Optimizing High-Intensity Functional Training Performance: Individualized Load Prescription vs. Standardized Weights.

Area of Science:

• Sports Science
• Exercise Physiology
• Strength and Conditioning

Background:

• High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) involves complex movements and varied loads.
• Optimizing training loads is crucial for performance and adaptation in HIFT athletes.
• Current HIFT programming often uses standardized loads, potentially limiting individual progress.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effects of relativized loads (% of 1RM) versus standardized loads on HIFT performance.
• To assess strength adaptations, physiological responses, and perceived effort between load strategies.
• To determine the optimal load prescription for experienced HIFT athletes.

Main Methods:

• 22 experienced HIFT athletes were randomized into standardized load (SL) or relativized load (RL) groups.
• An 8-week HIFT program was implemented with benchmark workouts and performance testing.
• Measures included 1RM strength, local muscle endurance, countermovement jump, cardiopulmonary response, and perceived exertion.

Main Results:

• The RL group showed significantly greater strength gains in back squat and clean compared to the SL group.
• No significant differences were observed in clean and jerk performance or countermovement jump height between groups.
• Cardiopulmonary responses were similar, but RL participants reported lower perceived exertion, indicating more efficient training.

Conclusions:

• Individualized, relativized loads enhance HIFT strength adaptations and performance.
• This approach improves training efficiency and reduces perceived fatigue without augmenting physiological stress.
• Relativized loading strategies are recommended for experienced HIFT athletes to optimize training outcomes.