How social networking led to a change in the way strength training was programmed

In this blog post, I will be showing you how social networking between researchers, coaches, and athletes helped modern weight training programming evolve. It was originally based on relatively inflexible parameters (set amounts of weight and repetitions in a strict order, assuming that everyone recovers and adapts the same). As time went on, researchers, coaches, and athletes became aware of these issues and techniques to adapt training structure to account for these issues. 

In the past, strength training was generally programmed based on a percentage of an athlete's 1-repetition maximum (the maximum weight they could use for a specific exercise). It was structured in a way that would generally start off easier (using lighter loads such as 60 to 70 percent of their 1RM) with higher amounts of repetitions (to instill technical proficiency and produce a higher training stimulus) and gradually progress toward heavier weights, such as in the example below:

Eventually, John Kiely decided to examine modern strength training programming schemes in 2012, and found that "In recent years substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that training responses vary extensively, depending upon multiple underlying factors". This was based on research by Hubal et al., (2005) and Beaven et al., (2008) which found that individuals can experience various different strength and muscle size adaptations after performing the same training protocol. Around the same time as the mentioned research was being done, Mike Tuscherer, the head coach of Reactive Training Systems (a Powerlifting Coaching Company), noticed differences in how his athletes were adapting to similar training programs and instead began using the following scale to have athletes select their own weights based on a desired level of subjective intensity:

This scale is called the Rating of Perceived Exertion based on the inverse of Repetitions in Reserve. Eventually the success of the athletes using subjective RPE-based programming made its way across the internet and was then examined in multiple different studies (Naclerio et al., Zourdos et al., 2016). Their research found that subjective programming was reliable and correlated with varying exercise intensities/relative amounts of weight. By 2016, a significant amount of this information had been shared on social media platforms such as Instagram and YouTube. In the years that followed, coaches and researchers (Helms et al., 2018; Graham & Cleather, 2021) examined the 2 methods of training (strictly percentage-based training compared to flexible RPE/RIR-based training) and found that the flexible training method produced better results. Today, powerlifting coaches such as Joey Flexx from Flexx Training Systems as well as Mike Tuscherer from Reactive Training Systems use flexible RPE training for their athletes and have produced world championship winning athletes using it. Had it not been for the collaboration between coaches, researchers, and athletes through the internet and eventually social media, this new style of programming resistance training may not have become widespread. Instead, it was allowed to grow over time and now produces superior training outcomes.  

References:

Beaven, C. M., Cook, C. J., & Gill, N. D. (2008). Significant strength gains observed in rugby players after specific resistance exercise protocols based on individual salivary testosterone responses. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 22(2), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816357d4

Graham, T., & Cleather, D. J. (2021). Autoregulation by "Repetitions in Reserve" Leads to Greater Improvements in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 35(9), 2451–2456. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003164

Helms, E. R., Byrnes, R. K., Cooke, D. M., Haischer, M. H., Carzoli, J. P., Johnson, T. K., Cross, M. R., Cronin, J. B., Storey, A. G., & Zourdos, M. C. (2018). RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions. Frontiers in physiology, 9, 247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00247

Hubal, M. J., Gordish-Dressman, H., Thompson, P. D., Price, T. B., Hoffman, E. P., Angelopoulos, T. J., Gordon, P. M., Moyna, N. M., Pescatello, L. S., Visich, P. S., Zoeller, R. F., Seip, R. L., & Clarkson, P. M. (2005). Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 37(6), 964–972.

Kiely J. (2012). Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or tradition-driven?. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 7(3), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.7.3.242

Naclerio et al., (2011) Control of Resistance Training Intensity by the Omni Perceived Exertion Scale. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(7):p 1879-1888. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e501e9

Zourdos, M. C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J. M., Schau, K. A., Jo, E., Helms, E., Esgro, B., Duncan, S., Garcia Merino, S., & Blanco, R. (2016). Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 30(1), 267–275.

Tuscherer M., (2008) Reactive Training Manual: Developing Your Own Custom Training Program for Powerlifting.