For strength and conditioning coaches, a key role in enhancing an athlete’s performance is placing them at the center of the design, development and implementation of a structured, progressive training program. A number of key variables within the design of athlete training programs exist, including exercise type, order, load (intensity), and volume (sets and reps).
 
Coaches must take recovery time into consideration.  Generally, it is the load used for each exercise that is acknowledged to be the most important stimulus to changes in strength.  For most coaches, this is seen in the adoption of relative load or percentage of one-rep max. 
 
While this approach to prescribing strength training intensity has been well documented, it is not without limitations. The determination of 1RM is time-consuming, consisting of a trial and error approach. It requires a standardized test battery often impractical for large groups.  Additionally, Athletes may well experience large daily variations in neuromuscular performance and training readiness which may impact the effectiveness of their training load. 
 
Imagine it is your athlete's second training session of the day. How can you accurately monitor their training readiness and establish the training load corresponds to the intensity prescription? Can you be sure that the 80 percent intensity you want during the second session, is the same as during the first one? *See PDF for diagrams*
 
You would hope that due to the training program, physiological adaptations would occur throughout the training period, resulting in increases in strength, power or speed, that is, the established percentage of 1RM at the start of the training cycle may not be accurate after the first, second, third, or fourth week of training.  Due to the time constraints of establishing an athlete's1RM, coaches typically only assess main or standardized exercises such as the back squat, bench press, prone row, etc., with auxiliary or assistance exercises are often not tested, resulting in intensity for those lifts possibly being too high or low due to estimated load prescriptions. These limitations suggest an exploration of alternative intensity prescription protocols that are more sensitive to daily fluctuations in performance in strength training would be beneficial to coaches and athletes.
 
One such method is auto-regulation (AR), which seeks to accommodate the day to day and even session to session fluctuations in athlete’s performance. Recognized methods of AR are Session Rate of Perceived Exertion (sRPE), Exercise Rate of Perceived Exertion (eRPE), Repetition in Reserve (RIR) and Velocity Based Training (VBT). *See PDF for diagrams*
 
RPE is the subjective measure of an exercise’s intensity through the use of a 10-point scale, which one being very, very easy and 10 being maximal effort, and the individual's perceived effort level required to complete the prescribed volume. It is one of the most common scales used to assess load. 
 
RIR is a scale related to RPE but uses numbers to quantify the number of repetitions (theoretically) still achievable before failure.  Subjective measures have been widely used within sporting environments to evaluate exercise intensity, initially for aerobic based activities before advancing into recording strength training.  Due to the subjective nature of scales, their use depends on the athlete's training status, experience and honesty.
 
VBT is an objective approach that quantifies the velocity that the barbell (or external load) is moved, using technology such as GymAware, PUSH, or Bar Sensei.  Due to the rapid advancement of technology and specifically to access to sport-science based support software, movement velocity is becoming increasingly popular and could provide key data for the monitoring of an athlete’s performance comparable session to session and over greater time periods.  The fact that VBT is both an objective measure of training intensity and is sensitive to daily changes in an athlete's training status makes it a powerful tool for training prescription.  Also, the immediacy of feedback with VBT methodology may increase motivation for the athlete.  A very interesting aspect of VBT is the ‘intent’ to move the load as quickly as possible for every rep, a psychological component that transitions to the Olympic lifts very well.  One drawback of VBT is that it requires user interfaces (tablets or phones) to be brought into the weight room. These user interfaces require continuous data input and training to operate correctly. These tasks may prove a distraction from training, and they can also contribute to athlete stress.
 
What does this look like in practice?  The diagram below provides a snapshot of how you can use the prescribing methods discussed here in your programming. *See PDF for diagrams*
 
For the diagram, I have included all four prescribing methodologies.  It is up to you how you visualize the concept for your athletes.
 
It may be that you continue to use percentage of 1RM within your programming to serve as an initial benchmark (first lift) and then apply adjustments via the autoregulation method the athlete has chosen (probably effective with subjective AR methods).  You may introduce an initial lifting protocol as shown in diagram six that assesses the athlete’s training readiness with the prescribed load making adjustments if necessary, for their ‘working’ sets (probably is effective with objective AR methods). *See PDF version for Diagrams*
 
Whether you choose subjective or objective measurements, auto-regulation intensity prescription has been shown to correlate with percentage of 1RM and allows a very athlete-focused approach to your program delivery and is certainly worthy of your attention if you are serious about putting the athlete at the heart of their programming.