Three weeks of Autoregulation training

increases the Load-Velocity, -RPE and

-RIR relationships
in experienced athletes

Romagnoli R. 1, Lecce E. 1 , Piacentini M.F. 1,2

1 Universityof Rome Foro Italico, Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, Rome, Italy;
2 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Human Physiology and Sports Medicine, Brussels, Belgium

r.romagnoli2@studenti.uniroma4.it
 INTRODUCTION
AUTOREGULATION
METHOD

VBT VL RPE RIR

VBT=Velocity-Based Training

OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE VL= Velocity Loss

INTENSITY INTENSITY
PRESCRIPTIONS PRESCRIPTIONS RPE= Rating of Perceived Exertion
Shattock, K., & Tee, J. (2020). Autoregulation in resistance training: a comparison of subjective versus objective
methods. Journal of strength and conditioning research.
RIR= Repetitions in Reserve
 INTRODUCTION

 The accuracy of the subjective parameters, and in particular the prediction of

RIR, are influenced by the degree of experience of the subjects (Helms, 2016).

This study aimed to assess changes in the relationship between

%1-RM and AR parameters after 3-weeks of AR-training.

1. Helms, E. R., Cronin, J., Storey, A., & Zourdos, M. C. (2016). Application of the repetitions in reserve-based
rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and conditioning journal, 38(4), 42.
 SUBJECTS

HEIGHT BW  Seven competitive sprinters and

ID AGE
(cm) (Kg) hurdlers (M=5, F=2) with experience
1 28 190 86,5 in Resistance Training
2 21 183 76,5
3 21 173 53  Age= 23,3 ± 3 years;
4 28 174 63  Body mass= 68,5 ± 8,8 kg;
5 23 184 69  Height= 178,9 ± 5,8 cm
6 27 172 68
7 22 180 70
AVERAGE 24,2±3,2 179,4±6,7 69,4±10,4
 PROCEDURES

 Before (Pre-Test) and after (Post-Test) 3-weeks of AR-training (2-days a week) based on
mean propulsive velocity (MPV), RPE and RIR, athletes were asked to perform a half-
squat incremental test on the Smith machine at four incremental loads.

 Bar Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV) measured with a linear position transducer (Vitruve,
SPEED4LIFTS S.L., Madrid-Spain), RPE (OMNI-RES) and RIR were recorded
 METHODS AND DATA
ANALYSIS

The goodness of fit of the load-velocity, load-RPE, and load-RIR

relationships was assessed by

 the Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)

 and the standard error of the estimate (SEE).
 METHODS AND DATA
ANALYSIS
Pre-Test Post-Test
Load % MPV Load % MPV
ID RPE RIR ID RPE RIR
(Kg) 1RM (m/s) (Kg) 1RM (m/s)
71 40% 1,07 3 3 91 40% 1,19 3 11
91 50% 0,91 5 3 111 49% 1,04 4 6
1 121 67% 0,8 8 1,5
1 151 65% 8 4
0,88
141 77% 0,7 9,5 1 171 75% 0,77 8 4
71 38% 1,09 3 5 71 38% 1,14 3 10
91 48% 0,92 4 3 91 50% 0,87 4 8,5
2 121 65% 0,8 8 2
2 121 65% 5 7
0,77
141 76% 0,68 9 2 151 80% 0,63 8 3
41 42% 0,86 3 6 61 48% 0,8 5 4
61 59% 0,74 5 4 81 66% 0,7 7 4
3 81 77% 0,64 6 3
3 91 73% 8 2
0,68
91 89% 0,53 9 2 101 80% 0,58 9 2
41 33% 1,05 3 6 61 37% 1,05 3 7
61 47% 0,97 5 3 81 49% 0,9 6 4
4 81 62% 0,94 7,5 2,5
4 111 67% 9 2
0,81
91 70% 0,76 9,5 1 126 75% 0,68 9 1
71 44% 0,99 3 10 71 40% 1,08 3 11
91 56% 0,92 5 6 91 49% 0,94 5 9
5 121 77% 0,74 7,5 5
5 131 73% 7 2
0,75
141 88% 0,64 9 1 151 81% 0,51 8 1
71 37% 1,17 1 10 71 38% 1,1 3 7
91 48% 1,08 3 8 91 49% 0,95 4 7
6 121 64% 0,92 4 6
6 131 70% 6 3
0,78
141 74% 0,8 7 2 151 80% 0,63 9 2
71 36% 1,41 2,5 17,5 71 37% 0,99 3 11
91 47% 1,23 3,5 13 91 48% 0,87 4,5 8,5
7 7
Table 1 121
141
61%
72%
0,94
0,85
6
7
10
9
111
131
59%
70%
0,86 6
6
6,5
5,5
Table 2
0,73
 METHODS AND DATA
ANALYSIS
Esteem of 1RM Percentage (1RM%):
 0,33 m· s-1 ±0,03 m· s-1 (F. Conceicao et al. 2016) as MPV at 1RM
 Then, we have 4 bouts’MPV per athlete and a regression line (with formula)
 We finally used the resultant formula to esteem MPV to %MPV and load to MPV

Following this process, we can find:

 1RM (as a result of 1RM-MPV substitution)
 %1RM to work-load
 MPV for training zone
 Load-Velocity
PRE-TEST - MPV
1,6 r2= - 0,836
1,4
SEE= 0,10
1,2

1
MPV (m/s)

0,8
POST-TEST - MPV
0,6 1,6 r2= - 0,919
0,4 1,4 SEE= 0,07
0,2 1,2

0 1

MPV (m/s)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0,8
%-1RM
0,6
Figure 1
0,4

0,2

Figure 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

%-1RM
60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
 Load-RPE
PRE-TEST - RPE
10
9
8
7
6
RPE

5
POST-TEST - RPE
4
10
3
9
2
r2= 0,890 8
1
SEE= 1,14 7
0
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

RPE
%-1RM 5
4
Figure 3 3
2
1
r2= 0,922
0
SEE= 0,86
Figure 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
%-1RM
 Load-RIR
PRE-TEST - RIR
r2= - 0,523
18
SEE= 3,47
16

14

12

10 POST-TEST - RIR r2= - 0,847

RIR

18
8 SEE= 1,73
6 16

4 14

2
12

10
0

RIR
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8
%-1RM
6
Figure 5 4

0
Figure 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
%-1RM
 RESULTS
During Pre-Test:
 velocity (r= -0,836, p <0,001, SEE= 0,10), RPE (r= 0,890, p <0,001, SEE= 1,14) and RIR
(r= -0,523, p <0,01, SEE= 3,47) were moderately to strongly related to relative load.

During Post-Test:
 velocity (r= -0,919, p< 0,001, SEE= 0,07), RPE (r= 0,922, p< 0,001, SEE= 0,86) and RIR
(r= -0,847, p <0,01, SEE= 1,73) were strongly to very strongly related to relative load.

Pre-Test Post-Test Table 3

r2 SEE r2 SEE

%1RM-MPV - 0,836 0,10 - 0,919 0,07

%1RM – RPE 0,890 1,14 0,922 0,86

%1RM - RIR - 0,523 3,47 - 0,847 1,73

 CONCLUSIONS
 Although it has been already shown that experience in RT increases the accuracy
in utilizing the RIR-method (Helms, 2016)

the results of the present study demonstrate that even

experienced athletes have to be trained to use RIR as an
accurate method to predict relative load.

Helms, E. R., Cronin, J., Storey, A., & Zourdos, M. C. (2016).

Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training.
Strength and conditioning journal, 38(4), 42.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

© Romagnoli R.
r.romagnoli2@studenti.uniroma4.it