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 5 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 & highly experienced PL coaches (n=28), an interview & survey study with PL coaches and PL athletes of all levels (n=137), 2 training intervention studies with intermediateadvanced PL athletes (n=25) & 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 approximately 3-6 working sets of 1-5 repetitions each week, with these sets spread across 1-3 sessions per week per powerlift, using

The present study looked to examine reduced volume ‘daily max’ (near max loads) training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition. Ten competitive powerlifters were split into 2 groups (MAX group and PER group) and participated in a 10-week training intervention either following a “daily max” training protocol or a traditional periodized training protocol while preparing for competition. All participants underwent 1RM testing for squat (SQ), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) prior to the 10-week intervention. The MAX group performed single sets of single repetitions using a load equating to an RPE rating of 9–9.5 while the PER group performed higher volume periodized training with loads ranging from 70%1RM up to 93%1RM as well as a taper at the final weeks of the training intervention. Both groups were tested after the 10-week training intervention at the Greek IPF-affiliate National Championships. In the PER group, powerlifting (PL) total increased for P1 and P3 by 2% and 6.5% respectively while P2 experienced no change. In the MAX group PL total increased for P1 and P2 by 4.8% and 4.2% respectively while it decreased by 0.5%, 3.4% and 5% for P3, P4 and P5 respectively. In the MAX group peri PL total increased for P1–4 by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while it decreased by 1.2% for P5. The results of this pilot study show that single-set, single-rep, RPE based ‘daily max’ training may be a favorable strategy for some beginner-intermediate powerlifters preparing for competition while it may lead to performance decreases for others. Further, it suggests that performance may be comparable to traditional periodized training during shorter training cycles, though future work with larger samples is needed to further test this. Practically ‘daily max’ training may be useful for PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.

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: 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 with PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar in January 2021. 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 taskfailure. Sixteen publications were eligible for inclusion, of which 13 publications that cover 12 studies were included in our meta-analysis with a total of 414 participants. Results: The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (262 across 12 clusters) revealed that participants tended to under predict the number of repetitions to task-failure by 0.95 repetitions (95% CIs= 0.17 to 1.73), but with considerable heterogeneity (Q(261)= 3060, p< 0.0001; I 2 = 97.9%). Meta-regressions showed that prediction accuracy slightly improved when the predictions were made closer to set failure (β= -0.025 [95% CIs= -0.05 to

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.

Objectives:The accepted wisdom within resistance training is that differing loads and corresponding repetition maximum (RM) ranges are optimal for inducing specific adaptations. For example, prominent organizations and their respective publications have typically prescribed heavy loads for maximal strength increases ( ≥ 85% 1RM/ ≤ 6RM), more moderate loads for hypertrophy (67-85% 1RM/6-12RM) and lighter loads for local muscular endurance (LME; ≤ 67% 1RM/ ≥ 12RM). Since we believe these recommendations originate from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of DeLorme's strength-endurance continuum, the aim of this narrative review is to discuss the preponderance of research surrounding training load and strength and LME adaptations. Design & Methods: Narrative ReviewResults: The current body of literature fails to support recommendations for the use of specific loads for specific strength, hypertrophy or LME adaptations. Furthermore, that the strength-endurance continuum originally presented by DeLorme was never intended to compare the use of heavier-and lighter-load resistance training, but rather to consider the adaptations to strength training and aerobically based endurance exercise. Finally, a lack of clarity considering absolute-and relative-LME has confounded understanding of this adaptation. Conclusions:The body of research supports that absolute LME appears to adapt as a result of maximal strength increases.However, relative LME shows minimal response to strength training with either heavier-or lighter-loads. We present the limitations of the current body of research and promote specifically detailed recent research as well as the importance of generality of strength and LME in both sporting and real-world settings.(Journal of Trainology 2020;9:1-8)

Introduction Understanding the impact of lockdown upon resistance training (RT), and how people adapted their RT behaviours, has implications for strategies to maintain engagement in similar positive health behaviours. Further, doing so will provide a baseline for investigation of the long-term effects of these public health measures upon behaviours and perceptions, and facilitate future follow-up study. Objectives To determine how the onset of coronavirus (COVID-19), and associated ‘lockdown’, affected RT behaviours, in addition to motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and intent to continue, in those who regularly performed RT prior to the pandemic. Methods We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study using online surveys in multiple languages (English, Danish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Slovakian, Swedish, and Japanese) distributed across social media platforms and through authors’ professional and personal networks. Adults ( n = 5389; median age = 31 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 25, 38]), previously engaged in RT prior to lockdown (median prior RT experience = 7 years [IQR = 4, 12]) participated. Outcomes were self-reported RT behaviours including: continuation of RT during lockdown, location of RT, purchase of specific equipment for RT, method of training, full-body or split routine, types of training, repetition ranges, exercise number, set volumes (per exercise and muscle group), weekly frequency of training, perception of effort, whether training was planned/recorded, time of day, and training goals. Secondary outcomes included motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and intent to continue RT. Results A majority of individuals (82.8%) maintained participation in RT during-lockdown. Marginal probabilities from generalised linear models and generalised estimating equations for RT behaviours were largely similar from pre- to during-lockdown. There was reduced probability of training in privately owned gyms (~ 59% to ~ 7%) and increased probability of training at home (~ 18% to ~ 89%); greater probability of training using a full-body routine (~ 38% to ~ 51%); reduced probability of resistance machines (~ 66% to ~ 13%) and free weight use (~ 96% to ~ 81%), and increased probability of bodyweight training (~ 62% to ~ 82%); reduced probability of moderate repetition ranges (~ 62–82% to ~ 55–66%) and greater probability of higher repetition ranges (~ 27% to ~ 49%); and moderate reduction in the perception of effort experienced during-training ( r = 0.31). Further, individuals were slightly less likely to plan or record training during lockdown and many changed their training goals. Additionally, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and likelihood of continuing current training were all lower during-lockdown. Conclusions Those engaged in RT prior to lockdown these behaviours with only slig...

Objectives: To determine how the onset of COVID-19, and the associated ‘lockdown’, affected RT behaviours, in addition to motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and intent to continue, in those who regularly performed resistance training RT prior to the pandemic. Design: Observational, cross-sectional. Setting: Online surveys in multiple languages (English, Danish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Slovakian, Swedish, and Japanese) distributed across social media platforms and through authors professional and personal networks. Participants: Adults (n = 5389 after data cleaning; median age = 31 years [IQR = 25, 38]), who were previously engaged in RT prior to lockdown (median prior RT experience = 7 years [IQR = 4, 12]). Main outcomes: Self-reported RT behaviours including: continuation of RT during lockdown, location of RT, purchase of specific equipment for RT, method of training (e.g. alone, supervision etc.), full-body or split routine, types of training, repetition ranges, exercise number, set volumes (per exercise and muscle group), weekly frequency of training, perception of effort, whether training was planned/recorded, time of day, and training goals. Secondary outcomes included motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and intent to continue RT. Results: A majority of individuals (82.8%) maintained participation in some form of RT during- lockdown. Marginal probabilities from generalised linear models and generalised estimating equations of engaging in certain RT behaviours were largely similar from pre- to during- lockdown (particularly numbers of exercises, sets per exercise or muscle group, and weekly frequencies). There was reduced probability of training in privately owned gyms and increased probability of training at home; greater probability of training using a full-body routine; reduced probability of resistance machines use and increased probability of free weight and bodyweight training; reduced probability of moderate repetition ranges and greater probability of higher repetition ranges; and reduction in the perception of effort experienced during- training. Further, individuals were slightly less likely to plan or record training during- lockdown and many changed their training goals as a result of lockdown. Conclusions: Those engaged in RT prior to lockdown appeared mostly able to maintain these behaviours with only slight adaptations in both the location and types of training performed. However, people employed less effort, and motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and likelihood of continuing current training all appeared lower during- lockdown. These results have implications for strategies to maintain engagement in positive health behaviours such as RT during- restrictive pandemic-related public health measures.

Background: Since many people choose to perform resistance training unsupervised, and a lack of supervision within strength training is reported to result in inadequate workout quality, we aimed to compare outcomes for resistance training with and without supervision. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed for performance/functional outcomes and/or body composition measurements. Results: 12 studies were included in the review; 301 and 276 participants were in supervised and unsupervised groups, respectively. The main model for all performance/function effects revealed a small, standardised point estimate favouring SUP (0.28 [95%CI = 0.02 to 0.55]). For sub-grouped outcome types, there was very poor precision of robust estimates for speed, power, function, and endurance. However, for strength there was a moderate effect favouring SUP (0.40 [95%CI = 0.06 to 0.74]). The main model for all body composition effects revealed a trivial standardised point estimate favouring SUP (0.07 [95%CI = -0.01 to 0.15]). Conclusions: Supervised resistance training, compared to unsupervised training, might produce a small effect on increases in performance/function, most likely in strength, but has little impact on body composition outcomes.