Scientific Programme
Applied Sports Sciences
IS-AP04 - From Exposure to Dose: A Cohesive Framework for Personalising Resistance Training Prescription from Concept to Application
Date: 09.07.2026, Time: 10:00 - 11:15, Session Room: Auditorium A (STCC)
Description
Resistance training (RT) acute responses and longitudinal adaptations are notoriously unpredictable, limiting its application in both high-performance and clinical settings. This symposium tackles this central challenge, arguing that response variability stems from a fundamental confusion between external training exposure (the programme) and the internal training dose that truly drives adaptation. This session provides a cohesive framework to quantify and personalise this dose, moving beyond traditional prescription. We first outline the methodological and conceptual framework for understanding RT variability, focusing on the distinction between external exposure and internal dose. We then explore practical strategies, such as cluster and rest-redistribution structures, as powerful tools to manage fatigue, preserve neuromuscular performance, and precisely target adaptations in athletic and clinical populations. Finally, we integrate these concepts into a novel, personalised RT prescription method: Autoregulation Rest-Redistribution Training (ARRT). ARRT uses real-time feedback (e.g., velocity loss or repetitions in reserve) to dynamically adjust set structures, personalising the training dose with greater precision. Presenting some already published, preliminary data, this symposium provides a complete pathway—from foundational problem to practical application—equipping practitioners to move RT prescription from a one-size-fits-all model toward a new standard of precision.
Chair(s)
Ivan Jukic
Abertay University; Auckland University of Technology, Department of Health, Sport & Wellbeing; Sport Performance Research Institute NZ
United Kingdom
Speaker A
Ivan Jukic
Abertay University; Auckland University of Technology, Department of Health, Sport & Wellbeing; Sport Performance Research Institute NZ
United Kingdom
Read CVECSS Rimini 2025: IS-AP04
Deconstructing Training Load Frameworks and the Need for Personalisation in Resistance Training Prescription
Resistance training (RT) is a widely adopted modality in athletic, clinical, and general populations, yet substantial variability in training responses remains a central challenge for researchers and practitioners. A key source of this variability arises from the problematic conflation of training exposure—the prescribed load, volume, and frequency—and training dose, the internal mechanical stimulus that drives adaptation. While exposure can be standardised, the effective dose from a given prescription differs markedly between individuals and within individuals, both within and between RT sessions. Direct in vivo quantification of mechanical dose is impractical in applied settings. However, proxy metrics derived from Newtonian mechanics—impulse (dose magnitude) and rate of force development (dose rate)—permit valid characterisation of the mechanical stimulus underlying adaptation. These metrics, obtainable via force plates or velocity-monitoring devices, bridge external exposure and the biological processes governing muscle strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance. A personalised RT prescription requires improved dose measurement and frameworks that stabilise dose delivery despite daily fluctuations in capacity. Autoregulation is one such framework, adjusting external exposure to maintain a consistent internal dose. However, evaluating autoregulatory strategies demands study designs that decompose RT's multiple sources of variability. We outline a methodological approach (acute and replicate crossover designs) to separate (i) between-subject variability, (ii) subject-by-treatment interactions (true individual variability), and (iii) within-subject dose variability (fluctuations often exceeding treatment effects). By exposing individuals to different strategies over repeated cycles, mixed-effects models can quantify which approaches minimise dose variability. Strategies reducing acute variance can then be prioritised for longitudinal evaluation, where consistent dosing should yield more predictable adaptations. Advancing personalised RT—a key component of precision medicine—requires (1) a clearer conceptual distinction between exposure and dose, (2) feasible, mechanistically grounded dose metrics such as impulse and rate of force development, and (3) methods that directly quantify and reduce dose variability. Together, these elements provide a pathway from the current lack of dose control toward more precise and reliable prescriptions. This precision also extends beyond traditional methods, highlighting the need to explore alternative prescription strategies, such as alternative set structures. For example, cluster or rest redistribution structures, which manipulate the allocation of total rest time within and between sets, may offer a way to manage dose rate and magnitude to achieve specific adaptations. The methodological frameworks outlined are essential for evaluating these structures and their potential to enhance dose delivery precision.
Speaker B
JESSICA RIAL-VAZQUEZ
University of A Coruna, PhGroup-Department of Physical and Sports Education-ES Q6550005J
Spain
Read CVECSS Rimini 2025: IS-AP04
Alternative Set Structures as Tools for Dose Precision in Resistance Training: Implications for Performance, Fatigue Management, and Clinical Practice
Resistance training (RT) variables like repetitions, load, and rest intervals can be adjusted to shape the stimulus and drive specific adaptations. Modulating the mechanical dose, not just the external exposure, is critical. Particularly, set structure refers to how repetitions are grouped within a set, thereby influencing the proximity to muscular failure. Traditional set (TS) structures involve repetitions performed consecutively, typically near muscular failure. Cluster sets (CS) incorporate additional intra-set rest intervals, enabling repetitions far from failure. Rest redistribution (RR) unites a protocol's total rest but redistributes it into shorter, frequent periods. This divides long sets into more, shorter sets with fewer repetitions. RR allows comparing protocols with equivalent work and rest, isolating set structure as a modulator for physiological responses and adaptations. Acutely, key advantages of CS and RR include more precise mechanical dose management, shown by: attenuating velocity, power, and force loss; preserving technique; reducing perceived exertion; and minimising metabolic stress. This is evidenced by a lower chronotropic response during exercise, reducing parasympathetic withdrawal and pronounced arterial stiffness increases. CS and RR may preserve neuromuscular performance and minimise athlete fatigue during sessions. For populations at cardiovascular risk, CS and RR are advised as they attenuate the magnitude and duration of post-exercise parasympathetic withdrawal, reducing immediate cardiovascular event risk. The lower exertion of CS and RR also suits clinical populations (e.g., ageing, COPD, cancer) constrained by low tolerance and reduced capacity. Long-term, TS, CS, and RR appear equally effective in promoting fundamental adaptations like strength and hypertrophy. However, CS and RR structures show a distinct advantage for enhancing velocity-dependent adaptations, enhancing vertical jump, movement velocity, and submaximal power. These structures also promote more velocity-dominant force-velocity profiles compared to TS. Clinically, neither TS nor RR interventions show significant changes in cardiac autonomic modulation or baroflex sensitivity in healthy young individuals; studies in clinical profiles are ongoing. Given their unique power advantages and favourable acute responses, CS and RR are strongly recommended as alternative strategies to TS, especially in clinical/rehabilitation programmes. Programmatically, optimising RT outcomes requires accounting for the specific physiological responses and adaptations elicited by different set structures. Recent literature is focused on adapting RR structures based on the athlete’s real-time physiological state. This represents a practical method of autoregulating the mechanical dose, maximising effectiveness and individualising RT prescription. This evolution naturally leads to frameworks that formally integrate RR structures within an autoregulatory feedback loop.
Speaker C
Antonio Dello Iacono
University of the West of Scotland , Health and Life Sciences
United Kingdom
Read CVECSS Rimini 2025: IS-AP04
Advances and future directions of autoregulation in resistance training: The Autoregulation Rest-Redistribution Training (ARRT) Method
To address the challenges of dose variability and fatigue management, the Autoregulation Rest-Redistribution Training (ARRT) method provides an advanced framework for personalising resistance training (RT) by integrating autoregulation with rest redistribution (RR) structures. ARRT allows for real-time modifications of RT structures by dynamically adjusting set volume and RR structures based on an individual's autoregulation target (i.e., velocity loss thresholds or repetitions in reserve) throughout the training session. Enabled by technology such as velocity-monitoring devices or individuals’ perceived exertion, ARRT builds on real-time feedback to personalise RT structures according to individuals' needs. This data-driven nature empowers practitioners to manage the mechanical dose more accurately by aligning the external exposure to the athlete's immediate physiological state, accounting for fluctuations from training and non-training factors. This level of control over the exposure-dose-response relationship allows for more precise RT prescription, with potentially wide-reaching applications, from enhancing elite athlete performance to making RT more accessible and effective for general fitness enthusiasts. ARRT has the potential to establish a foundation for RT protocols that are easily customisable for diverse demographics and RT goals, setting a new standard in RT effectiveness and personalisation. Preliminary investigations into ARRT examine its capacity to manage within- and between-individual variability outlined in this symposium. These studies explore its potential to maintain a high-quality mechanical dose while minimising fatigue accumulation compared to traditional RT protocols, with favourable outcomes observed in both general and athletic populations. While early evidence is promising, further research is essential to fully realise its potential. Key areas include identifying optimal exposure-dose-response relationships for specific outcomes like muscle strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance, which will help refine ARRT protocols for goal-specific training. Additionally, exploring alternative autoregulation constructs—such as affect or rating of perceived fatigue—could provide more flexible options for customising ARRT to individual needs and preferences. Finally, psychological factors like self-monitoring, gamification, and autonomy play a crucial role, as they may influence how athletes and trainees engage with and respond to ARRT, enhancing motivation and adherence. These refinements help optimise ARRT’s effectiveness and adaptability across diverse training contexts.