Auto-regulation superior to linear periodization

[Neal Winkler]

J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print]

The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise vs. Linear Periodization on Strength Improvement in College Athletes.

Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP.

1Department of Athletic Performance, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri; 2Research Service, Harry S. Truman VA Hospital, Departments of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology and Internal Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri; and 3Neuromuscular Research and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Abstract

Mann, JB, Thyfault, JP, Ivey, PA, and Sayers, SP. The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 24(x): 000-000, 2010-Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) is a method by which athletes increase strength by progressing at their own pace based on daily and weekly variations in performance, unlike traditional linear periodization (LP), where there is a set increase in intensity from week to week. This study examined whether 6 weeks of APRE was more effective at improving strength compared with traditional LP in division I College football players. We compared 23 division 1 collegiate football players (2.65 +/- 0.8 training years) who were trained using either APRE (n = 12) or LP (n = 11) during 6 weeks of preseason training in 2 separate years. After 6 weeks of training, improvements in total bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, and repeated 225-lb bench press repetitions were compared between the APRE and LP protocol groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical significance was accepted at p = 0.05. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise demonstrated greater improvement in 1RM bench press strength (APRE: 93.4 +/- 103 N vs. LP: -0.40 +/- 49.6 N; ANCOVA: F = 7.1, p = 0.02), estimated 1RM squat strength (APRE: 192.7 +/- 199 N vs. LP: 37.2 +/- 155 N; ANOVA: F = 4.1, p = 0.05) and the number of repetitions performed at a weight of 225 lb (APRE: 3.17 +/- 2.86 vs. LP: -0.09 +/- 2.40 repetitions; ANCOVA: F = 6.8, p = 0.02) compared with the LP group over the 6-week training period. Our findings indicate that the APRE was more effective than the LP means of programming in increasing the bench press and squat over a period of 6 weeks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20543732

[Seiji]

So in a 6 week period, there was a .05 differential in strength gains from auto regulation against LP...

That's actually great to hear because I've never had a set work out that stayed on for more than two weeks at a time It would explain quite a few things as to why I make strength gains without "working out".

To make more drastic measurements... Theoretically:

6 weeks = .05

12 weeks = .1

1 year = .43

You would be making very drastic strength gains compared to a person on a set routine if the differential never goes down. In two years, you would have almost double the strength gains of the guy using linear periodization who started out with the same # as you.

Those are some pretty shocking test results... Thank you for sharing this.

[Neal Winkler]

No, on all counts.

.05 is not the difference between the two, but means that there is only a 5% chance the result is random and not do to an actual effect of the treatment group. Two of the measures had statistical significance of .02, which according to your usage would mean a smaller difference between the two but actually means the difference was bigger compared to .05.

Autoregulation does not mean you do anything that you feel like , it means that you select a weight/reps/sets based on how you "feel" that day (a planned RPE), instead of sticking to a certain % based on a previously tested max (traditional linear programming). Autoregulation is still a plan.

Mike Tuchscherer is famous for this with his Reactive Training.

http://www.reactivetrainingsystems.com/

[JL]

At first glance, I thought it was interesting. Then, I just started having a hard time believing the results were not due to some poor protocol used for linear periodization. The bench press gaining nothing makes very little sense at all if the program was constructed for strength gains. I have read numerous studies on linear vs. various forms of undulating, and overall, the difference is found to be small. Some found DUP to be head and shoulder above linear, and other have found no appreciable difference.

A while ago, I believe a researcher by the name of Rhea found through a meta-analysis that an average intensity of 80% of 1 RM was leaps and bounds above any other intensity. Some contested the validity of it, because it suggested that someone who trains with 75% or 85% would be at a substantial disadvantage. Another researcher suggested there is no known physiological response which would suggest a sizeable difference between small amounts in intensity changes. Take into consideration that most people's strength doesn't vary by more than rep or two from workout to workout, and that equates to about a 2-5% strength difference. To be valid, it would have to suggest Rhea was onto something, and that 80% is the magic bullseye we need to seek every workout. Maybe, but I'm not convinced, yet. I would bet the linear periodization group was severely disadvantaged through volume, intensity, and frequency prescriptions.

[Seiji]

All right. Glad to get it straight, thanks. I took this completely the wrong way

[braindx]

The problem with autoregulation is two fold:

1. There is a subset of people who workout who are always overdo things. Put them on an autoregulation schedule, and they're going to ground themselves into a big overreaching deficit.

2. Similarly, with chronic undertrainers.. People who are just going to get by.

Without seeing the protocol they actually used you can't really tell how well or effective it is. Was this in season? OUt of season? What kind of sets/repetitions did they use?

What if the periodization was BETTER but there was not enough rest time between the testing and the dissipation of fatigue to show the results? What if there was too much rest time?

It's a very difficult question to answer what is superior to what in programming within a more concerted look at greater numbers of athletes. And of course factors can change depending on the sport, and how much sports specific practic work people must do to perform their sport well.

The biggest mistake I see from jus the abstract is.... linear periodization is not going to work effectively for athletes who have likely >10-15 years of training under their belt as there has been more effective methods used since it was first employed by the russians way back when. It would've been more effective to compare some of the more modern periodization protocols, depending on the state of inseason or out of season and how much practice there is for the athletes.