Autoregulation in resistance training : A comparison of subjective versus objective methods

Autoregulation (AR) is a resistance training periodization approach that adjusts training prescription in response to individual rates of athlete adaptation. AR training prescription can make use of either subjective (rating of perceived exertion - RPE) or objective (barbell velocity) intensity descriptors. The aim of this research was to compare the efficacy of these two approaches in improving sport specific physical performance measures. Using a randomized crossover design, 20 amateur rugby union players completed two six-week blocks of training with training intensity prescribed using either objective velocity based (VB) (measured using a wearable accelerometer device) or objective RPE based intensity prescriptions. Training volume was matched for both groups while training intensity was equivalent but prescribed using either VB or RPE measures. Performance measurements were countermovement jump (CMJ), 1RM back squat and bench press, and 10, 20 and 40 meters sprint. Testing was conducted prior to, and immediately following each training block. The likelihood that observed changes in performance measures were meaningful was assessed using magnitude--based decisions. Both training programs induced practically meaningful improvements in CMJ (VB most likely +8.2, ±1.1%; RPE likely +3.8, ± 0.9%), back squat (VB most likely +7.5, ±1.5%; RPE possibly +3.5, ± 1.8%) and bench press (VB most likely +7.7, ±2.1%; RPE possibly +3.8, ± 0.9%). Changes in sprint test performance were very likely trivial for both programs. Objective AR programming resulted in larger improvements in CMJ (likely 4.2, ±1.2%), squat (likely 3.7, ±1.5%) performance, and bench press (possibly 3.7, ± 1.5%) performance. AR periodization improved strength and CMJ, but not sprint performance. AR effects are augmented through the use of objective intensity prescription.