Auto-Regulated Exercise Selection Training Regimen Produces Small Increases in Lean Body Mass and Maximal Strength Adaptations in Strength-trained Individuals.

Rauch, JT, Ugrinowitsch, C, Barakat, CI, Alvarez, MR, Brummert, DL, Aube, DW, Barsuhn, AS, Hayes, D, Tricoli, V, and De Souza, EO. Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in highly trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 1133-1140, 2020-The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of auto-regulatory exercise selection (AES) vs. fixed exercise selection (FES) on muscular adaptations in strength-trained individuals. Seventeen men (mean ± SD; age = 24 ± 5.45 years; height = 180.3 ± 7.54 cm, lean body mass [LBM] = 66.44 ± 6.59 kg; squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM): body mass ratio 1.87, 1.38, respectively) were randomly assigned into either AES or FES. Both groups trained 3 times a week for 9 weeks. Auto-regulatory exercise selection self-selected the exercises for each session, whereas FES was required to perform exercises in a fixed order. Lean body mass was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and maximum strength via 1RM testing, pre-, and post-training intervention. Total volume load was significantly higher for AES than for FES (AES: 573,288 ± 67,505 kg; FES: 464,600 ± 95,595 kg, p = 0.0240). For LBM, there was a significant main time effect (p = 0.009). However, confidence interval analysis (95% CIdiff) suggested that only AES significantly increased LBM (AES: 2.47%, effect size [ES]: 0.35, 95% CIdiff [0.030-3.197 kg]; FES: 1.37%, ES: 0.21, 95% CIdiff [-0.500 to 2.475 kg]). There was a significant main time effect for maximum strength (p ≤ 0.0001). However, 95% CIdiff suggested that only AES significantly improved bench press 1RM (AES: 6.48%, ES: 0.50, 95% CIdiff [0.312-11.42 kg]; FES: 5.14%, ES: 0.43, 95% CIdiff [-0.311 to 11.42 kg]). However for back squat 1RM, similar responses were observed between groups (AES: 9.55%, ES: 0.76, 95% CIdiff [0.04-28.37 kg]; FES: 11.54%, ES: 0.80, 95% CIdiff [1.8-28.5 kg]). Our findings suggest that AES may provide a small advantage in LBM and upper body maximal strength in strength-trained individuals.

Different Patterns in Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations in Untrained Individuals Undergoing Nonperiodized and Periodized Strength Regimens.

De Souza, EO, Tricoli, V, Rauch, J, Alvarez, MR, Laurentino, G, Aihara, AY, Cardoso, FN, Roschel, H, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Different patterns in muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations in untrained individuals undergoing non-periodized and periodized strength regimens. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1238-1244, 2018-This study investigated the effects of nonperiodized (NP), traditional periodization (TP), and daily undulating periodization (UP) regimens on muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained individuals. Thirty-three recreationally active males were randomly divided into 4 groups: NP: n = 8; TP: n = 9; UP: n = 8, and control group (C): n = 8. Experimental groups underwent a 12-week strength training program consisting of 2 sessions per week. Muscle strength and quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks (i.e., mid-point) and after 12 weeks. All training groups increased squat 1RM from pre to 6 weeks mid (NP: 17.02%, TP: 7.7%, and UP: 12.9%, p ≤ 0.002) and pre to post 12 weeks (NP: 19.5%, TP: 17.9%, and UP: 20.4%, p ≤ 0.0001). Traditional periodization was the only group that increased squat 1RM from 6 weeks mid to 12-week period (9.4%, p ≤ 0.008). All training groups increased QCSA from pre to 6 weeks mid (NP: 5.1%, TP: 4.6%, and UP: 5.3%, p ≤ 0.0006) and from pre to post 12 weeks (NP: 8.1%, TP: 11.3%, and UP: 8.7%, p ≤ 0.0001). From 6 weeks mid to 12-week period, TP and UP were the only groups that increased QCSA (6.4 and 3.7%, p ≤ 0.02). There were no significant changes for all dependent variables in C group across the time (p ≥ 0.05). In conclusion, our results demonstrated similar training-induced adaptations after 12 weeks of NP and periodized regimens. However, our findings suggest that in the latter half of the study (i.e., after the initial 6 weeks), the periodized regimens elicited greater rates of muscular adaptations compared with NP regimens. Strength coaches and practitioners should be aware that periodized regimens might be advantageous at latter stages of training even for untrained individuals.