In resistance training, the use of predicting proximity to momentary task failure (MF, i.e., maximum effort), and repetitions in reserve scales specifically, is a growing approach to monitoring and controlling effort. However, its validity is reliant upon accuracy in the ability to predict MF which may be affected by congruence of the perception of effort compared with the actual effort required. The present study examined participants with at least 1 year of resistance training experience predicting their proximity to MF in two different experiments using a deception design. Within each experiment participants performed four trials of knee extensions with single sets (i.e., bouts of repetitions) to their self-determined repetition maximum (sdRM; when they predicted they could not complete the next repetition if attempted and thus would reach MF if they did) and MF (i.e., where despite attempting to do so they could not complete the current repetition). For the first experiment (n = 14) participants used loads equal to 70% of a one repetition maximum (1RM; i.e., the heaviest load that could be lifted for a single repetition) performed in a separate baseline session. Aiming to minimize participants between day variability in repetition performances, in the second separate experiment (n = 24) they used loads equal to 70% of their daily isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Results suggested that participants typically under predicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF with a meta-analytic estimate across experiments of 2.0 [95%CIs 0.0 to 4.0]. Participants with at least 1 year of resistance training experience are likely not adequately accurate at gauging effort in submaximal conditions. This suggests that perceptions of effort during resistance training task performance may not be congruent with the actual effort required. This has implications for controlling, programming, and manipulating the actual effort in resistance training and potentially on the magnitude of desired adaptations such as improvements in muscular hypertrophy and strength.

Objectives Common exercises such as the barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) are perceived to provide a training stimulus to the lumbar extensors. However, to date there have been no empirical studies considering changes in lumbar extension strength as a result of BBS or BHT resistance training (RT) interventions. Purpose To consider the effects of BBS and BHT RT programmes upon isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength. Methods Trained male subjects (n = 14; 22.07 ± 0.62 years; 179.31 ± 6.96 cm; 79.77 ± 13.81 kg) were randomised in to either BBS (n = 7) or BHT (n = 7) groups and performed two training sessions per week during a 4-week mesocycle using 80% of their 1RM. All subjects were tested pre- and post-intervention for BBS and BHT 1RM as well as isometric ILEX strength. Results Analyses revealed that both BBS and BHT groups significantly improved both their BBS and BHT 1RM, suggesting a degree of transferability. However, the BBS group improved their BBS 1RM to a greater degree than the BHT group (p = 0.050; ∼11.8 kg/10.2% vs. ∼8.6 kg/7.7%, respectively). And the BHT group improved their BHT 1RM to a greater degree than the BBS group (p = 0.034; ∼27.5 kg/24.8% vs. ∼20.3 kg/13.3%, respectively). Neither BBS nor BHT groups significantly improved their isometric ILEX strength. Conclusions The present study supports the concept of specificity, particularly in relation to the movement mechanics between trunk extension (including pelvic rotation) and ILEX. Our data suggest that strength coaches, personal trainers, and trainees can self-select multi-joint lower-body trunk extension exercises based on preference or variety. However, evidence suggests that neither the BBS nor BHT exercises can meaningfully increase ILEX strength. Since strengthening these muscles might enhance physical and sporting performance we encourage strength coaches and personal trainers to prescribe ILEX exercise.

Objectives: Common exercises such as the barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) are perceived to provide a training stimulus to the lumbar extensors. However, to date there have been no empirical studies considering changes in lumbar extension strength as a result of BBS or BHT resistance training interventions. Purpose: To consider the effects of barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) resistance training programmes upon isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength. Methods: Trained male subjects (n=14; 22.07 ± 0.62 years; 179.31 ± 6.96 cm; 79.77 ± 13.81 kg) were randomised in to either BBS (n=7) or BHT (n=7) groups and performed 2 training sessions per week during a 4-week mesocycle using 80% of their 1RM. All subjects were tested pre- and post-intervention for BBS and BHT 1RM as well as isometric ILEX strength. Results: Analyses revealed that both BBS and BHT groups significantly improved both their BBS and BHT 1RM, suggesting a degree of transferability. However, the BBS group improved their BBS 1RM to a greater degree than the BHT group (p=0.050; ~11.8kg/10.2% vs. ~8.6kg/7.7%, respectively). And the BHT group improved their BHT 1RM to a greater degree than the BBS group (p=0.034; ~27.5kg/24.8% vs. ~20.3kg/13.3%, respectively). Neither BBS nor BHT groups significantly improved their isometric ILEX strength. Conclusions: The present study supports the concept of specificity, particularly in relation to the movement mechanics between trunk extension (including pelvic rotation) and ILEX. Our data suggests that strength coaches personal trainers, and trainees can self-select multi-joint lower body trunk extension exercises based on preference or variety. However, evidence suggests that neither the BBS nor BHT exercises can meaningfully increase isolated lumbar extension strength. Since strengthening these muscles might enhance physical and sporting performance we encourage strength coaches and personal trainers to prescribe ILEX exercise.

Objectives: Common exercises such as the barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) are perceived to provide a training stimulus to the lumbar extensors. However, to date there have been no empirical studies considering changes in lumbar extension strength as a result of BBS or BHT resistance training interventions. Purpose: To consider the effects of barbell back squat (BBS) and barbell hip thrust (BHT) resistance training programmes upon isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength. Methods: Trained male subjects (n=14; 22.07 ± 0.62 years; 179.31 ± 6.96 cm; 79.77 ± 13.81 kg) were randomised in to either BBS (n=7) or BHT (n=7) groups and performed 2 training sessions per week during a 4-week mesocycle using 80% of their 1RM. All subjects were tested pre- and post-intervention for BBS and BHT 1RM as well as isometric ILEX strength. Results: Analyses revealed that both BBS and BHT groups significantly improved both their BBS and BHT 1RM, suggesting a degree of transferability. However, the BBS group improved their BBS 1RM to a greater degree than the BHT group (p=0.050; ~11.8kg/10.2% vs. ~8.6kg/7.7%, respectively). And the BHT group improved their BHT 1RM to a greater degree than the BBS group (p=0.034; ~27.5kg/24.8% vs. ~20.3kg/13.3%, respectively). Neither BBS nor BHT groups significantly improved their isometric ILEX strength. Conclusions: The present study supports the concept of specificity, particularly in relation to the movement mechanics between trunk extension (including pelvic rotation) and ILEX. Our data suggests that strength coaches personal trainers, and trainees can self-select multi-joint lower body trunk extension exercises based on preference or variety. However, evidence suggests that neither the BBS nor BHT exercises can meaningfully increase isolated lumbar extension strength. Since strengthening these muscles might enhance physical and sporting performance we encourage strength coaches and personal trainers to prescribe ILEX exercise.