Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2026
Lower Limb Biomechanical Analysis of Healthy Participants
Published on: April 15, 2020
Relative effectiveness of different resistance training modalities on lower-body strength and explosive power: a
Jinxuan Bao1, Xundian Liu2, Yaxuan Huang2
1School of Strength and Conditioning Training, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Background:
Traditional percentage-based training (PBT) prescribes loads according to a fixed percentage of one-repetition maximum (1RM) but does not account for daily fluctuations in performance readiness. In contrast, auto-regulated resistance training (ART)-including velocity-based training (VBT), autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)/Repetitions in Reserve (RIR)-based autoregulatory training (RPE-AT)-and variable resistance training (VRT) provide more adaptive load adjustments. However, their relative effectiveness for improving lower-body maximal strength and explosive power remains unclear.
Objective:
To systematically evaluate and compare different resistance-training modalities, including APRE, VBT, RPE-AT, VRT, and PBT, on maximal lower-body strength and explosive power in healthy and active individuals using a network meta-analysis (NMA) method, and to provide a ranking of therapeutic effects.
Method:
Following the PRISMA-NMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, SportDiscus, and ProQuest databases, ensuring a comprehensive and transparent approach to study retrieval. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of APRE, VBT, RPE-AT, VRT and PBT on lower extremity performance were included. The quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. Pairwise meta-analysis and NMA under the frequentist framework were conducted using R software. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, and the intervention measures were ranked by the cumulative area under the ranking probability curve (SUCRA).
Results:
A total of 27 RCTs involving 694 participants were included, consistent with the sample size and study quantity reported in relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. For back squat 1-repetition maximum (1RM, a measure of maximal lower-body strength), NMA showed that VRT (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.29, 0.95]), APRE (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI [0.16, 1.02]), and VBT (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI [0.10, 0.73]) significantly improved performance compared to PBT, while RPE-AT (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.56]) showed no significant difference from PBT. The SUCRA ranking for back squat 1RM was: VRT (83.1%) > APRE (79.1%) > VBT (57.1%) > RPE-AT (23.4%) > PBT (7.4%). For countermovement jump (CMJ, a measure of lower-body explosive power), APRE (SMD = 1.08, 95% CI [0.30, 1.87]) and VBT (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.23, 1.02]) were significantly superior to PBT, while VRT (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.69]) showed a non-significant trend toward improvement. The SUCRA ranking for CMJ was: APRE (96.6%) > VBT (74.4%) > VRT (49.7%) > PBT (23.6%) > RPE-AT (5.7%).
Conclusion:
APRE, VBT, and VRT were generally associated with more favorable adaptations than PBT in lower-body strength and power outcomes. VRT showed the highest probability of being most effective for back squat 1RM, whereas APRE ranked highest for CMJ performance. These findings provide a comparative synthesis of current evidence and may assist practitioners in selecting resistance training strategies according to specific performance goals, while acknowledging the need for cautious interpretation given variability across studies.
Systematic Review Registration:
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251172410, identifier CRD420251172410.
