The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review
Open Access
- 11 December 2019
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Sports Medicine
- Vol. 50 (5), 919-938
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01241-3
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.This publication has 76 references indexed in Scilit:
- Strength training reduces intracortical inhibitionActa Physiologica, 2012
- Effect of Different Pushing Speeds on Bench PressInternational Journal of Sports Medicine, 2012
- Using the load-velocity relationship for 1RM predictionJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2011
- Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity in Resistance TrainingInternational Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- Accuracy of Prediction Equations for Determining One Repetition Maximum Bench Press in Women Before and After Resistance TrainingJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2008
- Relationship Between the Number of Repetitions and Selected Percentages of One Repetition Maximum in Free Weight Exercises in Trained and Untrained MenJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2006
- Designing Resistance Training Programmes to Enhance Muscular FitnessSports Medicine, 2005
- Short-Term Effects on Lower-Body Functional Power Development: Weightlifting vs. Vertical Jump Training ProgramsJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2005
- The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre AdaptationsSports Medicine, 2004
- Monitoring Exercise Intensity During Resistance Training Using the Session RPE ScaleJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2004