Self-selected vs programed load adjustment methods in strength and body composition: a pilot study / Métodos de ajuste de carga auto-selecionado vs programado na força e composição corporal: um estudo piloto

Eliezer Guimarães Moura, Júlio Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo, Felipe Alves Brigatto, Lucas Samuel Tessuti, Paulo Henrique Barbosa, Tiago Volpi Braz, Alexandre Lopes Evangelista, Charles Ricardo Lopes

Abstract


The aim of this study was to compare the effect of two different methods of resistance training (RT) load adjustment (self-selected vs. programmed) in strength and body composition outcomes. Fourteen resistance-trained college-level students (5 females and 9 males), (age: 21.4 ± 2.23 years; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m and body mass: 77.6 ± 11.9 kg) were randomly assigned to one of the following experimental groups: Self-selected load adjustment (SSLA), where loads were arbitrarily/subjectively increased by each participant; Programmed load adjustment (PLA), where an absolute load increment was implemented according to the number of repetitions performed in the last set of each exercise. Four weekly sessions were performed during a 7-week intervention. Maximal dynamic strength and muscular endurance were assessed through one repetition maximum (1RM) and 60%1RM tests for both upper and lower limbs in bench press and unilateral leg press exercises, respectively. A moderate ES was observed for both groups in 1RMLEG PRESS (SSLA: d = 0.96; PLA: d = 1.13) and 60% 1RMBENCH PRESS (SSLA = 0.88; PLA = 1.00). Trivial (d = 0.19) and small (d = 0.24) ES in 1RMBENCH PRESS were observed for SSLA and PLA groups, respectively. The only variable that presented large ES was 60% 1RMLEG PRESS for SSLA (d = 1.29). The sum of skinfolds presented moderate ES for PLA (d=0.68) and small for SSLA (d = 0.39). In conclusion, different methods of RT load adjustments induce similar effects in strength and body composition in recreationally trained individuals.

 


Keywords


Training; Low intensity; Neuromuscular; Adaptations; Loading.

Full Text:

PDF

References


AHTIAINEN, J. P. et al. Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced vs. Maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises. International Journal of Sports Medicine, v. 24, n. 6, p. 410–418, 2003.

BAECHLE, T.; EARLE R. Essentials of strength training and conditioning, 3rd edn. Human Kinetics, Champaign, 2008.

CAMPOS, G. E. R. et al. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology, v. 88, n. 1–2, p. 50–60, 2002.

DANKEL, S. J. et al. The widespread misuse of effect sizes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, v. 20, n. 5, p. 446–450, 2017.

DE SALLES, B. F. et al. Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports Med, v. 39, n. 9, p. 765–777, 2009.

DELORME, T. L., and A. L. WATKINS. Technics of progressive resistance exercise. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, vol. 29, n. 5, p. 263-73, (1948).

FOCHT, B. C. Perceived exertion and training load during self-selected and imposed-intensity resistance exercise in untrained women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, v. 21, n. 1, p. 183–187, 2007.

FOCHT, B. C. et al. Affective responses to acute resistance exercise performed at self-selected and imposed loads in trained women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, v. 29, n. 11, p. 3067–3074, 2015.

GUEDES, D. P. Estudo da gordura corporal através da mensuração dos valores de densidade corporal e da espessura de dobras cutâneas em universitários. [s.l.] Dissertação de mestrado. Santa Maria. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, 1985.

HOPKINS, W. G. et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, v. 41, n. 1, p. 3–12, 2009.

LAKENS, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in psychology, v. 4, n. NOV, p. 863, Nov. 2013.

LASEVICIUS, T. et al. Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. European Journal of Sport Science, v. 18, n. 6, p. 772–780, 2018.

LASEVICIUS, T. et al. Muscle Failure Promotes Greater Muscle Hypertrophy in Low-Load but Not in High-Load Resistance Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, v. 0, n. 0, p. 1–6, 2019.

LIMA-SILVA, A. E. et al. Muscle glycogen metabolism during exercise: Mechanism of regulation. Revista de Nutricao, v. 20, n. 4, p. 417–429, 2007.

RODRIGUES, C. E. C. Musculação na academia. 4th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Sprint; 2001.

RODRIGUES, G. DA S. et al. Diferentes ativações musculares em distintas intensidades de treino no aparelho leg press. Brazilian Journal of Development, v. 5, n. 12, p. 31752–31760, 2019.

SCHOENFELD, B. J. et al. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, v. 29, n. 10, p. 2954–2963, 2015.

SOONESTE, H. et al. Effects of training volume on strength and hypertrophy in yong men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, v. 27, n. 1, p. 8–13, 2013.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n7-196

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.