Autoregulated load prescription (APRE, RPE, velocity) ranked above fixed percentage-based loading for maximal strength in a network meta-analysis
APRE ranked first for squat and bench
Key Findings
Network meta-analysis of APRE (autoregulating progressive resistance exercise), RPE-based and velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) vs percentage-based training (PBRT); SMDs with 95% CIs and SUCRA rankings.
Back squat 1RM: no moderate or large effect sizes between any interventions. SUCRA ranking: APRE 93.0%, RPE 66.8%, VBRT 27.0%, PBRT 13.2%.
Bench press 1RM: large difference between PBRT and APRE (SMD = -0.83, -1.22 to -0.44) and a moderate RPE-vs-APRE difference whose interval crosses zero (SMD = -0.76, -1.70 to 0.19). SUCRA: APRE 97.1%, VBRT 57.1%, RPE 29.9%, PBRT 15.9%.
Authors' conclusion: APRE, VBRT and RPE were significantly more effective than PBRT, with APRE ranked first for both lifts.
Practical Application
In this network meta-analysis, autoregulated methods ranked above fixed percentage loading for 1RM strength (APRE top for both squat, 93.0%, and bench, 97.1%; percentage-based last), but for the squat no method differed by a moderate or large effect — autoregulating load to the day is a reasonable default, with the clearest advantage shown for the bench press.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: use fixed percentages as a starting scaffold, then adjust load by day-to-day effort (RPE/RIR) or bar velocity.
Limitations
Network meta-analysis of heterogeneous methods; the abstract does not give the number of studies or participants.
SUCRA rankings are probabilities of being best, not effect sizes; the squat comparisons showed no moderate/large effects.
Autoregulation needs athlete skill in gauging effort or velocity.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Autoregulated methods beat fixed percentages" stated flatly -> the abstract shows no moderate/large differences for the back squat; the clear gap is APRE vs PBRT on bench press. Added the SMDs and SUCRA values.
"Especially in trained lifters" -> not in the abstract; removed. Percentage-scaffold advice relabelled as the base's practice.
Cross-reference "velocity-based training REF-583" -> REF-583 is a training-frequency meta-analysis; label corrected.
Tier "mixed (trained emphasis)" -> training status not given in the abstract.
PMID added: 40791980, the PubMed record returned by searching this DOI.