SpringerLink
Log in

Are Trainees Lifting Heavy Enough? Self-Selected Loads in Resistance Exercise: A Sco** Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so.

Objective

Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM.

Design

Sco** review and exploratory meta-analysis.

Search and Inclusion

We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants.

Results

Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49–58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) =  − 0.09 [95% CI − 0.16 to − 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads.

Conclusions

Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5–15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For chronic studies (i.e., training interventions) where the data were obtainable, we included an exploratory data visualisation in the supplementary materials (as opposed to the main paper) showing changes in load selection over time. Given the sparsity and heterogeneity of the data, despite attempting to fit a variety of models, we were unable to determine a model specification that resulted in clear convergence of Monte Carlo Markov Chains or reasonable posterior predictive checks. The data from these studies are descriptively presented with Loess smoothing across groups within studies and with gradient scaling for repetition grou**s (< 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 15, and 15 to 20 repetitions) in the supplementary materials (see https://osf.io/q72ax/).

  2. We also coded studies as to whether they were acute (i.e., reported loads for a single session), or chronic (i.e., reported loads throughout a several sessions such as a training intervention). However, as noted above, the analyses presented in this manuscript relate only to the acute data (i.e., acute studies and the first session of chronic studies where the data were available) with any of the chronic data results (that are included in the supplementary materials).

  3. C -1 where C was the number of cores available on the computer used to run the analysis (build available here: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/C6VXRT).

  4. We conducted an exploratory analysis for the three studies that permitted self-selection of loads and repetitions. We extracted the selected repetitions at the selected relative loads and compared them to studies that reported the number of repetitions performed to task-failure at different relative loads (i.e., studies from the authors’ labs, recent systematic reviews, etc.). Compared to the relevant literature, participants in the three studies typically selected to perform far fewer repetitions than those likely required to reach task-failure at the selected loads, particularly with lower selected loads (for details see analysis code “### How many repetitions do people do at the loads they select when allowed to choose the repetitions?” [https://osf.io/54sq7/], additional data [https://osf.io/td26u/], and supplementary output “# Self-selected vs failure repetitions model” [https://osf.io/yvud4/] and figure [https://osf.io/xqz9a/]).

References

  1. Abad CCC, Prado ML, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V, Barroso R. Combination of general and specific warm-ups improves leg-press one repetition maximum compared with specific warm-up in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:2242–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alves RC, Prestes J, Souza-Junior TP, Follador L, Lopes WA, Silva SG. Acute effect of weight training at a self-selected intensity on affective responses in obese adolescents. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2014;17:66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:687–708.

    Google Scholar 

  4. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (American College of Sports Medicine), 10th edition. LWW; 2017.

  5. Barbosa-Netto S, Acelino-E-Porto OS, Almeida MB. Self-selected resistance exercise load: implications for research and prescription. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35:S166–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bürkner P-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. J Stat Softw 2017; 80

  7. Buskard ANL, Jacobs KA, Eltoukhy MM, Strand KL, Villanueva L, Desai PP, Signorile JF. Optimal approach to load progressions during strength training in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:2224–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Walters J, Brannon AR, Kilpatrick MW, D’Agostino DP, Campbell BI. Comparison of powerlifting performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating periodization. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31:283–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. de Oliveira Segundo VH, Rebouças GM, Renee T, de Medeiros HJ, Knackfuss MI. Self-selected intensity by controlled hypertensive older women during a weight training session. IOSR-JSPE. 2016;3:09–13.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dello Iacono A, Beato M, Halperin I. Self-selecting the number of repetitions in potentiation protocols: enhancement effects on jum** performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;16:353–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dias MRC, Simão R, Saavedra FJF, Buzzachera CF, Fleck S. Self-selected training load and RPE during resistance and aerobic training among recreational exercisers. Percept Mot Skills. 2018;125:769–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dias MRC, Simão RF, Saavedra FJF, Ratamess NA. Influence of a personal trainer on self-selected loading during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31:1925–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Douma JC, Weedon JT. Analysing continuous proportions in ecology and evolution: a practical introduction to beta and Dirichlet regression. Methods Ecol Evol 2019.

  14. Elsangedy HM, Krause MP, Krinski K, Alves RC, Chao CHN, da Silva SG. Is the self-selected resistance exercise intensity by older women consistent with the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines to improve muscular fitness? J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:1877–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Elsangedy HM, Krinski K, Machado DGS, Agrícola PMD, Okano AH, da Silva SG. Self-selected intensity, ratings of perceived exertion, and affective responses in sedentary male subjects during resistance training. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28:1795–800.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Elsangedy HM, Machado DGDS, Krinski K, Duarte DO, Nascimento PH, Amorim DE, Oliveira GT, Santos TM, Hargreaves EA, Parfitt G. Let the pleasure guide your resistance training intensity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50:1472–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Elsangedy HM, Oliveira GTA, Machado DGS, Tavares MPM, Araújo AO, Krinski K, Browne RAV, da Silva SG. Effects of self-selected resistance training on physical fitness and psychophysiological responses in physically inactive older women: a randomized controlled study. Percept Mot Skills. 2021;128:467–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Emanuel A, Rozen Smukas II, Halperin I. An analysis of the perceived causes leading to task-failure in resistance-exercises. PeerJ. 2020;8: e9611.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Evmenenko A, Teixeira DS. The circumplex model of affect in physical activity contexts: a systematic review. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2022; 20:168–201.

  20. Faries MD, Lutz R. Self-selected intensity and adherence in a campus recreation center with novice, female weight lifters: a preliminary investigation. RSJ. 2016;40:56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher J, Steele J, Smith D. High- and low-load resistance training: interpretation and practical application of current research findings. Sports Med. 2017;47:393–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fisher JP, Steele J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training to momentary failure produce similar increases in strength with differing degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56:797–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Focht BC, Garver MJ, Cotter JA, Devor ST, Lucas AR, Fairman CM. Affective responses to acute resistance exercise performed at self-selected and imposed loads in trained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:3067–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Focht BC. Perceived exertion and training load during self-selected and imposed-intensity resistance exercise in untrained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:183–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee I-M, Nieman DC, Swain DP, American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for develo** and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1334–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292:746–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Glass SC, Ahmad S, Gabler T. Effectiveness of a 2-week strength training learning intervention on self-selected weight-training intensity. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34:2443–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Glass SC, Stanton DR. Self-selected resistance training intensity in novice weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:324–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Glass SC. Effect of a learning trial on self-selected resistance training load. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1025–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Graham T, Cleather DJ. Autoregulation by “Repetitions in Reserve” leads to greater improvements in strength over a 12-week training program than fixed loading. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35:2451–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Schoenfeld BJ, Pedisic Z. Test-retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength assessment: a systematic review. Sports Med Open. 2020;6:31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Hall EE, Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Is the relationship of RPE to psychological factors intensity-dependent? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:1365–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Halperin I, Chapman DW, Martin DT, Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Choices enhance punching performance of competitive kickboxers. Psychol Res. 2017;81:1051–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross MR, Cronin JB, Storey AG, Zourdos MC. RPE vs. percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for sets and repetitions. Front Physiol. 2018;9:247–57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Helms ER, Cross MR, Brown SR, Storey A, Cronin J, Zourdos MC. Rating of perceived exertion as a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32:1627–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kay M. tidybayes: Tidy data and geoms for Bayesian models. R package version 3.0. 0. 2021.

  37. Kemmler W, Kohl M, Fröhlich M, Jakob F, Engelke K, von Stengel S, Schoene D. Effects of high-intensity resistance training on osteopenia and sarcopenia parameters in older men with osteosarcopenia-one-year results of the randomized controlled franconian osteopenia and sarcopenia trial (FrOST). J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1634–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:674–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kruschke JK, Liddell TM. The Bayesian new statistics: hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25:178–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lin L, Xu C. Arcsine-based transformations for meta-analysis of proportions: pros, cons, and alternatives. Health Sci Rep. 2020;3: e178.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lopez P, Radaelli R, Taaffe DR, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Trajano GS, Teodoro JL, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K, Pinto RS. Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53:1206–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Practicing the test produces strength equivalent to higher volume training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1945–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McNamara JM, Stearne DJ. Flexible nonlinear periodization in a beginner college weight training class. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:17–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McShane BB, Gal D, Gelman A, Robert C, Tackett JL. Abandon statistical significance. Am Stat. 2019;73:235–45.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, Baechler BL, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol. 2016;121:129–38.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Niewiadomski W, Laskowska D, Gąsiorowska A, Cybulski G, Strasz A, Langfort J. Determination and prediction of one repetition maximum (1RM): safety considerations. J Hum Kinet. 2008;19:109–20.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pedersen TL. The composer of plots [R package patchwork version 1.1.1]. 2020.

  48. Portugal EMM, Lattari E, Santos TM, Deslandes AC. Affective responses to prescribed and self-selected strength training intensities. Percept Mot Skills. 2015;121:465–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ratamess NA, Faigenbaum AD, Hoffman JR, Kang J. Self-selected resistance training intensity in healthy women: the influence of a personal trainer. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:103–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rauch JT, Ugrinowitsch C, Barakat CI, Alvarez MR, Brummert DL, Aube DW, Barsuhn AS, Hayes D, Tricoli V, De Souza EO. Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in strength-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34:1133–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Refalo MC, Hamilton DL, Paval DR, Gallagher IJ, Feros SA, Fyfe JJ. Influence of resistance training load on measures of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improvements in maximal strength and neuromuscular task performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2021;39:1723–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rhea MR, Landers DM, Alvar BA, Arent SM. The effects of competition and the presence of an audience on weight lifting performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17:303–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sands WA, Wurth JJ, Hewit JK. Basics of strength and conditioning manual. Colorado Springs: National Strength and Conditioning Association; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dos Santos WM, Junior ACT, Braz TV, Lopes CR, Brigatto FA, Dos Santos JW. Resistance-trained individuals can underestimate the intensity of the resistance training session: an analysis among genders, training experience, and exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2020.

  55. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Van Every DW, Plotkin DL. Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. Sports (Basel) 2021; 9

  56. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31:3508–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:2954–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sciwheel. Sciwheel. Sciwheel Limited, 2022

  59. Singh H, Hockwald A, Drake N, Avedesian J, Lee S-P, Wulf G. Maximal force production requires OPTIMAL conditions. Hum Mov Sci. 2020;73: 102661.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Stuart C, Steele J, Gentil P, Giessing J, Fisher JP. Fatigue and perceptual responses of heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise in males and females. PeerJ. 2018;6: e4523.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Szabo A. Acute psychological benefits of exercise performed at self-selected workloads: implications for theory and practice. J Sports Sci Med. 2003;2:77–87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:78–108.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Tiggemann CL, Pietta-Dias C, Schoenell MCW, Noll M, Alberton CL, Pinto RS, Kruel LFM. Rating of perceived exertion as a method to determine training loads in strength training in elderly women: A randomized controlled study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18

  64. Vale AF, Carneiro JA, Jardim PCV, Jardim TV, Steele J, Fisher JP, Gentil P. Acute effects of different resistance training loads on cardiac autonomic modulation in hypertensive postmenopausal women. J Transl Med. 2018;16:240.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36

  66. Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: Abstrackr. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT symposium on International health informatics - IHI' ' ’12. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 2012: 819

  67. Warton DI, Hui FKC. The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology. 2011;92:3–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Watson K, Halperin I, Aguilera-Castells J, Dello Iacono A. A comparison between predetermined and self-selected approaches in resistance training: effects on power performance and psychological outcomes among elite youth athletes. PeerJ. 2020;8: e10361.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wickham H, Chang W. An implementation of the grammar of graphics. http:www.ggplot2org; 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK

    James Steele, Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis, Milo Wolf & James P. Fisher

  2. Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Tomer Malleron, Itai Har-Nir & Israel Halperin

  3. Sylvan Adams Sports Institute, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Tomer Malleron, Itai Har-Nir & Israel Halperin

Authors
  1. James Steele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomer Malleron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Itai Har-Nir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Milo Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. James P. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Israel Halperin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Israel Halperin.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was supported by the Israeli Science Foundation (1249/20). Otherwise, no financial support was received for the conduct of this article or for the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they had no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

All data are available in the Open Science Framework by accessing https://osf.io/8qpgs/.

Author contributions

IH and JS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. TM, IHN, PAK and MW performed the literature search. JS performed the meta-analyses. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the meta-analyses, read, revised, and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steele, J., Malleron, T., Har-Nir, I. et al. Are Trainees Lifting Heavy Enough? Self-Selected Loads in Resistance Exercise: A Sco** Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis. Sports Med 52, 2909–2923 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01717-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01717-9

Search

Navigation