frequency would remain unchanged during deloads. Additionally, athletes reported that training intensity (load lifted) would decrease, and effort would be reduced (facilitated through an increase in repetitions in reserve). Athletes would generally maintain the same exercise selection during deloading. For athletes that supplemented deloading with additional recovery modalities (n = 118; 48%), the most reported strategies were massage, static stretching and foam rolling.

CONCLUSION

Results from this research might assist strength and physique athletes and coaches to plan their deloading. Future research should empirically investigate the findings from this study to further evaluate the potential utility of deloading in strength and physique sports.

Comparing autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise and velocity-based resistance training on jump performance in college badminton athletes

Objectives

Jumping ability has been identified as a key factor that influences the performance of badminton athletes. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) and velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) are commonly used approaches to enhance muscle strength and have been shown to accurately monitor the development of explosive power to improve jumping ability. This study aims to investigate the effects of APRE and VBRT on badminton athletes' jumping ability and to provide practical insights into improving their jumping performance during competitions.

Methods

Upon completing familiarization and pretesting, 18 badminton athletes were included and completed the training intervention (age, 21.4 ± 1.4 years; stature, 170.1 ± 7.3 cm; body mass, 65.9 ± 12 kg); they were randomly divided into the APRE group (n = 9) and VBRT group (n = 9). Jumping performance was assessed during the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), and drop jump (DJ) via SmartJump, with CMJ 's and SJ's jump height, eccentric utilization ratio (EUR), and reactive strength index (RSI). All participants then completed a 4-week in-season resistance training intervention.

Results

(1) The results of the within-group indicated that only the CMJ (pre: 41.56 ± 7.84 vs post: 43.57 ± 7.85, p < 0.05) of the APRE group had significant differences, whereas the SJ, EUR, and RSI were not significantly different (p > 0.05). (2) The results of the intergroups revealed that all indicators had no significant differences (p > 0.05), but APRE had a moderate effect size on the improvement of the CMJ (η2 = 0.244) and EUR (η2 = 0.068) when compared with VBRT.

Conclusions

The results showed that, compared to VBRT, APRE can effectively improve the performance of the reactive athletes' lower limb explosive power in the CMJ in a shorter period of time. The findings indicate that APRE may be useful for coaches seeking to improve the CMJ performance of athletes in the short term.

Research hotspots and new trends in the impact of resistance training on aging, bibliometric and visual analysis based on CiteSpace and VOSviewer

Purpose

Resistance training (RT) can intervene in aging, which can effectively improve trainees' life. However, unhealthy living habits such as irregular life, obesity and hyperlipidemia, and chronic diseases lead to a significant decline in the energy level of the population, seriously affecting the health of the population. Our research identifies the research hotspots of RT to intervene in aging from the perspective of bibliometrics, predicts research frontiers and development trends, and provides more perspectives for research on aging populations.

Methods

In this study, we used CiteSpace and VOSviewer visualization software to draw the scientific knowledge map of countries/regions, institutions, authors, co-occurrence keywords, and co-cited references of published articles, and explore the Web of Science core collection database all about the RT intervention aging research status, hotspots, frontiers, and development trends of articles on aging.

Results

Among the 760 articles that meet the inclusion criteria, the number of articles published and the frequency of citations have increased steadily in the past 5 years. Judging from the countries/regions, institutions, scholars, and journals that published articles, the ones with the largest numbers are the USA, Univ Estadual Londrina, Cyrino ES, and Exp Gerontol. The ones with the highest influence are England, Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Frontera WR, and Biochem Biophys Rep Co. The top five co-occurrence keywords of include exercise, strength, resistance training, skeletal muscle, and muscle strength. The research frontier is physical function.

Conclusion

In the field of RT intervention aging research, relevant scholars deserve further in-depth research and exploration. The United States, Brazil, Canada, and other economically developed countries/regions, institutions, and authors have greater influence and productivity. These quantitative research results can provide references for relevant scholars' follow-up research and government departments to formulate and modify health policies or measures.

Utilizing the RPE-Clamp model to examine interactions among factors associated with perceived fatigability and performance fatigability in women and men

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to examine the interactions between perceived fatigability and performance fatigability in women and men by utilizing the RPE-Clamp model to assess the fatigue-induced effects of a sustained, isometric forearm flexion task anchored to RPE = 8 on time to task failure (TTF), torque, and neuromuscular responses.

METHODS

Twenty adults (10 men and 10 women) performed two, 3 s forearm flexion maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs) followed by a sustained, isometric forearm flexion task anchored to RPE = 8 using the OMNI-RES (0-10) scale at an elbow joint angle of 100°. Electromyographic amplitude (EMG AMP) was recorded from the biceps brachii. Torque and EMG AMP values resulting from the sustained task were normalized to the pretest MVIC. Neuromuscular efficiency was defined as NME = normalized torque/normalized EMG AMP. Mixed factorial ANOVAs and Bonferroni corrected dependent t tests and independent t tests were used to examine differences across time and between sex for torque and neuromuscular parameters.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the women and men for the fatigue-induced decreases in torque, EMG AMP, or NME, and the mean decreases (collapsed across sex) were 50.3 ± 8.6 to 2.8 ± 2.9% MVIC, 54.7 ± 12.0 to 19.6 ± 5.3% MVIC, and 0.94 ± 0.19 to 0.34 ± 0.16, respectively. Furthermore, there were no differences between the women and men for TTF (251.8 ± 74.1 vs. 258.7 ± 77.9 s).

CONCLUSION

The results suggested that the voluntary reductions in torque to maintain RPE and the decreases in NME were likely due to group III/IV afferent feedback from peripheral fatigue that resulted in excitation-contraction coupling failure.

Perception of Velocity during Free-Weight Exercises: Difference between Back Squat and Bench Press

The perception of bar velocity (PV) is a subjective parameter useful in estimating velocity during resistance training. The aim of this study was to investigate if the PV can be improved through specific training sessions, if it differs between the back squat (SQ) and bench press (BP), and if there are differences in perception accuracy in the different intensity zones. Resistance-trained participants were randomly divided in an experimental (EG, n = 16) or a control group (CG, n = 14). After a familiarization trial, both groups were tested before and after 5 weeks of training. The PV was assessed with five blinded loads covering different intensity domains. During the training period, only the EG group received velocity feedback for each repetition. Prior to training, both groups showed a greater PV accuracy in the SQ than in the BP. Post training, the EG showed a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in the delta score (the difference between the real and perceived velocity) for both exercises, while no significant differences were observed in the CG. Prior to training, the perceived velocity was more accurate at higher loads for both exercises, while no difference between loads was observed after training (EG). The results of this study demonstrate that the PV improves with specific training and that differences in the accuracy between loads and exercise modes seen prior to training are leveled off after training.

Comparison of the effects of velocity-based vs. traditional resistance training methods on adaptations in strength, power, and sprint speed: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and quality of evidence appraisal

We estimated the effectiveness of using velocity feedback to regulate resistance training load on changes in muscle strength, power, and linear sprint speed in apparently healthy participants. Academic and grey literature databases were systematically searched to identify randomised trials that compared a velocity-based training intervention to a 'traditional' resistance training intervention that did not use velocity feedback. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Four trials met the eligibility criteria, comprising 27 effect estimates and 88 participants. The main analyses showed trivial differences and imprecise interval estimates for effects on muscle strength (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.51-0.63; I² = 42.9%; 10 effects from 4 studies; low-quality evidence), power (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.28-0.49; I² = 13.5%; 10 effects from 3 studies; low-quality evidence), and sprint speed (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.72-0.53; I² = 30.0%; 7 effects from 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). The results were robust to various sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is currently no evidence that VBT and traditional resistance training methods lead to different alterations in muscle strength, power, or linear sprint speed.

Comparison of Velocity and Percentage-based Training on Maximal Strength：Meta-Analysis

The purpose was to analyze the comparison of velocity-based resistance training and one-repetition maximum (%1RM) percentage-based training in maximal strength improvement by meta-analyzing and to find the reasons for the controversial findings of different studies. Ten studies were included in the systematic review and seven were subjected to meta-analysis. A total of 139 subjects were selected from the included articles after exclusion, including athletes of different specialties (N=93) and non-athletes mainly from fitness groups (N=46). The overall effect size was SMD=0.26 (95%CL 0.03 to 0.49, P=0.03, I²=0). As for the comparison of the analysis of different intervention objects as subgroups, the effect size of athletes as the subgroup was 0.35 (95%CI 0.06 to 0.64, p=0.02, I²=0), indicating that in the RCT with athletes as the intervention target, the effect of VBRT in improving the maximal strength was significantly different from that of PBT. Velocity-based resistance training might be more effective than percentage-based training in maximal strength improvement, in which velocity-based resistance training is more suitable for athletes in season, while percentage-based training is more suitable for the general sports population. More high-quality researches should deal with the effect of other athletic performance with velocity-based resistance training in the future.

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.

Velocity-Based Resistance Training on 1-RM, Jump and Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Weight resistance training (RT) has been shown to positively influence physical performance. Within the last two decades, a methodology based on monitoring RT through movement velocity (also called velocity-based resistance training, VBRT) has emerged. The aim of this PRISMA-based systematic review was to evaluate the effect of VBRT programs on variables related to muscle strength (one-repetition maximum, 1-RM), and high-speed actions (vertical jump, and sprint performance) in trained subjects. The search for published articles was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, SPORT Discus/EBSCO, OVID, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases using Boolean algorithms independently. A total of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review (a low-to-moderate overall risk of bias of the analyzed studies was detected). VBRT is an effective method to improve 1-RM, vertical jump and sprint. According to the results of the analyzed studies, it is not necessary to reach high muscle failure in order to achieve the best training results. These findings reinforce the fact that it is possible to optimize exercise adaptations with less fatigue. Future studies should corroborate these findings in female population.

Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prescribing repetitions relative to task failure is an emerging approach to resistance training. Under this approach, participants terminate the set based on their prediction of the remaining repetitions left to task failure. While this approach holds promise, an important step in its development is to determine how accurate participants are in their predictions. That is, what is the difference between the predicted and actual number of repetitions remaining to task failure, which ideally should be as small as possible.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in resistance exercises.

DESIGN

Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis.

SEARCH AND INCLUSION

A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2021 using the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar databases. Inclusion criteria included studies with healthy participants who predicted the number of repetitions they can complete to task failure in various resistance exercises, before or during an ongoing set, which was performed to task failure. Sixteen publications were eligible for inclusion, of which 13 publications covering 12 studies, with a total of 414 participants, were included in our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (262 across 12 clusters) revealed that participants tended to underpredict the number of repetitions to task failure by 0.95 repetitions (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-1.73), but with considerable heterogeneity (Q₍₂₆₁₎ = 3060, p < 0.0001, I² = 97.9%). Meta-regressions showed that prediction accuracy slightly improved when the predictions were made closer to set failure (β =  - 0.025, 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.0014) and when the number of repetitions performed to task failure was lower (≤ 12 repetitions: β = 0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.09; > 12 repetitions: β = 0.47, 95% CI 0.44-0.49). Set number trivially influenced prediction accuracy with slightly increased accuracy in later sets (β =  - 0.07 repetitions, 95% CI - 0.14 to - 0.005). In contrast, participants' training status did not seem to influence prediction accuracy (β =  - 0.006 repetitions, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.007) and neither did the implementation of upper or lower body exercises (upper body - lower body =  - 0.58 repetitions; 95% CI - 2.32 to 1.16). Furthermore, there was minimal between-participant variation in predictive accuracy (standard deviation 1.45 repetitions, 95% CI 0.99-2.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were imperfect in their ability to predict proximity to task failure independent of their training background. It remains to be determined whether the observed degree of inaccuracy should be considered acceptable. Despite this, prediction accuracies can be improved if they are provided closer to task failure, when using heavier loads, or in later sets. To reduce the heterogeneity between studies, future studies should include a clear and detailed account of how task failure was explained to participants and how it was confirmed.

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.

A Novel Approach to 1RM Prediction Using the Load-Velocity Profile: A Comparison of Models

The study aim was to compare different predictive models in one repetition maximum (1RM) estimation from load-velocity profile (LVP) data. Fourteen strength-trained men underwent initial 1RMs in the free-weight back squat, followed by two LVPs, over three sessions. Profiles were constructed via a combined method (jump squat (0 load, 30-60% 1RM) + back squat (70-100% 1RM)) or back squat only (0 load, 30-100% 1RM) in 10% increments. Quadratic and linear regression modeling was applied to the data to estimate 80% 1RM (kg) using 80% 1RM mean velocity identified in LVP one as the reference point, with load (kg), then extrapolated to predict 1RM. The 1RM prediction was based on LVP two data and analyzed via analysis of variance, effect size (g/ηp2), Pearson correlation coefficients (r), paired t-tests, standard error of the estimate (SEE), and limits of agreement (LOA). p < 0.05. All models reported systematic bias < 10 kg, r > 0.97, and SEE < 5 kg, however, all linear models were significantly different from measured 1RM (p = 0.015 <0.001). Significant differences were observed between quadratic and linear models for combined (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.90) and back squat (p = 0.004, ηp2 = 0.35) methods. Significant differences were observed between exercises when applying linear modeling (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.67-0.80), but not quadratic (p = 0.632-0.929, ηp2 = 0.001-0.18). Quadratic modeling employing the combined method rendered the greatest predictive validity. Practitioners should therefore utilize this method when looking to predict daily 1RMs as a means of load autoregulation.

Training for Muscular Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength-power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete's performance capabilities. An athlete's daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner 'sees', and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

Reliability and Validity of the iLOAD Application for Monitoring the Mean Set Velocity During the Back Squat and Bench Press Exercises Performed Against Different Loads

ABSTRACT

Pérez-Castilla, A, Boullosa, D, and García-Ramos, A. Reliability and validity of the iLOAD application for monitoring the mean set velocity during the back squat and bench press exercises performed against different loads. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S57-S65, 2021-This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of a smartphone application (iLOAD) for the monitoring of mean concentric velocity (MV) during resistance training sets. Twenty males completed 2 identical sessions consisting of one set of 10 repetitions against 4 loads (25, 40, 55, 70% of the one repetition maximum [1RM]) during the back squat and bench press exercises. The MV of the 5 initial repetitions and for the whole set were determined simultaneously with the iLOAD application and a linear velocity transducer (LVT). Two independent researchers operated the iLOAD application during the experimental sessions to evaluate the interrater agreement for the assessment of MV. An acceptable but generally lower reliability was observed for iLOAD (coefficient of variation [CV] range: 5.61-9.79%) compared to the LVT (CV range: 4.51-8.18%) at 25-40-55% of 1RM, whereas the reliability at 75% of 1RM was acceptable for the LVT during the bench press (CV range: 6.37-8.26%), but it was unacceptable for the iLOAD during both exercises (CV range: 11.3-12.8%) and for the LVT during the back squat (CV range: 11.3-17.4%). Small to moderate differences (ES range: 0.24-1.04) and very high to practically perfect correlations (r range: 0.70-0.90) were observed between the iLOAD and the LVT. A very high agreement was observed between both raters for the recording of MV during the back squat and bench press exercises (r ≥ 0.98). Taken together, these results suggest that the iLOAD application can be confidently used to quantify the MV of training sets during the squat and bench press exercises not performed to failure.

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

Background

Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.

Objective

A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.

Results

A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.

Conclusion

Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-020-01382-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.