Using Powerlifting Athletes to Determine Strength Adaptations Across Ages in Males and Females: A Longitudinal Growth Modelling Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Several retrospective studies of strength sport athletes have reported strength adaptations over months to years; however, such adaptations are not linear. METHODS: We explored changes in strength over time in a large, retrospective sample of powerlifting (PL) athletes. Specifically, we examined the rate and magnitude of strength adaptation based on age category and weight class for PL competition total, and the squat, bench press, and deadlift, respectively. Mixed effects growth modelling was performed for each operationalised performance outcome (squat, bench press, deadlift, and total) as the dependent variables, with outcomes presented on both the raw, untransformed time scale and on the common logarithmic scale. Additionally, the fitted values were rescaled as a percentage. RESULTS: Collectively, the greatest strength gains were in the earliest phase of PL participation (~ 7.5-12.5% increase in the first year, and up to an ~ 20% increase after 10 years). Females tended to display faster progression, possibly because of lower baseline strength. Additionally, female Masters 3 and 4 athletes (> 59 years) still displayed ~ 2.5-5.0% strength improvement, but a slight strength loss was observed in Masters 4 (> 69 years) males (~ 0.35%/year). CONCLUSION: Although directly applicable to PL, these findings provide population-level support for the role of consistent and continued strength training to improve strength across the age span and, importantly, to mitigate, or at least largely attenuate age-related declines in strength compared to established general population norms. This information should be used to encourage participation in strength sports, resistance training more generally, and to support future public health messaging.

Deloading Practices in Strength and Physique Sports: A Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the deloading practices of competitive strength and physique athletes. A 55-item anonymised web-based survey was distributed to a convenience-based, cross-sectional sample of competitive strength and physique athletes (n = 246; males = 181 [73.6%], females = 65 [26.4%]; age = 29.5 ± 8.6 years) who had 8.2 ± 6.2 years of resistance training and 3.8 ± 3.1 years of competition experience. RESULTS: All athletes deloaded within training with energy and fatigue management being the main reasons to do so. The typical duration of a deload was 6.4 ± 1.7 days, integrated into the training programme every 5.6 ± 2.3 weeks. Deloading was undertaken using a proactive, pre-planned strategy (or in combination with an autoregulated approach) and undertaken when performance stalled or during periods of increased muscle soreness or joint aches. Athletes reported that training volume would decrease (through a reduction in both repetitions per set and sets per week), but training frequency would remain unchanged during deloads. Additionally, athletes reported that training intensity (load lifted) would decrease, and effort would be reduced (facilitated through an increase in repetitions in reserve). Athletes would generally maintain the same exercise selection during deloading. For athletes that supplemented deloading with additional recovery modalities (n = 118; 48%), the most reported strategies were massage, static stretching and foam rolling. CONCLUSION: Results from this research might assist strength and physique athletes and coaches to plan their deloading. Future research should empirically investigate the findings from this study to further evaluate the potential utility of deloading in strength and physique sports.

Long-Term Time-Course of Strength Adaptation to Minimal Dose Resistance Training Through Retrospective Longitudinal Growth Modeling.

Public health guidelines for resistance training emphasize a minimal effective dose intending for individuals to engage in these behaviors long term. However, few studies have adequately examined the longitudinal time-course of strength adaptations to resistance training. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the time-course of strength development from minimal-dose resistance training in a large sample through retrospective training records from a private international exercise company. Methods: Data were available for analysis from 14,690 participants (60% female; aged 48 ± 11 years) having undergone minimal-dose resistance training (1x/week, single sets to momentary failure of six exercises) up to 352 weeks (~6.8 years) in length. Linear-log growth models examined strength development over time allowing random intercepts and slopes by participant. Results: All models demonstrated a robust linear-log relationship with the first derivatives (i.e., changes in strength with time) trending asymptotically such that by ~1-2 years strength had practically reached a "plateau." Sex, bodyweight, and age had minimal interaction effects. However, substantial strength gains were apparent; approximately ~30-50% gains over the first year reaching ~50-60% of baseline 6 years later. Conclusion: It is unclear if the "plateau" can be overcome through alternative approaches, or whether over the long-term strength gains differ. Considering this, our results support public health recommendations for minimal-dose resistance training for strength adaptations in adults.

Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review.

Regimented resistance training (RT) has been shown to promote increases in muscle size. When engaging in RT, practitioners often emphasize the importance of appropriate exercise technique, especially when trying to maximize training adaptations (e.g., hypertrophy). This narrative review aims to synthesize existing evidence on what constitutes proper RT exercise technique for maximizing muscle hypertrophy, focusing on variables such as exercise-specific kinematics, contraction type, repetition tempo, and range of motion (ROM). We recommend that when trying to maximize hypertrophy, one should employ a ROM that emphasizes training at long muscle lengths while also employing a repetition tempo between 2 and 8 s. More research is needed to determine whether manipulating the duration of either the eccentric or concentric phase further enhances hypertrophy. Guidelines for body positioning and movement patterns are generally based on implied theory from applied anatomy and biomechanics. However, existing research on the impact of manipulating these aspects of exercise technique and their effect on hypertrophy is limited; it is therefore suggested that universal exercise-specific kinematic guidelines are followed and adopted in accordance with the above recommendations. Future research should investigate the impact of stricter versus more lenient exercise technique variations on hypertrophy.

Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing repetitions relative to task failure is an emerging approach to resistance training. Under this approach, participants terminate the set based on their prediction of the remaining repetitions left to task failure. While this approach holds promise, an important step in its development is to determine how accurate participants are in their predictions. That is, what is the difference between the predicted and actual number of repetitions remaining to task failure, which ideally should be as small as possible. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in resistance exercises. DESIGN: Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. SEARCH AND INCLUSION: A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2021 using the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar databases. Inclusion criteria included studies with healthy participants who predicted the number of repetitions they can complete to task failure in various resistance exercises, before or during an ongoing set, which was performed to task failure. Sixteen publications were eligible for inclusion, of which 13 publications covering 12 studies, with a total of 414 participants, were included in our meta-analysis. RESULTS: The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (262 across 12 clusters) revealed that participants tended to underpredict the number of repetitions to task failure by 0.95 repetitions (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-1.73), but with considerable heterogeneity (Q(261) = 3060, p < 0.0001, I2 = 97.9%). Meta-regressions showed that prediction accuracy slightly improved when the predictions were made closer to set failure (ß = - 0.025, 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.0014) and when the number of repetitions performed to task failure was lower (≤ 12 repetitions: ß = 0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.09; > 12 repetitions: ß = 0.47, 95% CI 0.44-0.49). Set number trivially influenced prediction accuracy with slightly increased accuracy in later sets (ß = - 0.07 repetitions, 95% CI - 0.14 to - 0.005). In contrast, participants' training status did not seem to influence prediction accuracy (ß = - 0.006 repetitions, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.007) and neither did the implementation of upper or lower body exercises (upper body - lower body = - 0.58 repetitions; 95% CI - 2.32 to 1.16). Furthermore, there was minimal between-participant variation in predictive accuracy (standard deviation 1.45 repetitions, 95% CI 0.99-2.12). CONCLUSIONS: Participants were imperfect in their ability to predict proximity to task failure independent of their training background. It remains to be determined whether the observed degree of inaccuracy should be considered acceptable. Despite this, prediction accuracies can be improved if they are provided closer to task failure, when using heavier loads, or in later sets. To reduce the heterogeneity between studies, future studies should include a clear and detailed account of how task failure was explained to participants and how it was confirmed.

"You can't shoot another bullet until you've reloaded the gun": Coaches' perceptions, practices and experiences of deloading in strength and physique sports.

Deloading refers to a purposeful reduction in training demand with the intention of enhancing preparedness for successive training cycles. Whilst deloading is a common training practice in strength and physique sports, little is known about how the necessary reduction in training demand should be accomplished. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine current deloading practices in competitive strength and physique sports. Eighteen strength and physique coaches from a range of sports (weightlifting, powerlifting, and bodybuilding) participated in semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences of deloading. The mean duration of coaching experience at ≥ national standard was 10.9 (SD = 3.9) years. Qualitative content analysis identified Three categories: definitions, rationale, and application. Participants conceptualised deloading as a periodic, intentional cycle of reduced training demand designed to facilitate fatigue management, improve recovery, and assist in overall training progression and readiness. There was no single method of deloading; instead, a reduction in training volume (achieved through a reduction in repetitions per set and number of sets per training session) and intensity of effort (increased proximity to failure and/or reduction in relative load) were the most adapted training variables, along with alterations in exercise selection and configuration. Deloading was typically prescribed for a duration of 5 to 7 days and programmed every 4 to 6 weeks, although periodicity was highly variable. Additional findings highlight the underrepresentation of deloading in the published literature, including a lack of a clear operational definition.

Are Trainees Lifting Heavy Enough? Self-Selected Loads in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so. OBJECTIVE: Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM. DESIGN: Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. SEARCH AND INCLUSION: We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants. RESULTS: Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49-58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) = - 0.09 [95% CI - 0.16 to - 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads. CONCLUSIONS: Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5-15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.

The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required for 1RM Strength in Powerlifters.

The aim of this multi-experiment paper was to explore the concept of the minimum effective training dose (METD) required to increase 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) strength in powerlifting (PL) athletes. The METD refers to the least amount of training required to elicit meaningful increases in 1RM strength. A series of five studies utilising mixed methods, were conducted using PL athletes & coaches of all levels in an attempt to better understand the METD for 1RM strength. The studies of this multi-experiment paper are: an interview study with elite PL athletes and highly experienced PL coaches (n = 28), an interview and survey study with PL coaches and PL athletes of all levels (n = 137), two training intervention studies with intermediate-advanced PL athletes (n = 25) and a survey study with competitive PL athletes of different levels (n = 57). PL athletes looking to train with a METD approach can do so by performing ~3-6 working sets of 1-5 repetitions each week, with these sets spread across 1-3 sessions per week per powerlift, using loads above 80% 1RM at a Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) of 7.5-9.5 for 6-12 weeks and expect to gain strength. PL athletes who wish to further minimize their time spent training can perform autoregulated single repetition sets at an RPE of 9-9.5 though they should expect that strength gains will be less likely to be meaningful. However, the addition of 2-3 back-off sets at ~80% of the single repetitions load, may produce greater gains over 6 weeks while following a 2-3-1 squat-bench press-deadlift weekly training frequency. When utilizing accessory exercises in the context of METD, PL athletes typically utilize 1-3 accessory exercises per powerlift, at an RPE in the range of 7-9 and utilize a repetition range of ~6-10 repetitions.