Auto-Regulation for Better Results

If you asked anyone that goes to a gym the following question, many would get it correct.

And the question would be a fill-in-the-blanks.

_____ sets of _____ reps

What would you answer?

If you said 3 sets of 10 reps you'd be correct in terms of choosing one of the most popular rep and set schemes.

10 reps won't be overly heavy nor too light. And 3 sets provides a simulus without overdoing it or leading to monotony.

And there's nothing wrong with doing 3 sets of 10 reps. But if getting stronger is your goal there may be a better way.

One option is to program sets on a percentage of one repetition maximum. For example, 8 reps would be a good amount of reps for a strength goal. 8 reps would be approximately 75-80% of a one rep maximum. If someone could lift 200 lbs for one rep then they would load 150-160 lbs for 8 reps.

Another alternate is to use auto-regulation to determine loads. A colleague down in Florida, Dr, Bryan Mann, first introduced me to his version of auto-regulation. This method involves warming up the first set at 50%, a second set at 75% then seeking to hit your reps in the third set. Based on how the third set goes determines what happens in the 4th set. 

With auto-regulation, this allows the lifter to adjust loads based on how they're feeling on that day. Another way to do this would be based on reps in reserve or RIR. When you finish a set, the question would be how many more reps you think you could have completed? If you felt you could have completed more reps, you can increase the load.

A recent study out of the UK looked to see what was more effective for increasing strength; fixed loading or auto-regulation?

31 resistance trained men followed a two-day per week program for 12 weeks. The programs were controlled for volume meaning that the reps and sets were equivalent. One group followed a program with a fixed loading scheme and the other using auto-regulation with RIR.

The researchers measured gains in the front and back squat. Gains were greater with auto-regulation group compared to those in the fixed loading protocol. 

When using auto-regulation, front squats increased 11.7%, versus 8.3% with fixed loading. For back squats, auto-regulation led to an 10.8% increase compared to 7.1% for fixed loading. 

In other words, auto-regulation delivered almost a 4% improvement compared to fixed loading. I would guess front squats improved more as this lift is not as strong as a back squat and probably not trained as frequently as a back squat. Therefore there was more potential to improve this weaker and less frequently trained lift.

The other benefit of auto-regulation is that it is safer. Imagine on a given day you don't have it in you to hit your numbers in a fixed loading scenario. i.e. the program calls for 8 reps at 150 and you're struggling to get 6 or 7. By forcing yourself to get the 8th rep in each set you risk over-training, or worse, potential injury. Auto-regulation, as we use it, would allow you adjust loads accordingly and train to your potential on that day and not above. 

Reference

Graham, Timothy; Cleather, Daniel J. Autoregulation by "Repetitions in Reserve" Leads to Greater Improvements in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: September 2021 - Volume 35 - Issue 9 - p 2451-2456 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003164