Impact of Percentage-based Versus Autoregulated-based Load Prescription on Maximal Strength

Le résumé fourni par la source

Researchers and practitioners use the resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for individualization of training load prescription. However, an intervention to compare traditional percentage-based load prescription versus RPE-based loading for strength adaptations has not been conducted. PURPOSE: To compare changes in one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength of the back squat and bench press between percentage-based training (PBT) and autoregulated-based training (ABT) via RPE. METHODS: Eleven males (age: 23±4 yrs, body mass: 77.4±7.7 kg, body fat: 9.5±3.8%) with at least two yrs. of training experience and a minimum 1RM of 1.5 and 1.25x bodyweight on the squat and bench press respectively, were assigned to one of two groups: PBT (n=6) or ABT (n=5) for 8 weeks. Forty eight hours following pre-testing 1RM both groups performed the squat and bench press 3x/wk. on non- consecutive days (i.e. Mon., Wed., Fri.) using the same number of sets and repetitions following an undulating resistance training program, which linearly increased load and decreased repetitions throughout. Weeks 1-3 consisted of 8, 6, and 4 repetitions on Mon., Wed., and Fri., while weeks 4-5 consisted of 7, 5, and 3 repetitions during the week, with 6, 4, and 2 repetitions being performed during weeks 6-7. Week 8 served as a taper with 4 and 3 repetition days on Mon. and Wed. and post-testing on Fri. Load increased during each week in PBT from 65, 70, and 75% in week 1 to 82.5-92.5% of 1RM in week 7. In ABT there was no prescribed load but subjects were instructed to select a load, in which the set ended with a 5-7RPE in week 1 and progressing to an 8-10RPE in week 7. A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was used with significance set at p≤0.05. RESULTS: There was a time effect (p<0.01) for 1RM squat (141.00±22.49 to 153.75±20.40kg; +9.46%), bench press (109.08±15.89 to 116.67±14.61kg; +7.22%), and total strength-TS (250.08±32.30 to 270.42±29.62kg; +8.39%) in PBT, and for 1RM squat (152.20±21.65 to 171.30±24.97kg; +12.52%), bench press (123.00±11.31 to 133.70±14.82kg; +8.58%), and TS (275.20±30.24kg to 305.00±37.61kg; +10.71%) in ABT. However, no significant group differences existed for squat (p=0.31), bench (p=0.11) or TS (p=0.16). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that both PBT and ABT are equally effective at increasing maximal strength.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.