Author(s): DELLO IACONO, A., WATSON, K., JUKIC, I., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND , Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 385

INTRODUCTION:
In the realm of strength and conditioning, practitioners continually strive to refine training methodologies that effectively manage fatigue levels and optimize the outcomes of resistance training. Autoregulation, a notable paradigm, involves tailoring resistance training to individual needs and capabilities through the manipulation of training variables. While existing evidence predominantly focuses on autoregulation practices within the male population, there remains a paucity of knowledge concerning the impact of autoregulation resistance training on sex-specific differences in fatiguability and resistance training performance. The aim of this study was to examine the sex differences in motor performance, neuromuscular and perceived fatigue during resistance training prescribed using traditional (TRA) and autoregulation rest redistribution training (ARRT) approaches.
METHODS:
Twelve resistance-trained males and twelve females completed two sessions including the bench press exercise matched for load (75% of 1-repetition maximum), volume (24 repetitions), and total rest (240 s). Sessions were performed in a randomized order with TRA consisting of 3 sets of 8 repetitions with 120 s interest rest and ARRT employing a personalized combination of clusters, repetitions per cluster, and between-cluster rest regulated with a 20% velocity loss threshold. The effects of TRA and ARRT on velocity loss, unilateral isometric peak force and rating of fatigue (ROF) were compared between males and females.
RESULTS:
The velocity loss was generally lower during ARRT compared to TRA (-0.47 ± 0.11%) with velocity loss being mitigated by ARRT to a greater extent among males compared to females (-0.37 ± 0.15%). Unilateral isometric peak force was greater after ARRT than TRA among males compared to females (38.4 ± 8.4N). Lower ROF after ARRT than TRA were found among males compared to females (-1.97 ± 0.55AU). Additionally, males reported greater ROF than females across both conditions (1.92 ± 0.53AU), and ARRT resulted in lower ROF than ARRT overall (-0.83 ± 0.39 AU).
CONCLUSION:
The ARRT approach resulted in decreased velocity loss, peak force impairment, and ROF compared to TRA in both sexes. The flexible, dynamic, and personalized nature of ARRT accounts for between-subject variability in resistance training performance and seems to accommodate individual neuromuscular capabilities and training patterns. However, male subjects exhibited more pronounced acute within-session benefits from the ARRT method compared to females. Morphological, physiological, and training-related factors underlying the sex differences in fatiguability are likely the main reasons explaining these effects. These findings emphasize the effectiveness of the ARRT paradigm in improving neuromuscular outcomes and mitigating perceived fatigue during resistance training. Additionally, a differential response to the ARRT method between sexes underscores the importance of personalized training approaches.