| dc.description.abstract | A Comparative Study of Strength Improvements in Autoregulatory Training Alexander R. Bryce The University of Kansas, 2016 Supervising Professor: Andrew C. Fry, PhD INTRODUCTION: Autoregulation training is a system of periodization based on an individual athlete’s physiological and mental state. This method attempts to match readiness with training stimulus to adjust for specific adaptations. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) is a method by which athletes increase strength based on daily and weekly variations in performance, and has been shown to be a highly effective method for improving strength. The efficacy of various forms of autoregulatory training incorporating subject input, in-session performance, and pre-session performance have not been compared, particularly attempting to use physiological performance variables to determine readiness and the subsequent training stimulus. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was twofold: to attempt to determine if peak velocity is an appropriate and predictive measure of readiness and training session performance, and to compare the efficacy of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) and a velocity-based progressive resistance exercise (VAR) protocol for improvements in 1RM strength in the barbell back squat and barbell bench press exercises. METHODS: 16 subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: APRE (n=7), in which subjects progressed linearly from low load/high volume to high load/low volume and VAR (n=9), in which training loads were dictated by objective pre-session peak velocity performance. Subjects reported to the laboratory for a familiarization session, 18 workout sessions (3 nonconsecutive days per week for 6 continuous weeks) and a post-testing session. Pre-testing and post-testing sessions consisted of 1RM testing, and anthropometric assessments. At the start of each session, subjects completed a Likert readiness questionnaire, as well as 2 sets of 3 repetitions of maximal effort barbell jump squats at ~20% 1RM and maximum effort speed bench press at ~20% 1RM, with peak concentric velocity recorded for all repetitions. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine differences between groups. Independent samples t-tests were used to determine differences in subject characteristics and baseline levels of strength. Pearson product moment correlations were used to determine relationships between readiness variables and individual session performance. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in back squat 1RM and bench press 1RM over the course of the study for both groups (F = 56.062, p < 0.001, and F = 34.607, p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in initial strength levels between the two groups for barbell squat or barbell bench press. No interaction between pre/post-testing and time (time x group) was found for the back squat (APRE: 13.284 ± 5.307 kg vs. VAR: 15.624 ± 9.032 kg, F= .367 [df = 14], p = 0.554) or for the bench press (APRE: 11.016 ± 7.341 kg vs. VAR: 7.56 ± 5.319 kg, F= 1.198 [df = 14], p = 0.292. For VAR, a significant relationship was found between peak velocity performance and mental and physical readiness (p < 0.001). For APRE, a significant positive relationship was found between barbell jump squat and speed bench velocity (r = 0.473, p < 0.001), and mental and physical readiness (r = 0.825, p < 0.001). A significant negative relationship was observed between barbell jump squat velocity and mental and physical readiness (r = -0.265, p = 0.002 and r = -0.301, p < 0.001, respectively). A significant relationship was observed between mental and physical readiness and in-session performance for both groups. There was no interaction observed between groups relative to training session for jump squat peak velocity performance (ANOVA: F = 0.771, p = 0.740). There was an interaction observed between training session and group for peak speed bench press velocity (ANOVA: F = 1.857, p = 0.023). VAR showed a significant improvement in speed bench press peak velocity. There was a statistically significant interaction between training session and training group (ANOVA: F = 7.544, p < 0.001) for average volume load performed between groups. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare autoregulatory training dictated by objective pre-session performance measures with previously established autoregulatory protocols. Both groups demonstrated improved 1RMs over the course of training. No significant differences were observed between groups in 1RM changes, suggesting that both programs were equally effective in improving 1RM strength during a 6-week training cycle. The relationships between the subjective measures of readiness and peak velocity suggests that they may associate with some aspects of physical performance, and may have predictive power for acute resistance training performance. Further research is needed to determine the best practical application of these relationships, especially regarding which factors to measure, what type of change over time can be considered significant, and their relative predictive power for subsequent training performance. | |
