Original Research

Autoregulation Does Not Provide Additional

Benefits to a Mixed Session Periodized Resistance
Training Program in Trained Men
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Sandro Bartolomei,1 Laterza Francesco,1 Davide Latini,1 and Jay R. Hoffman2

1
Department for Life Quality Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; and 2Department of Physical Therapy, Ariel University, Ariel,
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

Israel

Abstract
Bartolomei, S, Francesco, L, Latini, D, and Hoffman, JR. Autoregulation does not provide additional benefits to a mixed session
periodized resistance training program in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 38(9): 1535–1542, 2024—The aim of this investigation
was to study how autoregulation impacted training volume, performance, and muscle size on a 10-week mixed session periodized
(MSP) resistance training program, characterized by the inclusion of different training foci in each session. Twenty-four resistance
trained men were assigned to an autoregulated mixed session periodized (AMSP group; n 5 13; age 5 26.2 6 4.9 y; body mass 5
82.0 6 8.7 kg; height 5 176.8 6 6.0 cm) or into an MSP (n 5 11; age 5 24.0 6 2.6; body mass 5 81.3 6 10.5 kg; height 5 174.0 6
5.4 cm) group. Subjects in both groups trained 5 days per week for 10 weeks and performed the same exercises. The difference
between the groups consisted in the use of a perceived recovery-based scale to adjust the individual training volume in the AMSP
program. Maximal strength (bench press and squat 1 repetition maximum), power (bench press throw and countermovement
jump), and muscle architecture (muscle thickness [MT] of biceps brachii, trapezius, vastus lateralis and vastus medialis) were
collected before and after the 10-week training period. In addition, training volume and session load were calculated for each
training session. A higher total training volume (p , 0.001) was seen in AMSP program compared with MSP program, but no
differences (p . 0.05) were noted in the average session load. No significant differences between the groups were detected for MT
of both upper-body and lower-body muscles (p’s . 0.05) and lean body mass (p 5 0.681). No significant differences between the
groups were detected for any strength or power measurements. Results of this study indicate that a perceived recovery-based
AMSP training program was not more effective than an MSP training program for increasing muscle size and performance in
resistance trained men.
Key Words: strength training, periodization, muscle hypertrophy, power

Introduction compared with a regular daily undulating approach (9). A limita-

tion of this approach is the absence of sequencing and phase po-
Autoregulation is referred to as a purposeful adjustment of training
tentiation, concepts that are fundaments of other training
loads in accordance with measurements of the individual’s per-
paradigms (e.g., block periodization) (26).
formance or perceived ability to perform (19). The first attempts to
In 2011, a perceived recovery scale developed by Laurent et al.
adjust the training load based on weekly performance were pro-
(18) showed a high level of agreement with changes in sprint
posed by DeLorme in 1945 (10). More recently, the use of tests or
performance after repeated runs, in trained individuals. This
self-reported scales evaluating the individual’s perceived perfor-
authors (18) reported a high level of agreement between the
mance capability at the beginning of the training session has been
defined as the meta-session autoregulation method (13). This perceived recovery scale and blood lactate concentration, per-
method requires the use of a perceptual based rating scale to adjust ceived exertion and session rate of perceived exertion (RPE) fol-
the training load for the session (15). Some authors proposed lowing 4 bouts of intermittent sprint. In addition, the level of
a meta-session autoregulation whereby the individual selects either perceived recovery showed a moderate correlation (r 5 20.63)
a hypertrophy or strength- or power-oriented workout depending with the change in sprint performance (18).
on their fatigue rating (9,22). This approach has also been defined Because recovery represents a crucial factor to optimize adapta-
as nonlinear or flexible daily undulating periodization (22) and was tions in resistance training (7,16), this strategy may be applied to
characterized by a specific target in each workout (28). However, a flexible periodization approach to adjust training volume within
these authors reported similar improvements in maximal strength each workout. The rationale is that a reduction in training volume in
following 9 weeks of flexible DUP resistance training program correspondence of a poor physical recovery may avoid non-
functional overreaching and chronic overtraining (17). This per-
Address correspondence to Sandro Bartolomei, sandro.bartolomei@unibo.it.
ceived recovery-based approach differs by other forms of meta-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 38(9)/1535–1542 session autoregulation previously used in experimental studies. In
Copyright ª 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf this approach, the sequence of the training stimuli within each
of the National Strength and Conditioning Association.. This is an open access
article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY),
workout or during the training week are not influenced by the in-
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, dividual perceived recovery status, but the number of sets, and
provided the original work is properly cited. consequently the training volume, is adjusted. Because recovery

1535
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9

represents a key factor for training periodization and excessive fa- recovery scale (18). The subjects were given standardized
tigue may lead to suboptimal adaptations, a perceived recovery- instructions explaining the use of the perceived recovery scale:
based regulation of training volume may enhance training efficiency. a 0–10 representation of the different conditions of individual’s
Recently, mixed session periodized (MSP) resistance training recovery. The subjects were asked to draw a line in correspon-
programs have become popular among strength and power ath- dence of the appropriate number that best described their per-
letes, and some authors have supported the effectiveness of this ceived level of recovery. The evaluation of the perceived recovery
approach for maximal strength and hypertrophy development status was performed at the beginning of each training session,
(5). Because no studies to date have applied a perceived recovery before starting the warm-up.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

strategy to a resistance exercise program, the aim of this study was

to compare the effects of a recovery-based autoregulated mixed
session periodized (AMSP) program to a regular MSP program on Resistance Training Programs
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

maximal strength, power, and muscle hypertrophy in resistance

The 10-week resistance training program for both AMSP and
trained men. It is hypothesized that a recovery-based approach
MSP can be observed in Table 1. All subjects exercised 5 days per
may optimize adaptations by managing fatigue and reducing
week. The difference between the training programs consisted in
suboptimal adaptations during the training period.
the use of the perceived recovery scale to adjust the training vol-
ume within each training session in AMSP. Subjects in MSP were
Methods asked to follow the training program without any changes in the
number of sets. In both the AMSP and MSP groups, the resistance
Experimental Approach to the Problem used for each exercise was selected by the repetitions in reserve
Subjects in this study were assigned to either an AMSP resistance (RIR) method. Thus, intensity was selected as the load allowing to
training program or an MSP training group and trained for perform the requested number of repetitions without reaching
10 weeks using the same resistance exercises. The difference be- volitional failure and to observe the suggested number of
tween the 2 training programs consisted in the adjustment of the RIR (30).
training volume based on the individual perceived recovery status. Both AMSP and MSP training programs consisted of resistance
This strategy was adopted in AMSP group only. Each training workouts progressing from power exercises performed at
program included 5 resistance training sessions per week, and a moderate load with maximum explosive intent, to high-
subjects were asked to complete at least 95% of the total number of intensity exercises, and to high-volume moderate-intensity exer-
workouts provided. Subjects were assessed for body composition, cises within the same training session. In AMSP, training volume
muscle architecture, strength, and power performance before was adjusted based on the individual’s level of perceived recovery
(PRE) and at 96 hours following the last training session (POST). status. The number of sets performed for each exercise was ad-
They were also asked to record the session rate of perceived exer- justed based on the individual perceived recovery score, as
tion (sRPE) following each workout. Based on previous data (3), reported in Figure 1. Power exercises (jumps, throws) performed
the estimated sample size was 11 in each group, to detect a between- at the beginning of each training session were not influenced by
group difference of 7.2 and 12.1 kg in the 1-repetition maximum perceived recovery scores. Subjects recorded all workouts in
(1RM) bench press and squat, respectively, with a power of 0.80. a logbook, which was collected by the investigators after each
This analysis was performed using the G*POWER 3 software. workout. The training sessions were supervised by the study
investigators, and a standardized warm-up was performed before
each workout and assessment session.
Subjects
Twenty-four experienced resistance-trained men who trained for
a minimum of 3 times per week for at least the previous 3 years Strength and Power Testing
(mean 6 SD; 7.0 6 4.5 years) participated in this study. Inclusion Before performance assessments, subjects performed a standard-
criteria required subjects to bench press at least 1.2 times their ized warm-up consisting of 5 min on a cycle ergometer against
body mass (average 1.42 and 1.38 in AMSP and MSP) and squat a light resistance, 10 body mass squats, 10 body mass walking
at least 1.3 times the body mass (1.86 and 1.78 in AMSP and lunges, 10 dynamic walking hamstring stretches, and 10 dynamic
MSP). Twelve of the subjects were strength and power athletes walking quadriceps stretches (2). The 1RM test for the barbell
competing in powerlifting (n 5 3), weightlifting (n 5 2), and bench press was performed using methods previously described
wrestling (n 5 4) events. Subjects were recruited from university by Bartolomei et al. (4). Briefly, each subject performed 2 warm-
sport science classes and among gym goers. The MSP group in- up sets using a resistance of approximately 40–60% and 60–80%
cluded 11 subjects (age 5 24.0 6 2.6 years; body mass 5 81.3 6 of his perceived maximum, respectively. For each exercise, 3–4
10.5 kg; height 5 174.0 6 5.4 cm), and the AMSP group was subsequent trials were performed to determine the 1RM. A 3- to
composed of 13 subjects (age 5 26.2 6 4.9 years; body mass 5 5-minute rest period was provided between each trial. Trials not
82.0 6 8.7 kg; height 5 176.8 6 6.0 cm). All subjects were meeting the range of motion criteria for each exercise or where
between 18 and 35 years and signed an informed consent docu- technique was not appropriate were discarded. During all other
ment after being informed about the potential risks. The study visits, the same standardized warm-up, as described above, was
received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the repeated. During each visit, subjects were required to perform
University of Bologna (Protocol n. 0025317 of 2/2/2023). a bench press throw test and an isometric bench press test. The
bench press throw test was performed using a Smith machine as
previously described by Bartolomei et al. (4). Subjects were re-
Perceived Recovery Scale
quired to perform the exercise from a supine position with the bar
Subjects in AMSP were asked to evaluate their recovery status at on their chest. They were instructed to push as explosively as
the beginning of each training session, using a validated perceived possible until complete extension of the arms and to throw the bar

1536
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9 | www.nsca.com

Table 1
Training program for the MSP and AMSP groups.*†
Training day: 1 2 3 4 5
Bench press throw (5 sets of 5 Box jump (4 sets of 5 jumps, R: Barbell seal row (4 sets of 5, 50% Barbell high pull (4 sets of 5, RIR Box jump (4 sets of 5 jumps, R:
reps at 30% 1RM, R: 120 s, MEI) 120 s, MEI) 1RM, R: 150 s, MEI) 5, R:150, MEI) 120 s, MEI)
Parallel squat (5 sets of 3, RIR 2, R: Bench press (5 sets of 3 reps, RIR Barbell seal row (5 sets of 3 reps, Inclined bench press (5 sets of 3, Deadlift (5 sets of 3, RIR 2, R: 150
120 s) 2, R: 150 s) RIR 2, R: 150 s) RIR 2, R 150 s) s)
Leg extension (4 sets of 10, RIR1, Dumbbells bench press (4 sets of Pull-ups (4 sets of 10 reps. R 90 s) Military press (4 sets of 10, RIR 1, Deep squat (4 sets of 10 reps, RIR
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

R: 60 s) 10 reps, RIR 1, R: 90 s) R: 90) 1, R: 90 s)

Leg curl (4 sets of 10, RIR 1, R 60 Dumbbell fly (4 sets of 10 reps, RIR Lat machine (4 sets of 10 reps, RIR Lateral raise (4 sets of 10, RIR 1, Leg extension (4 sets of 10 reps,
s) 1, R: 90 s) 1, R: 90 s) R: 90 s) RIR 1, R: 90 s)
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

Standing calf rise (4 sets of 10, Cable triceps extension (4 sets of Cable pulley row (4 sets of 10, RIR Front raise (4 sets of 10, RIR 1, R: Standing calf raise (4 sets of 10
RIR1, R: 60 s) 10 reps, RIR 1, R: 60 s) 1, R: 90 s) 90 s) reps, RIR 1, R: 60 s)
Barbell standing biceps curl (4 sets
of 10, RIR 1, R: 60 s)
*MEI 5 maximum explosive intent; R 5 recovery time; RIR 5 repetition in reserve.
†High-intensity exercises focused on maximal strength are written in bold, whereas high-volume exercises focused on muscle hypertrophy are written in italics.

as high as possible. Two spotters were placed at each side of the machine (3). All leg extension assessments were conducted fol-
Smith machine to decelerate the bar during descending phase. lowing the CMJ test. Subjects were secured with adjustable straps
Subjects pressed loads corresponding to 30% of their 1RM. Two to the leg extension machine with hip and knee joint angles at 90°
trials were performed with a recovery time of 3 minutes. During (full extension 5 180°). Joint angles were measured using a go-
all repetitions, an optical encoder (Tendo Unit model V104, niometer while the subject was seated and stabilized to the device,
Tendo Sports Machines, Trencin, Slovak Republic) measured the with the right leg attached to the lever arm. A strength gauge
mean power expressed by the subjects. Intraclass coefficient for (Ergo Tester, Globus Inc., Codogne, Italy) was attached to the end
bench press throw was 0.96 (SEM: 17.5 w). of the lever arm and perpendicular to it. The lever arm was at-
The isometric bench press assessment was also performed us- tached to the leg at 15% of tibial length above the medial mal-
ing a power rack that permitted fixation of the bar. The bench was leolus. All isometric assessments were performed using the same
positioned over a force plate (Kistler 9260, 500 Hz, Winterthur, setting and positioning. Subjects were asked to press against the
Switzerland). Subjects were required to position themselves on the lever arm as hard as possible for 5 seconds. Each subject per-
bench with their arms at 90° of elbow flexion, and they were not formed 2 isometric leg extension attempts, and a recovery time of
permitted to position their feet on the ground. Elbow angle and 2 minutes was provided between each attempt. The peak force
grip width were measured to reproduce the same position for all generated for each attempt was recorded and used for subsequent
testing sessions. Subjects were asked to press against the bar as analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.93
hard as possible for 6 seconds. The force expressed against the bar (SEM: 89.5 N) and 0.88 (SEM: 95.2 N) for isometric leg exten-
was transmitted by the bench to the force plate, and the peak force sion and isometric bench press, respectively.
was registered. Two isometric bench press attempts were per-
formed with recovery time of 3 minutes between each attempt,
and peak force was measured. During all isometric and ballistic
measurements, subjects were verbally encouraged by the study
Table 3
investigators. An isometric leg extension assessment was also
Anthropometric and muscle architecture measurements before
performed using a custom-built instrumented leg extension
and after the training period in both mixed session and
autoregulated mixed session groups.*
Group ►
Table 2
Assessment Time ▼ MSP AMSP
Performance parameters evaluated before and after the training
period in both mixed session and autoregulated mixed session Body mass (kg) PRE 81.3 6 10.5 82.0 6 8.7
periodized groups.* POST 83.5 6 10.2 83.6 6 9.4
Fat-free mass (kg) PRE 70.5 6 5.7 73.1 6 7.3
Group ► POST 72.4 6 5.7 75.4 6 6.9
Assessment Time ▼ MSP AMSP Fat mass (%) PRE 12.7 6 5.1 11.0 6 2.5
1RM bench press (kg) PRE 112.4 6 15.7 111.7 6 21.6 POST 12.8 6 5.0 10.7 6 2.5
POST 121.7 6 14.4 118.3 6 22.2 PecMT (mm) PRE 2.31 6 0.40 2.32 6 0.33
1RM squat (kg) PRE 143.6 6 23.3 152.7 6 41.1 POST 2.55 6 0.26 2.63 6 0.39
POST 158.4 6 20.1 167.7 6 37.9 TrapMT (mm) PRE 1.41 6 0.21 1.64 6 0.36
Bench press throw (W) PRE 469.6 6 43.0 495.2 6 86.9 POST 1.49 6 0.22 1.76 6 0.38
POST 478.7 6 49.8 497.9 6 98.0 BicMT (mm) PRE 3.61 6 0.66 4.04 6 0.62
CMJ (cm) PRE 41.8 6 8.1 43.4 6 6.1 POST 4.08 6 0.59 4.21 6 0.49
POST 42.4 6 7.7 46.0 6 7.7 VLMT (mm) PRE 1.95 6 0.41 1.69 6 0.25
ISO bench press (N) PRE 1,537.5 6 319.8 1,345.8 6 238.7 POST 2.13 6 0.55 1.79 6 0.27
POST 1,545.5 6 321.5 1,466.9 6 259.2 VMMT (mm) PRE 3.01 6 0.58 3.44 6 0.24
ISO leg extension (N) PRE 421.4 6 67.2 432.7 6 62.2 POST 3.24 6 0.62 3.59 6 0.49
POST 432.7 6 62.2 439.3 6 99.7
*AMSP 5 autoregulated mixed session periodized; BicMT 5 biceps brachii muscle thickness; MSP
*AMSP 5 autoregulated mixed session periodized; CMJ 5 countermovement jump; ISO 5 5 mixed session periodized; PecMT 5 pectoral muscle thickness; TrapMT 5 trapezius muscle
isometric; MSP 5 mixed session periodized; 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum. thickness.

1537
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

Figure 1. Daily variations in the autoregulated MSP (AMSP) training program based on perceived
recovery status scale. (Adapted from Laurent (18).

Ultrasonography Measurements and Body Composition (6). The landmark for VM was positioned on the muscle belly at
22% of the distance between the upper edge of the patella and the
Noninvasive skeletal muscle ultrasound images were collected
from the subject’s right side. Before image collection, all ana- superior iliac spine (8). The landmark for the TR was identified as
tomical locations of interest were identified using standardized the midpoint of the muscle belly between T1 and the posterior
landmarks for the pectoralis major muscle (Pec), the vastus lat- acromial edge, where the muscle borders were parallel (24). The
eralis muscle (VL), the vastus medialis muscle (VM), the superior landmark for the Bic was identified on the anterior surfaces at
part of trapezius muscle (TR), and the bicep brachii muscle (Bic). 60% of the upper arm length (the distance from the acromion
Pectoralis muscle thickness (PecMT) was measured at the site process of the scapular to the lateral epicondyle of the humerus)
between the third and fourth costa under the clavicle midpoint (23). Subjects were asked to lie on the examination table for
(1). The VL MT was measured along its longitudinal distance at a minimum of 15 minutes before images were collected. The same
50% from the lateral condyle of the tibia to the most prominent investigator performed all landmark measurements for each
point of the great trochanter of the femur, with the knee bent 10° subject.

Figure 2. Changes in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) from PRE to POST the training period in MSP and AMSP groups.

1538
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9 | www.nsca.com
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

Figure 3. Changes in isometric force from PRE to POST the training period in MSP and AMSP groups. ISO: isometric.

A 12 MHz linear probe scanning head (Echo Wave 2, Telemed panoramic pictures of the VL. During the measurements, subjects
Ultrasound Medical System, Milan, Italy) was coated with water were asked to relax their arm and pectoral muscles and maintain
soluble transmission gel to optimize spatial resolution and used to the supine decubitus position. All ultrasound images were taken
collect all ultrasound images. The probe was positioned on the and analyzed by the same technician. Muscle thickness (MT)
surface of the skin without depressing the dermal layer, and the measures were obtained using a longitudinal B-mode image.
view mode (gain 5 50 dB; image depth 5 5 cm) was used to take Three consecutive MT images were captured and analyzed for

Figure 4. Changes in muscle architecture measures from PRE to POST the training period in MSP and AMSP groups. MT:
muscle thickness; Pec: pectoral; Trap: trapezius; Bic: biceps; VL: vastus lateralis; VM: vastus medialis.

1539
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9

each muscle. For each image, MT was measured with a single press throw (F 5 0.396; p 5 0.536; h2 5 0.018), and CMJ (F 5
perpendicular line from the superficial aponeurosis to the deep 2.320; p 5 0.142; h2 5 0.095). A main effect for the factor time
aponeurosis. The average of the 3 MT measures was used for was observed for 1RM bench press (F 5 66.880; p , 0.01; h2 5
statistical analyses. ICC were 0.95 (SEM 5 0.95 mm), 0.96 0.752), 1RM squat (F 5 23.616; p , 0.01; h2 5 0.529), isometric
(SEM 5 0.63 mm), 0.96 (SEM 5 0.93 mm), 0.97 (SEM 5 0.55), bench press (F 5 6.925; p 5 0.015; h2 5 0.239), and CMJ (F 5
and 0.95 (SEM 5 0.88) for Pec MT, Trap MT, Bic MT, VL MT, 6.655; p 5 0.017; h2 5 0.232). No main effect of time was
and VM MT, respectively. Anthropometric evaluations were detected for isometric leg extension (F 5 0.416; p 5 0.527; h2 5
performed before and after the training period. Body measure- 0.021) and bench press throw (F 5 1.342; p 5 0.259; h2 5
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

ments included body mass, height, and body fat. Body mass was 0.052).
measured to the nearest 0.1 kg (Seca 769, Seca Scale Corp.,
Munich, Germany). Body fat percentage was estimated from
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

skinfold caliper (Harpender, CMS Instruments, London, Muscle Architecture and Body Composition Measurements
United Kingdom) measures using previously published Changes in body anthropometric parameters and muscle archi-
methods (11). tecture following both training programs are reported in Table 3.
In addition, changes in muscle architecture are depicted in
Training Volume Figure 4. No group 3 time interactions were identified for PecMT
(F 5 1.127; p 5 0.300; h2 5 0.049), TrapMT (F 5 0.165; p 5
Thirty minutes following the conclusion of each training session, 0.689; h2 5 0.007), BicMT (F 5 2.543; p 5 0.062; h2 5 0.152),
subjects responded to the question asked by one of the inves- VLMT (F 5 0.898; p 5 0.354; h2 5 0.039), VMMT (F 5 0.165;
tigators; “How was your workout?” using a 10-point session p 5 0.681; h2 5 0.010), body mass (F 5 0.960; p 5 0.338; h2 5
RPE (sRPE) scale (12). The scale used the following verbal 0.042), fat mass (F 5 0.758; p 5 0.393; h2 5 0.033), and fat-free
anchors: 0 5 very, very easy, 1 5 very easy 2 5 easy, 3 5 mod- mass (F 5 0.175; p 5 0.681; h2 5 0.010). A main effect for the
erate, 4 5 somewhat hard, 5–6 5 hard, 7–9 5 very hard, and factor time was observed for PecMT (F 5 45.114; p , 0.01; h2 5
10 5 maximal. A session load was calculated for each workout by 0.672), TrapMT (F 5 4.602; p 5 0.043; h2 5 0.173), BicMT (F 5
multiplying the sRPE score by the length of the workout (in mins) 20.973; p , 0.01; h2 5 0.488), VLMT (F 5 10.077; p 5 0.004;
(14). Moreover, at the end of the training program, the total h2 5 0.314), body mass (F 5 36.797; p , 0.01; h2 5 0.626), and
perceived training load for both MSP and BP were calculated by fat-free mass (F 5 21.394; p , 0.01; h2 5 0.543). No main effect
summating the session load of each training session performed. for the factor time was detected for VMMT (F 5 4.149; p 5
The total training volume was also determined for each subject by 0.054; h2 5 0.159) and fat mass (F 5 0.224; p 5 0.549; h2 5
examining the subjects’ training logbooks. Completed training 0.010).
volume was expressed in kilograms.

Training Volume
Statistical Analysis
The total number of repetitions was significantly higher (F 5
A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normal distribution of the 4.923; p , 0.001; h2 5 0.183) for AMSP (8,519.9 6 901.2 rip.)
data. If the assumption of sphericity was violated, a Greenhouse- compared with MSP (7,893.0 6 267.8 rip). No significant dif-
Geisser correction was applied. The differences in performance ferences in the average training session load (F 5 0.875; p 5
parameters, muscle architecture, and body composition were 0.360; h2 5 0.038) were detected between AMSP (508.1 6 154.3
calculated using a group (AMSP and MSP) 3 time (PRE 2 POST) a.u.) and MSP (445.4 6 174.3 a.u.).
repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine
interactions and main effects. Pairwise comparisons were per-
formed using the Bonferroni’s correction. An independent Stu- Discussion
dent’s t test was used to compare the total number of repetitions
and the average session load between the 2 groups. Where ap- This study aimed to compare the effects of a MSP resistance
propriate, percent changes were calculated as follows: [(post- training program to an AMSP program on maximal strength,
exercise mean 2 preexercise mean)/preexercise mean]. The power, and muscle hypertrophy. Subjects in the AMSP group
partial eta-squared statistic was reported as the effect size (ES), adjusted the training volume based on the perceived recovery
and according to Stevens (27), 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 represent score assessed before each training session, whereas subjects in
small, medium, and large ES, respectively. Significance was ac- the MSP group were asked to adhere to the program. In both
cepted at an alpha level of p # 0.05, and all data are reported as groups, training intensity was prescribed using a repetition in
mean 6 SD. All data were analyzed using SPSS20 for Windows reserve scale. The research hypothesis was that autoregulation
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). may consent a better management of resistance training volume
and optimize adaptations.
Results of this study revealed that both MSP and AMSP were
Results effective in improving maximum strength of the upper and the
lower body. However, no additional benefits of perceived
Strength and Power Testing
recovery-based autoregulation of training volume were detected
Changes in performance following the AMSP and MSP programs on any strength and power performance assessed. These findings
are reported in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Table 2. No group 3 time did not confirm the research hypothesis but were in agreement
interactions were detected for 1RM bench press (F 5 1.871; p 5 with other authors that investigated autoregulation in the context
0.185; h2 5 0.078), 1RM squat (F 5 0.377; p 5 0.546; h2 5 of a flexible periodization approach (9,26). However, results of
0.018), isometric bench press (F 5 3.882; p 5 0.062; h2 5 0.172), this study are not supported by other authors that reported
isometric leg extension (F 5 0.154; p 5 0.699; h2 5 0.008), bench greater improvements in maximal strength following an

1540
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9 | www.nsca.com

autoregulating progressive resistance program compared with program was not able to provide additional adaptations over
a program characterized by a linear increase of training a 10-week period in trained men. Because this study represents
intensity (20). a follow-up of previous investigations focused on MSP training,
In addition, AMSP was equally effective than MSP for the a limitation of this study consists of the lack of random assign-
improvement of MT of upper-body and lower-body muscles and ment of the subjects to the 2 study groups. Another possible
lean body mass. Previous studies have shown that an MSP re- limitation is represented by the evaluation of the daily individual
sistance training program was more effective than a block per- recovery status, before the beginning of the warm-up. Although
iodized equated-volume program for maximal strength and significant correlations were detected between pre-warm-up
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

muscle hypertrophy gains in trained men (5). However, these scores of perceived recovery and changes in sprint performance,
results may be influenced by the relative short duration of the post-warm-up scores demonstrated stronger correlations with
training period that may not be enough to obtain delayed and these measurements. However, because perceived recovery scores
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

cumulative effects ascribed to block periodized programs (25,29). tend to be more elevated when tested following the warm-up
Conversely, the frequent variation of the training stimuli within compared with results seen before the warm-up (18), the evalu-
each workout that characterizes MSP showed a high effectiveness ation of this parameter following the warm-up might result in
in stimulating maximal strength and muscle growth, even without additional increases in training volume.
planned changes of strategies or a sequence of training phases
during a 10-week training period.
In most of the investigations regarding autoregulation in re- Practical Applications
sistance training, subjects were asked to self-regulate the order of
the different training sessions within each week (9) or the training The results of this investigation indicated that subjective
intensity (26). The autoregulation used in this program, derived autoregulation of training volume is effective for enhancing
by the Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise 6RM, strength, power, and muscle hypertrophy but does not provide
developed by Verkhoshansky and Siff (29), and inspired by additional benefits to an MSP 10-week resistance program
DeLorme’s progressive exercise paradigm (10). However, with the autoregulation of training intensity. In addition,
Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise and its variants perceived recovery-based changes in training volume should
represent within-session autoregulation methods of training in- be accurately selected to avoid nonfunctional increases in total
tensity (13), whereas the perceived recovery-based AMSP pro- training volume and to optimize performance improvements
gram was developed to adjust the number of sets instead of the and muscle growth.
training intensity. In this study, training intensity was prescribed
using RIR, and loads were selected to prevent exhaustion. Thus,
our study was the first to combine a repetition in reserve-based References
autoregulation of training intensity to a perceived recovery-based 1. Abe T, Kondo M, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. Prediction equations for
autoregulation of training volume (e.g., number of sets). Al- body composition of Japanese adults by B-mode ultrasound. Am J Hum
Biol 6: 161–170, 1994.
though the perceived recovery scale represents a valid and eco- 2. Bartolomei S, Hoffman JR, Stout JR, Merni F. Effect of lower-body re-
logic method to assess readiness and expected performance sistance training on upper-body strength adaptation in trained men.
following previous workouts (18), changes in training volume J Strength Cond Res 32: 13–18, 2018.
(through variations in the number of sets), have been arbitrarily 3. Bartolomei S, Lanzoni IM, Fantozzi S, Cortesi M. A comparison between
decided by the investigators at the beginning of the study. non-localized post-activation performance enhancements following re-
sistance exercise for the upper and the lower body. Appl Sci 12: 1639,
Interestingly, perceived recovery-based autoregulation led to 2022.
a significant increase in the training volume compared with the 4. Bartolomei S, Nigro F, Ruggeri S, et al. Comparison between bench press
regular MSP program, without significant changes in session throw and ballistic push-up tests to assess upper-body power in trained
load. The higher total training volume observed in AMSP individuals. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1503–1510, 2018.
5. Bartolomei S, Zaniboni F, Verzieri N, Hoffman JR. New perspectives in
(17.4%) compared with MSP, with nonsignificant changes in the resistance training periodization: Mixed session vs. block periodized
average session load (112.3% in AMSP), may suggest that programs in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 37: 537–545, 2023.
autoregulation led to an increase in training volume that was well- 6. Bemben MG. Use of diagnostic ultrasound for assessing muscle size.
tolerated by the subjects. However, this extra volume did not J Strength Cond Res 16: 103–108, 2002.
provide for any additional adaptations to the 10-week MSP re- 7. Bishop PA, Jones E, Woods AK. Recovery from training: A brief review.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 1015–1024, 2008.
sistance training. 8. Blazevich AJ, Gill ND, Zhou S. Intra- and intermuscular variation in hu-
These results may indicate the subjects tendency to over- man quadriceps femoris architecture assessed in vivo. J Anat 209:
estimate their physical condition and recovery status from pre- 289–310, 2006.
vious training sessions or to underestimate their session RPE. 9. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Walters J, et al. Comparison of powerlifting
performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating
High scores on the perceived recovery scale indeed were associ- periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31: 283–291, 2017.
ated to increases in training volume compared with the regular 10. Delorme TL. Restoration of muscle power by heavy-resistance exercises.
MSP program. Perceived recovery is an integrative sensation JBJS 27: 645–667, 1945.
influenced by physiological, metabolic, and psychological com- 11. Evans E, Rowe DA, Misic M, Prior B, Arngrimsson S. Skinfold prediction
ponents (17). Thus, because resistance training behavior is equation for athletes developed using a four-component model. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 37, 2006–2011, 2005.
strongly associated with exercise motivation (21), perceived re- 12. Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, et al. A new approach to monitoring
covery scores may be overestimated in resistance training enthu- exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001.
siasts. Further investigations are needed to better understand the 13. Greig L, Stephens Hemingway BH, Aspe RR, Cooper K, Comfort P,
influence of motivation on perceived recovery following re- Swinton PA. Autoregulation in resistance training: Addressing the
inconsistencies. Sports Med 50: 1873–1887, 2020.
sistance exercise. 14. Haddad M, Stylianides G, Djaoui L, Dellal A, Chamari K. Session-RPE
This investigation confirmed the efficacy of the MSP paradigm; method for training load monitoring: Validity, ecological usefulness, and
however, a perceived recovery-based volume autoregulation MSP influencing factors. Front Neurosci 11: 612, 2017.

1541
 Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (2024) 38:9

15. Helms ER, Brown SR, Cross MR, Storey A, Cronin J, Zourdos MC. Self- 23. Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Ito M, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. The accuracy
rated accuracy of rating of perceived exertion-based load prescription in of volume estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness measurements in
powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2938–2943, 2017. different muscle groups. Eur J Appl Physiol 91: 264–272, 2004.
16. Hoffman JR, Kraemer WJ, Fry AC, Deschenes M, Kemp M. The effects of 24. O’Sullivan C, Meaney J, Boyle G, Gormley J, Stokes M. The validity of
self-selection for frequency of training in a winter conditioning program Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging for measurement of trapezius muscle
for football. J Strength Cond Res 4: 76–82, 1990. thickness. Man Ther, 14, 572–578, 2009.
17. Kenttä G, Hassmén P. Overtraining and recovery. A conceptual model. 25. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, et al. Strength gains: Block versus
Sports Med 26: 1–16, 1998. daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field
18. Laurent CM, Green JM, Bishop PA, et al. A practical approach to mon- athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 161–169, 2012.
itoring recovery: Development of a perceived recovery status scale. 26. Ratamess NA, Faigenbaum AD, Hoffman JR, Kang J. Self-selected re-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

J Strength Cond Res 25: 620–628, 2011. sistance training intensity in healthy women: The influence of a personal
19. Mann JB, Ivey PA, Sayers SP. Velocity-based training in football. Strength trainer. J Strength Cond Res 22, 103–111, 2008.
Cond J 37: 52–57, 2015. 27. Stevens JP. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Science (5th ed.).
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/13/2024

20. Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP. The effect of autoregulatory New York, NY: Taylor and Francis, 2009.
progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength im- 28. Tuchscherer M. The Reactive Training Manual: Developing Your Own
provement in college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1718–1723, Custom Training Program for Powerlifting: Reactive Training Systems.
2010. 2008. Self-published.
21. Marin DP, Polito LFT, Foschini D, Urtado CB, Otton R. Motives, moti- 29. Verkhoshansky Y, Siff MC. Supertraining. Rome: Verkhoshansky SSTM,
vation and exercise behavioral regulations in CrossFit and resistance 2009. p. 259.
training participants. Psychology 9: 2869–2884, 2018. 30. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, et al. Novel resistance training-specific
22. McNamara JM, Stearne DJ. Flexible nonlinear periodization in a beginner rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve.
college weight training class. J Strength Cond Res 24: 17–22, 2010. J Strength Cond Res 30: 267–275, 2016.

1542