A Comparison of Traditional and Autoregulated Periodized Strength Training in Resistance-Trained Men: A Randomized,...

Area of Science:

• Exercise Physiology
• Sports Science
• Strength and Conditioning

Background:

• Traditional periodization relies on fixed percentages of 1-repetition maximum (1RM), potentially leading to inaccurate training stress.
• Day-to-day variability in athlete readiness is not accounted for in traditional methods.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effects of a same-session, repetition performance-based autoregulation protocol (AR) versus traditional percentage-based periodization (TP) on maximal strength.
• To determine if autoregulation is as effective as traditional methods for improving strength in resistance-trained individuals.

Main Methods:

• A randomized crossover study involving eight resistance-trained men.
• Two 8-week training blocks (AR and TP) separated by a 2-week washout period.
• AR loads determined by an initial set to failure at 85% of baseline 1RM; TP used fixed percentages.

Main Results:

• Both AR and TP significantly improved squat, deadlift, and total 1RM strength, with no significant differences between groups.
• Increases in bench press 1RM approached significance, with TP showing a potential advantage.
• Training intensity (%1RM) was higher with AR for squat and deadlift.

Conclusions:

• Autoregulation based on daily maximal effort sets may be as effective as traditional percentage-based loading for enhancing maximal lower-body strength.
• Further research may be needed to explore differences in upper-body strength development between AR and TP.