English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of two different methods of resistance training (RT) load adjustment (self-selected vs. programmed) in strength and body composition outcomes. Fourteen resistance-trained college-level students (5 females and 9 males), (age: 21.4 ± 2.23 years; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m and body mass: 77.6 ± 11.9 kg) were randomly assigned to one of the following experimental groups: Self-selected load adjustment (SSLA), where loads were arbitrarily/subjectively increased by each participant; Programmed load adjustment (PLA), where an absolute load increment was implemented according to the number of repetitions performed in the last set of each exercise. Four weekly sessions were performed during a 7-week intervention. Maximal dynamic strength and muscular endurance were assessed through one repetition maximum (1RM) and 60%1RM tests for both upper and lower limbs in bench press and unilateral leg press exercises, respectively. A moderate ES was observed for both groups in 1RMLEG PRESS (SSLA: d = 0.96; PLA: d = 1.13) and 60% 1RMBENCH PRESS (SSLA = 0.88; PLA = 1.00). Trivial (d = 0.19) and small (d = 0.24) ES in 1RMBENCH PRESS were observed for SSLA and PLA groups, respectively. The only variable that presented large ES was 60% 1RMLEG PRESS for SSLA (d = 1.29). The sum of skinfolds presented moderate ES for PLA (d=0.68) and small for SSLA (d = 0.39). In conclusion, different methods of RT load adjustments induce similar effects in strength and body composition in recreationally trained individuals.

Self-selected vs programed load adjustment methods in strength and body composition: a pilot study