Instinctive Training vs. Fixed Training: Which Results in More Muscle Growth Summary
- The Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (i.e., instinctive training group where the training volume was adjusted based on each individual’s perceived recovery before each session) group completed a significantly higher total training volume compared to the Mixed Session Periodization group (i.e., the group followed a traditional resistance training program with a fixed volume).
- Instinctive training through perceived recovery-based autoregulation did not show additional benefits in muscle growth or strength gains compared to traditional fixed-volume training methods.
- While instinctive training allowed for adjustments in training volume based on recovery, it did not translate into superior performance outcomes, highlighting that more volume does not necessarily lead to better results.
The Evolution of Recovery-Based Training: A Closer Look at Instinctive Training and Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization
In the ever-evolving world of trying to gain muscle, the debate between traditional and instinctive training methods continues to capture the attention of athletes, trainers, and researchers alike. Instinctive training involves adjusting training volume based on how the athlete feels, particularly in response to fatigue. This approach aligns with the broader philosophy of periodization, including strategies like undulating periodization, which aim to manage fatigue and optimize recovery without compromising gains.1
Adding to this body of knowledge, a new study titled ” Autoregulation Does Not Provide Additional Benefits to a Mixed Session Periodized Resistance Training Program in Trained Men” by Bartolomei, and colleagues explores the effectiveness of a recovery-based program versus a traditional mixed session periodized program. This study examines whether adjusting training volume based on perceived recovery enhances strength, power, and muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained men—ideas that closely align with the principles of instinctive training.
Review of Literature on Instinctive Training and Recovery-Based Programs
Recovery-based training is not a new concept in strength and conditioning. Over the years, researchers have explored various methods to optimize training by regulating recovery and minimizing fatigue. Studies have emphasized the importance of recovery in preventing overtraining and enhancing performance.2,3 However, studies have highlighted the inconsistencies in autoregulation strategies, pointing out the need for more structured approaches to maximize gains.4
The Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (AMSP) approach is rooted in the idea of self-regulation, where athletes adjust their training volume based on subjective measures like perceived recovery—a core concept in instinctive training. This method requires a perceptual-based rating scale to adjust the training load for each session.5 Some authors have even proposed that individuals can optimize strength and muscle growth when their workouts are based on their fatigue rating.6,7 Given that recovery is crucial for optimizing adaptations in resistance training, this approach can be applied within a flexible periodization model, adjusting training volume (i.e., sets and reps) as needed. The rationale behind this strategy is that reducing training volume when recovery is poor may help avoid nonfunctional overreaching and chronic overtraining.8
Overview of the Study Protocol and Its Application in Instinctive Training
The new study by Bartolomei et al. focused on resistance-trained men, who were divided into two groups: Autoregulated Mixed Session Periodization (AMSP) and Mixed Session Periodization (MSP). Both groups participated in a 10-week resistance training program, performing the same exercises but with different approaches to training volume.
The MSP group followed a fixed volume regimen, while the AMSP group adjusted their training volume based on their perceived recovery before each session. In both groups, training intensity was prescribed using a repetition in reserve scale, ensuring that the intensity was consistent regardless of the volume adjustments—a technique often used in instinctive training.
Each training session consisted of exercises targeting upper and lower body muscles, focusing on compound movements like the bench press, squat, and deadlift. The program included five weekly resistance training sessions, with subjects completing at least 95% of the prescribed sessions. Warm-up protocols were standardized, and the study investigators supervised all training sessions. This structured yet flexible approach aligns well with the principles of instinctive training.
Results: Insights on Autoregulated Programs
The AMSP and MSP programs effectively improved maximum strength of the upper and lower body. However, there were no additional benefits of perceived recovery-based autoregulation of training volume on any strength or power performance assessed. This suggests that while the AMSP group completed a higher training volume, this did not translate into superior muscle growth or performance gains compared to the MSP group, raising questions about the overall effectiveness of instinctive training when applied to structured programs.
What Instinctive Training Means for Strength Athletes
The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of recovery-based autoregulation in resistance training. While the AMSP approach allowed athletes to adjust their training volume based on perceived recovery, this did not result in better outcomes than the traditional MSP approach. This challenges the notion that more training volume, even when adjusted for recovery, necessarily leads to greater gains—a key consideration for those practicing instinctive training.
One possible explanation for these results is that the subjective nature of perceived recovery may not be a reliable indicator of an athlete’s readiness to perform. Although previous research has shown correlations between perceived recovery and performance, this study’s lack of significant differences suggests that other factors, such as psychological readiness or external stressors, may play a role in determining training effectiveness. This insight is crucial for those who rely heavily on instinctive training to guide their workouts Additionally, the absence of significant differences in muscle growth between the groups highlights the complexity of muscle hypertrophy, which factors beyond training volume may influence.
Practical Applications
For fitness enthusiasts and bodybuilders, the results of this study suggest that while instinctive training based on perceived recovery can be a useful tool for managing training volume, it may not necessarily lead to superior results compared to traditional periodization methods. This is particularly relevant for those tempted to increase their training volume, thinking it will yield better gains.
Instead, a more balanced approach that combines elements of instinctive training with structured periodization may be more effective. For instance, incorporating regular assessments of recovery status, such as using the perceived recovery status scale, can help athletes fine-tune their training while avoiding the pitfalls of overtraining.
Ultimately, the key takeaway from this study is that more is not always better. While listening to your body and adjusting your training is important, relying solely on instinctive training may not be enough to maximize your gains. A well-rounded training program that includes a variety of periodization strategies, along with proper nutrition and recovery practices, is likely to produce the best results. The message for fitness enthusiasts and bodybuilders is clear: listen to your body, but don’t rely solely on instinctive training to guide your workouts.
References
1 Pareja-Blanco, F. et al. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains, and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27, 724-735 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1111/sms.12678
2 Hoffman, J. R., Kraemer, W. J., Fry, A. C., Deschenes, M. & Kemp, M. The Effects of Self-selection for Frequency of Training in a Winter Conditioning Program for Football. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 4, 76-82 (1990).
3 Laurent, C. M. et al. A Practical Approach to Monitoring Recovery: Development of a Perceived Recovery Status Scale. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25, 620-628 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c69ec6
4 Greig, L. et al. Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies. Sports Med 50, 1873-1887 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1007/s40279-020-01330-8
5 Helms, E. R. et al. Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Program. J Strength Cond Res 32, 1627-1636 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002032
6 Colquhoun, R. J. et al. Comparison of Powerlifting Performance in Trained Men Using Traditional and Flexible Daily Undulating Periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31, 283-291 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001500
7 McNamara, J. M. & Stearne, D. J. Flexible nonlinear periodization in a beginner college weight training class. J Strength Cond Res 24, 17-22 (2010). https://doi.org:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bc177b
8 Kenttä, G. & Hassmén, P. Overtraining and recovery. A conceptual model. Sports Med 26, 1-16 (1998). https://doi.org:10.2165/00007256-199826010-00001
