A Comparison of Traditional and Autoregulated Periodized Strength Training in Resistance-Trained Men: A Randomized, Crossover Study

Barnes, MJ, Fraser, J, Pritchard, H, and Cochrane, DJ. A comparison of traditional and autoregulated periodized strength training in resistance-trained men: A randomized, crossover study. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2026—Traditional methods of prescribing resistance training loads rely on fixed percentages of 1-repetition maximum (1RM), which do not account for day-to-day variability in readiness and may result in overprescription or underprescription of training stress. This study compared a same-session, repetition performance–based autoregulation protocol (AR) to traditional, percentage-based periodization (TP) on maximal strength in resistance-trained individuals. Eight trained men (24.0 ± 4.9 years; 84.3 ± 9.7 kg) completed a randomized crossover study with two 8-week training blocks separated by a 2-week washout. In AR, daily training loads were determined by an initial set to failure at 85% of baseline 1RM, while TP prescribed loads from fixed percentages. Squat, bench press, and deadlift 1RM were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Both protocols significantly improved squat ( p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.949 [0.853, 0.984]), deadlift ( p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.660 [0.223, 0.889]), and total across the 3 exercises ( p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.856 [0.611, 0.955]), with no significant differences between training groups. Increases in bench press 1RM approached significance ( p = 0.064, η 2 p = 0.408 [−4.551, 0.166]), with a program × time interaction ( p = 0.020, η 2 p = 0.563 [0.101, 0.853]) favoring TP ( p = 0.014, d = 1.11 [1.75, 3.86]). Training intensity, expressed as %1RM, was greater with AR for squat and deadlift, but not for bench press. These findings suggest that autoregulating load, based on daily maximal effort sets, may be as effective as traditional percentage-based loading for developing maximal lower-body strength.