The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Sports medicine - open
ISSN: 2199-1170
Titre abrégé: Sports Med Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101662568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2022
15 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
21
07
2021
accepted:
26
12
2021
entrez:
17
1
2022
pubmed:
18
1
2022
medline:
18
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy. This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable. Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI - 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20-25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume. Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy.
METHODS
METHODS
This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI - 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20-25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume. Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35038063
doi: 10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9
pii: 10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9
pmc: PMC8762534
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
9Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Sep;33(9):2420-2425
pubmed: 28704314
Sports Med. 2016 Apr;46(4):605-10
pubmed: 26893097
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Feb 1;14(2):246-255
pubmed: 30080424
Front Physiol. 2018 Mar 21;9:247
pubmed: 29628895
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1150-9
pubmed: 20300012
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2010 Dec;109(6):1628-34
pubmed: 20864557
J Physiol. 1991 Jun;437:655-72
pubmed: 1890654
J Sports Sci. 2020 Sep;38(17):2013-2020
pubmed: 32516094
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2002 Jan;30(1):8-14
pubmed: 11800501
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 Jul 1;121(1):129-38
pubmed: 27174923
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Oct;34(10):2709-2714
pubmed: 32740288
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Dec;34(12):3338-3345
pubmed: 33021581
J Sports Sci. 2019 Dec 22;:1-9
pubmed: 31868099
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021 Feb 4;:1-9
pubmed: 33547265
Sports Med. 2017 Oct;47(10):2083-2100
pubmed: 28497285
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3508-3523
pubmed: 28834797
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Oct 15;15(2):180-188
pubmed: 31094251
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jun;32(6):1627-1636
pubmed: 29786623
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 May;31(5):1321-1337
pubmed: 28415066
Sports Med. 2021 May;51(5):1061-1086
pubmed: 33417154
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Feb 27;:
pubmed: 32108724
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Aug;31(8):1621-1635
pubmed: 33829679
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Jun;116(6):1159-77
pubmed: 27076217
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Sep;48(9):1761-71
pubmed: 27128672
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Feb 1;35(Suppl 1):S158-S165
pubmed: 30747900
Sports Med. 2018 Jul;48(7):1607-1620
pubmed: 29605838
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Sep;34(9):2537-2547
pubmed: 31045753
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Jan;31(1):91-103
pubmed: 32949027
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Feb;31(2):292-297
pubmed: 27243918
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):e162-9
pubmed: 19793220
Physiol Rep. 2018 Sep;6(18):e13800
pubmed: 30230254
Sports Med. 2017 Aug;47(8):1457-1465
pubmed: 28074412
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Sep;104(2):409-14
pubmed: 18297302
Sports (Basel). 2019 Mar 04;7(3):
pubmed: 30836680
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Feb 1;36(2):340-345
pubmed: 31904715
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60
pubmed: 12436270
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005 Jul;99(1):87-94
pubmed: 15731398
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Aug;52(8):1752-1762
pubmed: 32049887
Sports Med. 2020 Nov;50(11):1873-1887
pubmed: 32813181
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Aug;45(8):817-828
pubmed: 32017598
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Oct;34(10):2867-2876
pubmed: 30036284
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Jul;31(7):1897-1904
pubmed: 27669192
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Feb;81(3):174-80
pubmed: 10638374
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020 Nov;30(11):2154-2166
pubmed: 32681665
Strength Cond J. 2016 Aug;38(4):42-49
pubmed: 27531969
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Jan;34(1):46-53
pubmed: 30946276
Sports Med. 1993 Jun;15(6):374-88
pubmed: 8341872
Sports Med. 2007;37(2):145-68
pubmed: 17241104
Int J Sports Med. 2006 Sep;27(9):718-24
pubmed: 16944400
Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(8):772-81
pubmed: 24734902
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Apr 13;:
pubmed: 32287093
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020 Sep 01;16(2):232-242
pubmed: 32871553
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002 Oct;93(4):1318-26
pubmed: 12235031
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Sep;33(9):2409-2419
pubmed: 31460988
J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1981 Dec;51(6):1437-42
pubmed: 7319877
Sports Med. 2020 Dec;50(12):2209-2236
pubmed: 32901442
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3305-3310
pubmed: 28902119
J Sports Sci. 2017 Jun;35(11):1073-1082
pubmed: 27433992
Sports Med. 2019 Jul;49(7):993-997
pubmed: 31016546
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Apr;34(4):911-917
pubmed: 32213783
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017 Jul;117(7):1287-1298
pubmed: 28447186
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Jun;33(6):1496-1504
pubmed: 29944141
Sports Med. 2018 May;48(5):1207-1220
pubmed: 29470825
Int J Sports Med. 2020 Oct;41(13):921-928
pubmed: 32668476
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Apr 10;:
pubmed: 32282530
Sports Med. 2021 Apr;51(4):707-736
pubmed: 33475986
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Mar;41(3):687-708
pubmed: 19204579
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Mar;33(3):890-895
pubmed: 30640306
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1994 Jun;76(6):2714-9
pubmed: 7928905
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-735
pubmed: 27038416
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Feb;86(4):327-36
pubmed: 11990746
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Apr;12(4):512-519
pubmed: 27618386
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Jan;30(1):267-75
pubmed: 26049792
PeerJ. 2021 Jan 12;9:e10663
pubmed: 33520457
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Apr 1;35(4):1165-1175
pubmed: 33555822
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2857-72
pubmed: 20847704
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 1;319(4):E792-E804
pubmed: 32830552
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018 Apr 1;13(4):474-481
pubmed: 28872384
J Sports Sci Med. 2020 Aug 13;19(3):452-459
pubmed: 32874097
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010 Jun;5(2):177-83
pubmed: 20625190
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017 Dec;117(12):2387-2399
pubmed: 28965198
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2019 Jan 1;126(1):30-43
pubmed: 30335577
Sports Med. 2017 Apr;47(4):631-640
pubmed: 27600146
Sports Med. 2006;36(2):133-49
pubmed: 16464122
Sports Med. 2020 May;50(5):919-938
pubmed: 31828736
PLoS One. 2019 May 16;14(5):e0217044
pubmed: 31095625
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Sep 1;35(9):2451-2456
pubmed: 31009432
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2020 Sep;60(9):1231-1239
pubmed: 32586078
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017 Nov;117(11):2125-2135
pubmed: 28776271
Science. 1956 Sep 14;124(3220):486-7
pubmed: 13360275
Int J Sports Med. 2010 May;31(5):347-52
pubmed: 20180176
Sports Med. 2016 Apr;46(4):487-502
pubmed: 26666744
J Sport Health Sci. 2021 Jan 23;:
pubmed: 33497853
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018 Jul 1;13(6):763-769
pubmed: 29140148
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Feb 13;:
pubmed: 32058357
J Physiol. 1996 Sep 1;495 ( Pt 2):573-86
pubmed: 8887767
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Oct 30;:1-8
pubmed: 31672928
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Jul 1;35(7):1800-1808
pubmed: 30741875
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Mar;32(3):681-689
pubmed: 29466270
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Apr;20(4):397-402
pubmed: 27663764
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Sep;43(9):1619-25
pubmed: 21552151
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Aug 31;:
pubmed: 32881842
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009 Apr;105(6):869-78
pubmed: 19153760
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Sep;23(6):1890-901
pubmed: 19661829
Int J Sports Med. 2012 May;33(5):376-80
pubmed: 22318559
Sports Med. 2018 Mar;48(3):499-505
pubmed: 29022275
Hum Mov Sci. 2019 Oct;67:102504
pubmed: 31362262
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Mar;33(3):597-605
pubmed: 30640305
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Sep;43(9):1725-34
pubmed: 21311352
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Feb 1;35(Suppl 1):S23-S30
pubmed: 33629974