The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength. Objective The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength. Methods Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18-40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was reported from each study. Results Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1-29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate. Conclusions Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status.

The Benefits of Strength Training on Musculoskeletal System Health: Practical Applications for Interdisciplinary Care

“…This implies that loads are determined by percentages of 1RM, with testing potentially challenging when working with load compromised patients and/or pain interference. Therefore, the adoption of an auto-regulated approach (AR), which is based on RM training zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and repetitions in reserve (RIR) [216,217], may appear more feasible and clinically advantageous throughout the training cycle. This also accounts for fluctuations in strength capabilities across a training mesocycle [216,218], which can be influenced by the aforementioned multidimensional aspects.…”

“…For clarity of information, example of loading schemes for strength training are depicted in Tables 2. Common subjective and objective variables that contribute to programming and progression decision making are illustrated in [77,122,126,127,176,189,217,225,226]. However, significant changes in musculoskeletal tissues are generally evident after eight to twelve weeks, although some studies observed increases in muscle mass after only 2 to 4 weeks [37].…”

The Bench Press Grip Width Does Not Affect the Number of Repetitions Performed at Different Velocity Loss Thresholds

“…For example, athletes are instructed to perform a fixed number of repetitions (FNR) against a given relative load (e.g., 5 repetitions at 70% of 1RM) or considering the XRM (e.g., 3 repetitions at the 6RM load). However, performing a FNR against the same %1RM may induce different internal responses among individuals while the use of XRM loads may cause excessive fatigue [4]. An alternative approach to prescribe the training volume consists of recording the velocity at which the repetitions are performed [5,6].…”

The Challenges of Collaborative Working: Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice

“…Strength and conditioning programmes within a 'real world', applied setting are often flexible and individualised, with intensities, volumes and exercises adapted on a sessional basis spanning the course of a season or competitive cycle and over a number of years as a form of long-term athlete development. This is in stark contrast with intervention or periodisation-based research studies, where typically participants follow a pre-planned training programme, often without deviation, for 6-12 weeks only (13,14). It is also not uncommon for participants in such studies to be "recreationally active" or "collegiatelevel athletes" recruited from the home institution.…”