To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Autoregulated vs predetermined progression in periodized resistance training programs and their effect on maximal muscle strength and body composition.
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences.
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences.
2019 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Autoregulation (AR) of training translates to altering parameters of training depending on theathletes daily readiness to perform. Allowing the athlete to progress at their optimal individual pace might be beneficial for increases in maximal strength compared to more traditional forms of periodization, like the linear periodization (LP) model, where the rate of progression is predetermined (PRED) in terms of percentages of the athletes 1RM. In this study, 6 resistance-trained men performed resistance training twice a week for six weeks in an AR or PRED program in terms of progression. For the AR group, progression of load was met when the subject achieved the desired number of repetitions in a given set. For the PRED group, progression of load was made in a linear fashion on a session to session basis, predetermined load progression based on their pre-test 1RM for all 6 weeks. Both groups strived to have 0-1 repetitions in reserve after each completed set, to make sure that the intensity was theoretically the same for both groups. There was no significant differences observed between the groups in terms of absolute strength from pretest to posttest for squatstrength (PRED: 23.3 ± 8.0 kg vs AR: 19.2 ± 12.8 kg; (t= -0.47 (4), p=0.65), bench pressstrength (PRED: 1.7 ± 7.6 kg vs AR: 2.5 ± 4.3 kg; (t= 0.16 (4), p=0.87) or lat pulldownstrength (PRED: 21.7 ± 7.2 kg vs AR: 19.2 ± 10.1 kg; (t= 0.34 (4), p=0.74). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of body composition changes. The conclusion of this study is that there are no significant differences between AR and PRED for increasing maximal strength or promoting body composition changes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
Keywords [en]
Repetitions in reserve, One-repetition maximum, Muscle hypertrophy, Strength training
National Category
Health Sciences Sport and Fitness Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-76204OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-76204DiVA, id: diva2:1350053
Subject / course
Sports Science
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2019-09-10 Created: 2019-09-10 Last updated: 2019-09-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

By organisation
School of Health Sciences
Health SciencesSport and Fitness Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 594 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf