Search

Background: Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength., Objective: The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength., Methods: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18-40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was reported from each study., Results: Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1-29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate., Conclusions: Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status.

Purpose: This study compared pooled against individualized load–velocity profiles (LVPs) in the free-weight back squat and power clean. Methods: A total of 10 competitive weightlifters completed baseline 1-repetition maximum assessments in the back squat and power clean. Three incremental LVPs were completed, separated by 48 to 72 hours. Mean and peak velocity were measured via a linear-position transducer (GymAware). Linear and nonlinear (second-order polynomial) regression models were applied to all pooled and individualized LVP data. A combination of coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient, typical error of measurement, and limits of agreement assessed between-subject variability and within-subject reliability. Acceptable reliability was defined a priori as intraclass correlation coefficient >.7 and CV < 10%. Results: Very high to practically perfect inverse relationships were evident in the back squat (r =.83–.96) and power clean (r =.83–.89) for both regression models; however, stronger correlations were observed in the individualized LVPs for both exercises (r =.85–.99). Between-subject variability was moderate to large across all relative loads in the back squat (CV = 8.2%–27.8%) but smaller in the power clean (CV = 4.6%–8.5%). The power clean met our criteria for acceptable reliability across all relative loads; however, the back squat revealed large CVs in loads ≥90% of 1-repetition maximum (13.1%–20.5%). Conclusions: Evidently, load–velocity characteristics are highly individualized, with acceptable levels of reliability observed in the power clean but not in the back squat (≥90% of 1-repetition maximum). If practitioners want to adopt load–velocity profiling as part of their testing and monitoring procedures, an individualized LVP should be utilized over pooled LVPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, little is known about overreaching (OR) and the overtraining syndrome (OTS) in strength sports and resistance training (RT) populations. However, the available literature may elucidate the occurrence of both conditions in these populations. A scoping review was conducted. SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science were searched in a robust and systematic manner, with relevant articles analysed. 1170 records were retrieved during an initial search, with a total of 47 included in the review. Two broad themes were identified during data extraction: 1) overreaching in strength sports; 2) overreaching and overtraining syndrome in RT. Short-term periods of OR achieved with either high-volume or high-intensity RT can elicit functional OR (FOR) but there is also evidence that chronic high-volume and/or intensity RT can lead to non-functional overreaching (NFOR). There is minimal evidence to suggest that true OTS has occurred in strength sports or RT based on the studies entered during this review. More research is needed to develop robust guiding principles for practitioners. Additionally, due to the heterogeneous nature of the existing literature, future research would benefit from the development of practical tools to identify and diagnose the transition from FOR to NFOR, and subsequently OTS in strength athletes and RT populations. RT: Resistance training; OR: Overreaching; FOR: Functional overreaching; NFOR: Non-functional overreaching; OTS: Overtraining syndrome; WP: Weightlifting performance [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While typesetting the entries of the Table 1 were incorrectly aligned. The correct Table 1 has been copied below. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]