Title

Training for muscular strength: Methods for monitoring and adjusting training intensity

Author Identifier

Sophia Nimphius

ORCID : 0000-0002-3524-0245

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Sports Medicine

Publisher

Springer

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences

Comments

Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., Bellon, C. R., Hornsby, W. G., & Stone, M. H. (2021). Training for muscular strength: Methods for monitoring and adjusting training intensity. Sports Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01488-9

Abstract

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength–power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete’s performance capabilities. An athlete’s daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner ‘sees’, and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

DOI

10.1007/s40279-021-01488-9

Share

 
COinS