Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Center, Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom ; and.
Department of Sport Studies, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, South Africa.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Mar 1;36(3):641-648. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003530.
Shattock, K and Tee, JC. Autoregulation in resistance training: A comparison of subjective versus objective methods. J Strength Cond Res 36(3): 641-648, 2022-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 2 approaches in improving sport-specific physical performance measures. Using a randomized crossover design, 20 amateur rugby union players completed two 6-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), 1 repetition maximum back squat and bench press, and 10-, 20-, and 40-m sprint. Testing was conducted before and immediately after 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. Autoregulation periodization improved strength and CMJ, but not sprint performance. Autoregulation effects are augmented through the use of objective intensity prescription.
沙托克和 T 教授。抗阻训练中的自动调节：主观与客观方法的比较。《力量与调节研究杂志》36(3)：641-648，2022-自动调节（AR）是一种抗阻训练周期化方法，根据运动员适应的个体速度调整训练方案。AR 训练方案可以使用主观（感觉用力程度[RPE]）或客观（杠铃速度）强度描述符。本研究的目的是比较这两种方法在提高特定运动的身体表现测量方面的效果。采用随机交叉设计，20 名业余橄榄球运动员完成了两个 6 周的训练块，训练强度分别采用基于客观速度（VB）（使用可穿戴加速度计设备测量）或基于客观 RPE 的强度方案来规定。两组的训练量匹配，而训练强度则相等，但使用 VB 或 RPE 测量值来规定。性能测量包括下蹲跳（CMJ）、1 次重复最大深蹲和卧推，以及 10、20 和 40 米冲刺。测试在每个训练块前后进行。使用基于幅度的决策评估观察到的性能测量变化是否具有实际意义。两种训练方案均使 CMJ（VB 最有可能增加 8.2%，±1.1%；RPE 可能增加 3.8%，±0.9%）、深蹲（VB 最有可能增加 7.5%，±1.5%；RPE 可能增加 3.5%，±1.8%）和卧推（VB 最有可能增加 7.7%，±2.1%；RPE 可能增加 3.8%，±0.9%）有实际意义的提高。两个方案对冲刺测试的表现变化都可能微不足道。客观 AR 编程使 CMJ（可能增加 4.2%，±1.2%）、深蹲（可能增加 3.7%，±1.5%）和卧推（可能增加 3.7%，±1.5%）的性能有更大的提高。自动调节周期化提高了力量和 CMJ，但没有提高冲刺表现。通过使用客观强度规定，自动调节效果得到增强。
