The effects of training with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions vs. traditional power training

Abstract

Background: It has been suggested that strength training effects (i.e. neural or structural) vary, depending on the total repetitions performed and velocity loss in each training set.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of two training programmes (i.e. one with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions, and the other following traditional power training).

Methods: Twenty-five males were divided into three groups (optimum power [OP = 10], traditional training [TT = 9] and control group [CG = 6]). The training load used for OP was individualised using loads that maximised power output (41.7% ± 5.8 of one repetition maximum [1RM]) and repetitions at maximum power (4 to 9 repetitions, or 'reps'). Volume (sets x repetitions) was the same for both experimental groups, while intensity for TT was that needed to perform only 50% of the maximum number of possible repetitions (i.e. 61.1%-66.6% of 1RM). The training programme ran over 11 weeks (2 sessions per week; 4-5 sets per session; 3-minute rests between sets), with pre-, intermediate and post-tests which included: anthropometry, 1RM, peak power output (PPO) with 30%, 40% and 50% of 1RM in the bench press throw, and salivary testosterone (ST) and cortisol (SC) concentrations. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and power output were recorded in all sessions.

Results: Following the intermediate test, PPO was increased in the OP group for each load (10.9%-13.2%). Following the post-test, both experimental groups had increased 1RM (11.8%-13.8%) and PPO for each load (14.1%-19.6%). Significant decreases in PPO were found for the TT group during all sets (4.9%-15.4%), along with significantly higher RPE (37%).

Conclusion: OP appears to be a more efficient method of training, with less neuromuscular fatigue and lower RPE.

Fig 1. Experimental design.

Fig 2. Forest plots of effect sizes for all variables at three points of assessment.

Results are expressed as Cohen’s d with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). OP = optimum power group; TT = traditional training group; T1 = pre-intervention evaluation; T2 = evaluation after first four weeks’ training; T3 = post-intervention evaluation; 1RM = one repetition maximum; P30 = peak power output with 30% of 1RM; P40 = peak power output with 40% of 1RM; P50 = peak power output with 50% of 1RM; ST = salivary testosterone; SC = salivary cortisol; MESO-1 = mean value of OMNI-RES scale punctuation for first four weeks’ training; MESO-2 = mean value of OMNI-RES scale punctuation for second four weeks’ training.

Fig 3. Resting salivary testosterone concentration during main training period.

OP = optimum power group; TT = traditional training group; T1 = pre-intervention evaluation; T2 = evaluation after first four weeks’ training; T3 = post-intervention evaluation; † = significant differences from T1 p < .05.

Fig 4. Resting salivary cortisol concentration during main training period.

OP = optimum power group; TT = traditional training group; T1 = pre-intervention evaluation; T2 = evaluation after first four weeks' training; T3 = post-intervention evaluation; ‡ = significant differences from T2 p < .05.

Fig 5. Average in peak power for each set for first two weeks in MESO-2 (sessions with four sets).

OP = optimum power group; TT = traditional training group; T1 = pre-intervention evaluation; T2 = evaluation after first four weeks’ training; T3 = post-intervention evaluation; †† = significant differences from 1^st set p < .01; ‡‡ = significant differences from 2^nd set p < .01; ◊◊ = significant differences from 3^rd set p < .01; * = significant differences from OP p < .05; ** = significant differences from OP p < .01.

Fig 6. Average in peak power for each set for last two weeks in MESO-2 (sessions with five sets).

OP = optimum power group; TT = traditional training group; T1 = pre-intervention evaluation; T2 = evaluation after first four weeks’ training; T3 = post-intervention evaluation; † = significant differences from 1^st set p < .05; †† = significant differences from 1^st set p < .01; ‡‡ = significant differences from 2^nd set p< .01; ◊◊ = significant differences from 3^rd set p < .01; ** = significant differences from OP p < .01.