Self-Selecting the Number of Repetitions in Potentiation Protocols: Enhancement Effects on Jumping Performance

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether providing athletes with a choice regarding the number of repetitions to complete in a potentiation protocol would enhance jumping performance compared with protocols in which the number of repetitions is predetermined. Methods: Fifteen male basketball players completed 4 testing sessions separated by 72 hours. In the first session, individual optimum power loads in the barbell jump squat were determined. In the following 3 sessions, the athletes completed 3 sets of 3 potentiation protocols using optimum power load jump squats in a partly randomized order: (1) The traditional condition included 6 repetitions per set, (2) the self-selected condition included a choice regarding the number of repetitions to complete per set, and (3) the imposed condition included the same number of repetitions per set as the self-selected condition, but the number was imposed on the athletes beforehand. The jumping performance was determined as jump squat test height and measured using a force platform before and 30 seconds, 4 minutes, and 8 minutes after completing the protocols. Results: The self-selected condition led to superior jumping performance compared with the 2 other conditions across all post measures (P < .05; range: 0.3–1.3 cm). Compared with the traditional condition, the imposed condition led to superior jumping performance across all post measures (range: 0.2–0.45 cm), although not statistically significant at post 4 minutes and post 8 minutes. Conclusions: Choice provision concerning how many repetitions to complete in a potentiation protocol is a useful performance-enhancing strategy. Improved potentiation–fatigue ratio and motivational factors are sought to explain these effects.

Personalizing Resistance Training Mitigates Neuromuscular and Perceived Fatigue: The Autoregulation Cluster Training Method

“…By allowing people to adjust a personalized ACT structure during the ongoing session, rather than a predetermined structure, individual differences in abilities are better accounted for. 23,24 This is central in resistance training, as the number of repetitions performed towards autoregulation targets such as velocity loss thresholds, rates of effort or proximity to task failure are individual-, exercise-, and set-specific. 3,6,25,26 Moreover, the ACT method seems particularly effective in combination with the velocity-based training approach, which requires sets to be terminated upon exceeding velocity loss targets.…”

Should I Rest or Should I Go Now? A Randomized Cross-Over Trial Comparing Fixed and Self-Selected Rest Durations in High-Intensity Interval Training Cycling Sessions

“…Some may prefer to rest for shorter durations between the first few intervals and finalize the session with longer rest durations; others may prefer the opposite. Accounting for one’s preferences via choice provision can lead to positive psychological effects [ 10 – 12 ] and, at times, better performance outcomes [ 13 , 14 ] (although see examples of null effects [ 15 , 16 ]). Finally, fixed rest duration does little to challenge athletes’ decision-making processes.…”

“…First, athletes choose the rest duration based on their current and anticipated performance, which can better account for individual differences. Second, the act of choosing can enhance motivation [ 11 ], enjoyment [ 12 ], and at times, motor performance [ 13 , 14 ]. Third, the SS approach can challenge and improve athletes’ decision-making processes in competitions, by having them practice when and how to use their rest periods in training.…”