Jacob Rauch, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Christopher I. Barakat, Michael R. Alvarez, David L. Brummert, Daniel W. Aube, Andrew S. Barsuhn, Daniel W. Hayes, Valmor Tricoli, Eduardo Oliveira de Souza
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.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados