ArticlePsychological research2021
The effect of self-selecting the number of repetitions on motor performance and psychological outcomes.
Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04895865 (A Comparison Between Two Repetition Prescription Approaches in Resistance Training Delivered Via Videoconferencing to Untrained Young Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Comparison Between Two Repetition Prescription Approaches in Resistance Training Delivered Via Videoconferencing to Untrained Young Adults
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modifying the Meaning of the Upper Anchor Predictably Shapes Ratings of Perceived Effort: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Sports medicine - open · 2026Article
- Should I Rest or Should I Go Now? A Randomized Cross-Over Trial Comparing Fixed and Self-Selected Rest Durations in High-Intensity Interval Training Cycling Sessions.Sports medicine - open · 2023Article
- A systematic narrative review of extrinsic strategies to improve affective responses to exercise.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Review
- Prescribing Intensity in Resistance Training Using Rating of Perceived Effort: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In resistance-training, the number of repetitions can be either fixed and predetermined (e.g., 3 sets of 10 repetitions), or selected by the trainee during ongoing sets (e.g., 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions). The first approach is more goal-focused while the latter is more autonomy-focused. Here we compared these two approaches in motor performance and psychological outcomes. Nineteen resistance-trained participants (10-males) first completed one repetition-maximum (RM) tests in the barbell-squat and bench-press, and were familiarized with the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants completed two sets of the squat and bench-press using 70%1RM, and two sets of the IMTP. In the predetermined session, participants completed 10 repetitions in all sets, and in the self-selected session, participants chose how many repetitions to complete out of an 8-12 range. Bar-velocity was measured in the squat and bench-press, and force production in the IMTP. Enjoyment, perceived-autonomy, and approach-preferences were collected post-sessions. We observed comparable bar-velocity, force production, and enjoyment in both conditions (all BF
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.