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

Area of Science:

• Sports Science
• Exercise Physiology
• Strength and Conditioning

Background:

• Autoregulation (AR) in resistance training periodization adapts training based on individual athlete responses.
• AR intensity can be prescribed using subjective rating of perceived exertion (RPE) or objective measures like barbell velocity (VB).

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the efficacy of objective velocity-based (VB) versus subjective rating of perceived exertion (RPE) autoregulation methods.
• To determine the impact of these AR methods on sport-specific physical performance in rugby union players.

Main Methods:

• A randomized crossover design involved 20 amateur rugby players undergoing two 6-week training blocks.
• Training intensity was prescribed using either objective VB (wearable accelerometer) or RPE measures, with matched volume and equivalent intensity.
• Performance was assessed via countermovement jump (CMJ), 1RM back squat and bench press, and sprint tests (10, 20, 40m) pre- and post-training.

Main Results:

• Both VB and RPE-based AR programs significantly improved CMJ, back squat, and bench press performance.
• Objective VB-based AR yielded greater improvements in CMJ, squat, and bench press compared to RPE-based AR.
• Sprint performance changes were negligible and similar between both AR protocols.

Conclusions:

• Autoregulation periodization effectively enhances strength and countermovement jump performance in athletes.
• Objective intensity prescription, particularly velocity-based measures, augments the positive effects of autoregulation more than subjective RPE.
• Autoregulation does not appear to improve sprint performance in this population.