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.
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.
Authors: Mikel Izquierdo; Javier Ibañez; Juan José González-Badillo; Keijo Häkkinen; Nicholas A Ratamess; William J Kraemer; Duncan N French; Jesus Eslava; Aritz Altadill; Xabier Asiain; Esteban M Gorostiaga Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2006-01-12
Authors: Michael C Zourdos; Alex Klemp; Chad Dolan; Justin M Quiles; Kyle A Schau; Edward Jo; Eric Helms; Ben Esgro; Scott Duncan; Sonia Garcia Merino; Rocky Blanco Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Jonathon J S Weakley; Kyle M Wilson; Kevin Till; Dale B Read; Joshua Darrall-Jones; Gregory A B Roe; Padraic J Phibbs; Ben Jones Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Ryan J Colquhoun; Christopher M Gai; Jeoffrey Walters; Andrew R Brannon; Marcus W Kilpatrick; Dominic P DʼAgostino; Bill I Campbell Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Bruno Bazuelo-Ruiz; Paulino Padial; Amador García-Ramos; Antonio J Morales-Artacho; María T Miranda; Belén Feriche Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Ruggero Romagnoli; Sergio Civitella; Carlo Minganti; Maria Francesca Piacentini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-11 Impact factor: 4.614