Modeling the repetitions-in-reserve-velocity relationship: a valid method for resistance training monitoring and prescription, and fatigue management

Estimating repetitions in reserve through movement velocity: Applicability across bench press exercise modes and sexes

This study explored the accuracy of using the relationship between repetitions in reserve (RIR) and mean velocity (MV) to predict proximity to failure in bench press exercises across two modes (Smith machine and free-weight) and sexes (men and women). Twenty-eight recreationally trained individuals completed two sessions of each exercise mode, with sets performed to failure at 65% and 75% of one-repetition maximum. Individualized RIR-MV relationships showed a higher goodness-of-fit for the Smith machine compared to the free-weight bench press (R2 = 0.79-0.87 vs. 0.41-0.78), without significant sex differences (p = 0.880). MV values were mostly similar between exercise modes across different RIRs (p > 0.077), but men demonstrated higher MV values than women for RIR 5-1 (p ≤ 0.013). Individualized RIR-MV relationships were more accurate at estimating RIR 5 at 65%1RM in subsequent sessions than generalized RIR-MV relationships (absolute errors = 0.64-1.36 vs. 1.25-2.00 repetitions; p < 0.001), regardless of sex. However, the prediction accuracy was similar for both relationships at RIRs 2 and 0 (absolute errors ≤ 1 repetition; p ≥ 0.164). These results suggest that RIR-MV relationships can effectively estimate proximity to failure across exercise modes and sexes, with individualized relationships offering greater accuracy.

Conceptualizing a load and volume autoregulation integrated velocity model to minimize neuromuscular fatigue and maximize neuromuscular adaptations in resistance training

Resistance training (RT) load and volume are considered crucial variables to appropriately prescribe and manage for eliciting the targeted acute responses (i.e., minimizing neuromuscular fatigue) and chronic adaptations (i.e., maximizing neuromuscular adaptations). In traditional RT contexts, load and volume are generally pre-prescribed; thereby, potentially yielding sub-optimal outcomes. A RT concept that individualizes programming is autoregulation: a systematic two-step feedback process involving, (1) monitoring performance and its constituents (fitness, fatigue, and readiness) across multiple time frames (short-, moderate-, and long-term); and (2) adjusting programming (i.e., load and volume) to elicit the targeted goals (i.e., responses and adaptations). A growing body of load and volume autoregulation research has accelerated recently, with several meta-analyses suggesting that autoregulation may provide a small advantage over traditional RT. Nonetheless, the existing literature has typically conceptualized these current autoregulation methods as standalone practices, which has limited their extensive utility in research and applied settings. The primary purpose of this review was three-fold. Initially, we synthesized the current methods of load and volume autoregulation, while disseminating each method's main advantages and limitations. Second, we conceptualized a theoretical Integrated Velocity Model (IVM) that integrates the current methods for a more holistic perspective of autoregulation that may potentially augment its benefits. Lastly, we illustrated how the IVM may be compared to the current methods for future directions and how it may be implemented for practical applications. We hope that this review assists to contextualize a novel autoregulation framework to help inform future investigations for researchers and practices for RT professionals.

Gauging proximity to failure in the bench press: generalized velocity-based vs. %1RM-repetitions-to-failure approaches

BACKGROUND

This study compared the accuracy of three generalized approaches for estimating proximity to failure during the Smith machine bench press: (i) the relationship between relative load (%1RM) and maximum repetitions performed to failure (%1RM-RTF), (ii) the relationship between maximum repetitions to failure and fastest set velocity (RTF-velocity), and (iii) the relationship between repetitions left in reserve (RIR) and lifting velocity (RIR-velocity).

METHODS

Nineteen physically active men (22.9 ± 2.7 years old) with at least two years of resistance training experience participated. Their 1-repetition maximum (1RM = 86.8 ± 16.7 kg) was determined during the first session. In the second session, participants performed single sets to failure at 60% and 80% 1RM, with proximity to failure (2RIR and 4RIR) estimated using each approach.

RESULTS

The RIR-velocity relationship was the only approach that did not significantly deviate from the intended RIR (errors = -0.4 to 0.6 repetitions). In contrast, both the %1RM-RTF and RTF-velocity relationships overestimated the intended RIR at 60%1RM for both 2RIR (2.9 and 5.8 repetitions, respectively) and 4RIR (2.8 and 5.7 repetitions, respectively), while no significant differences were observed at 80%1RM (errors = -0.6 to 0.9 repetitions). The RIR-velocity relationship generally demonstrated the lowest absolute errors compared to the actual RIR (1.3 ± 0.7 repetitions), with greater differences compared to the other two approaches at lighter loads and closer proximities to failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of individual relationships, the general RIR-velocity relationship should be used by coaches to control the proximity to failure of their athletes during the bench press exercise.

Modeling the repetitions-in-reserve-velocity relationship: a valid method for resistance training monitoring and prescription, and fatigue management

Establishing a relationship between repetitions left in reserve and the mean absolute velocity (RIR-velocity relationship) during resistance training (RT) could allow for objective monitoring, prescription, and real-time adjustment of the training load and set-volume. Therefore, we examined the goodness of fit and prediction accuracy of general and individual RIR-velocity relationships in the free-weight back squat exercise. The effects of sex, training status and history, as well as personality traits, on the goodness of fit and the accuracy of these relationships were also investigated. Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males) performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests 72 h apart. We found greater goodness of fit of individual RIR-velocity relationships compared to general RIR-velocity relationships. Individual, but not general RIR-velocity relationships established in the first testing session yielded acceptable prediction accuracy of RIR (mean error <2 repetitions) in the subsequent testing session, regardless of the load used. Similar results were obtained when both general and individual RIR-velocity relationships were averaged across the loads, suggesting that a single RIR-velocity relationship covering a range of loads can be used instead of traditional RT methods, potentially allowing for better fatigue management and more efficient adaptation.