TY - JOUR
T1 - The effect of self-selecting the number of repetitions on motor performance and psychological outcomes
AU - Emanuel, Aviv
AU - Har-Nir, Itai
AU - Rozen Smukas, Isaac Isur
AU - Halperin, Israel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - In resistance-training, the number of repetitions can be either fixed and predetermined (e.g., 3 sets of 10 repetitions), or selected by the trainee during ongoing sets (e.g., 3 sets of 8–12 repetitions). The first approach is more goal-focused while the latter is more autonomy-focused. Here we compared these two approaches in motor performance and psychological outcomes. Nineteen resistance-trained participants (10-males) first completed one repetition-maximum (RM) tests in the barbell-squat and bench-press, and were familiarized with the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants completed two sets of the squat and bench-press using 70%1RM, and two sets of the IMTP. In the predetermined session, participants completed 10 repetitions in all sets, and in the self-selected session, participants chose how many repetitions to complete out of an 8–12 range. Bar-velocity was measured in the squat and bench-press, and force production in the IMTP. Enjoyment, perceived-autonomy, and approach-preferences were collected post-sessions. We observed comparable bar-velocity, force production, and enjoyment in both conditions (all BF01 > 2.1), and an even approach-preferences split. However, in the self-selected condition, participants demonstrated considerable variability in the number of repetitions and reported greater perceived-autonomy. Given the similarities between approaches, both can be used with this cohort based on their personal-preference.
AB - In resistance-training, the number of repetitions can be either fixed and predetermined (e.g., 3 sets of 10 repetitions), or selected by the trainee during ongoing sets (e.g., 3 sets of 8–12 repetitions). The first approach is more goal-focused while the latter is more autonomy-focused. Here we compared these two approaches in motor performance and psychological outcomes. Nineteen resistance-trained participants (10-males) first completed one repetition-maximum (RM) tests in the barbell-squat and bench-press, and were familiarized with the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants completed two sets of the squat and bench-press using 70%1RM, and two sets of the IMTP. In the predetermined session, participants completed 10 repetitions in all sets, and in the self-selected session, participants chose how many repetitions to complete out of an 8–12 range. Bar-velocity was measured in the squat and bench-press, and force production in the IMTP. Enjoyment, perceived-autonomy, and approach-preferences were collected post-sessions. We observed comparable bar-velocity, force production, and enjoyment in both conditions (all BF01 > 2.1), and an even approach-preferences split. However, in the self-selected condition, participants demonstrated considerable variability in the number of repetitions and reported greater perceived-autonomy. Given the similarities between approaches, both can be used with this cohort based on their personal-preference.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089247416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00426-020-01402-4
DO - 10.1007/s00426-020-01402-4
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 32778961
AN - SCOPUS:85089247416
VL - 85
SP - 2398
EP - 2407
JO - Psychological Research
JF - Psychological Research
SN - 0340-0727
IS - 6
ER -