Content uploaded by James Steele
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Steele on Oct 09, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article
Strength Gains as a Result of Brief, Infrequent Resistance
Exercise in Older Adults
James Fisher,1James Steele,1Pat McKinnon,2and Stephen McKinnon2
1Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton SO14 0YN, UK
2Abstract Bodyworks, Precision Exercise, Newbury RG14 5BY, UK
Correspondence should be addressed to James Fisher; james.sher@solent.ac.uk
Received August ; Revised September ; Accepted September ; Published September
Academic Editor: Karim Chamari
Copyright © James Fisher et al. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Chronological aging is associated with a decrease in skeletal muscle mass and bone mineral density, an increase in fat mass,
frequency of falls and fractures, and the likelihood of obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Resistance exercise has been
shown to counter all of these eects of aging and, in turn, reduce the risk of all-cause mortality. However, variables such as volume
and frequency have become contentious issues, with recent publications suggesting that similar physiological adaptations are
possible with both high- and low-volume approaches. e aim of this research was to consider strength increases as a result of
brief, infrequent resistance exercise. e present study oers data from ( male and female) older adults (𝑀=55years)
who underwent brief (< minutes per exercise session), infrequent (×/week), resistance exercise to a high intensity of eort (-
repetition maximum) at a controlled repetition duration ( seconds concentric: seconds eccentric) on resistance machines
(chest press, leg press, pull-down, seated row, and overhead press). Data is presented for training interventions of weeks (male)
and weeks (female). Signicant strength increases were identied for all exercises. With the detailed health benets obtainable,
the present study suggests that resistance exercise can be ecacious in much smaller volumes than previously considered.
1. Introduction
e natural homeostatic processes in the human body oen
result in a physical decline with age. We lose bone mineral
density (BMD), muscle mass, and strength and we have
an increase in fat mass, ultimately resulting in reduced
physical performance [–]. As such, with aging there is
generally an increased risk of acute and chronic conditions
including greater frequency of bone fractures, obesity, dia-
betes, coronary heart disease, and cancers []. However, by
performing resistance training (RT) a person can improve
their strength [], muscle size [], cardiovascular tness [],
metabolic health [], and BMD []. As a result, people
can decrease the potential for injuries through strengthening
their joints, tendons, and ligaments [,]. Hurley and Roth
[] comment that the data suggests that “∼2decadesof
age-associated strength loss can be regained in ∼2monthsof
resistance exercise.” Indeed, reduced strength has been shown
to be a strong risk factor for all-cause mortality independently
of muscle mass []. Melov et al. [] reported reversal in
mitochondrial deterioration to the extent that participants
with an average age of years showed mitochondrial
characteristics similar to those of persons with a mean age of
years following months of resistance exercise. Succinctly,
resistance exercise appears to reverse aging in skeletal muscle.
Indeed, the evidence supports that resistance exercise reduces
the risk of all-cause mortality [–].
Previous publications have suggested that greater loads
result in greater increases in strength for older adults [–].
However, these studies failed to accurately control intensity
of eort. Previous reviews in asymptomatic individuals of
younger and middle age people have suggested that when
intensity of eort is controlled, research does not support
the superiority of a particular load and/or repetition range
for increasing muscular strength []andsize[]. Other
publications have discussed that dierences in low and high
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume 2014, Article ID 731890, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/731890
Journal of Sports Medicine
loads can be equated in intensity of eort and thus negated
by increasing repetition duration of low load training groups
[].
Researchinyoungadultshassupportedthisproposition
showing similar strength and hypertrophic increases when
using low loads (–% -repetition maximum ( RM)) for
longer repetition duration ( seconds concentric : second
isometric: seconds eccentric (::)) compared to higher
loads (–% RM) at shorter repetition durations (
second concentric : second eccentric ( : )) [,]. More
recently van Roie et al. [] have also reported nonsignicant
dierences in strength increases between low (–% RM)
and high (% RM) training loads in older adults when
exercise is taken to a point of muscular failure. Certainly this
is of important consideration since exercise ∼RMproduced
an orthopaedic injury prevalence of ∼% in older adults
[]. In addition heavy loads/shorter repetition duration
appear more likely to cause muscle soreness []which
appears counterintuitive to persons wishing to improve their
quality of life. We should also consider that near maximal
loads are simply not representative of normal daily func-
tion.
Previous research has concluded that single sets of an
exercise, performed to momentary muscular failure, produce
similar strength gains to multiple sets [,,]. is
remains a contentious issue in the eld []; however, there
is limited research which has implemented and evaluated a
single set approach with older adults. Indeed, a recent meta-
analysis of resistance exercise in older adults []reported
that all included studies used a multiple-set method. In fact,
Westcott et al. [ ] assessed a single set approach using
resistance exercises, -×/week with older adults and
reported signicant strength increases favouring a group
training at long repetition duration ( seconds concentric :
seconds eccentric) compared to a group training at a more
moderate repetition duration ( seconds concentric : second
isometric : seconds eccentric). eoretically, moving a load
more slowly (for a longer repetition duration) decreases the
potential for external forces such as momentum to interact,
thus maintaining muscular tension and likely increasing
intensity of eort. Evidence supports that fewer repetitions
arepossiblewhenmovingaloadatalonger-comparedto
shorter-repetition duration [–].
van Roie et al. [] also considered the use of a single set
protocol with older adults but limited training and testing
tolowerbodyexercisesonly.Inanagingpopulationwith
only –% of persons over years of age performing any
strengthening activities [] it is important to consider time-
ecient methods which might encourage exercise adherence.
e present authors have previously recommended single
sets of an exercise, performed infrequently (-×/week), to a
high intensity of eort, using resistance machines through a
full range of motion, at a repetition duration that maintains
muscular tension as being optimal for increasing strength
whilst eciently using time and minimising risk of injury
[,].
Whilst data from Westcott et al. []supportsthis
approach, the present study represents a further decreased
volume of training. e authors have worked closely with a
T : Participant demographic characteristics (Mean ±SD).
Males Females
Age (years) ± ±
Stature (cm) . ±. . ±.
Body mass (kg) . ±. . ±.
BMI . ±. . ±.
UK exercise facility which uses these recommendations, cate-
gorically clarifying that all exercise sessions will be completed
in < minutes, whilst stringently recording all workout data.
As such, the present study aims to retrospectively present
thedatafromthemembersofthatfacilityemphasizingthe
ecological validity of real people in a real gym,ratherthana
“laboratory gym” in which most research is undertaken and
restricted by specic protocols and research questions.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design. is study was a retrospective analysis of
strength outcomes of a cohort of members from a private UK
based exercise facility. e facility uses standardised training
protocols with members with all sessions being supervised
bythesametrainerswhomakemeticulousrecordsofevery
session allowing for analysis of load progression as a mea-
surement of strength gains as a result of the training protocol
administered. Participants training records were examined
from the period beginning from January through to
April . e study design was approved by the relevant
ethics committee at the author’s institution.
2.2. Participants. Participants were required to have no med-
ical condition for which RT is contraindicated to participate.
Participant demographics are given in Tab l e .Participants
were existing members at the facility who provided written
informed consent for their training data from their rst
sessionuntiltheirmostrecenttobereleasedforanalysisin
this study. Power analysis of research using low volume RT in
untrained participants was conducted to determine partici-
pant numbers (𝑛) using an eect size (ES), calculated using
Cohen’s 𝑑[]of∼. []fortheimprovementsinstrength.
Participant numbers were calculated using equations from
Whitley and Ball []revealingarequiredparticipantsto
meet required power of . at an alpha value of 𝑃 ≤ 0.05 for
detecting changes.
2.3. Equipment. Strength was measured using MedX (USA)
torso arm (pull down), chest press, seated row, overhead
press, and leg press resistance machines. ese were also
used for the RT intervention in addition to MedX (USA) leg
extension, leg curl, bicep curl, torso exion, hip extension,
chest y, seated dip, abdominal isolator, and lumbar extension
resistance machines, as well as a pull-over (Nautilus, USA).
2.4. Participant Training. roughout the time period anal-
ysed participants attended the facility to participate in super-
vised RT sessions ∼×/week. All participants performed a
Journal of Sports Medicine
single set of torso arm (pull down), chest press, seated row,
overhead press, and leg press exercises in this order through-
out their training period and some occasionally performed
- additional exercises using the other resistance machines
noted. Each exercise was completed using a load that allowed
the participants to perform a self-determined RM (meaning
that they determined inability to complete further repetitions
if attempted, i.e., predicted momentary muscular failure on
the next repetition) through a full range of motion using
repetition duration of seconds concentric and seconds
eccentric. is equated to total repetition duration of sec-
ondsandatotaltimeunderloadof∼ seconds. e trainer
monitored participants repetition duration throughout each
exercise using a stopwatch and advised participants to either
speed up or slow down as appropriate to maintain this
repetition duration. Load progression was provided based
onthefollowingcharacteristicsasassessedbythetrainer;
() the ability to maintain the prescribed repetition duration
of : within a margin of seconds error (i.e., – : –
), () the ability to maintain interrepetition consistency to
this repetition duration within the set, () and the quality
of the participants form for the exercise. Once the trainer
was condent the participant could exceed a RM whilst
meeting these criteria with their current load, a further –
lbs was added in their next training session. is method
of progression is consistent with previous research []. e
trainers throughout this intervention encouraged very strict
form during exercise; for example, controlled and continuous
breathing frequency (without a valsalva manoeuvre) and
attempting to keep muscles which are not the target of the
exercise as relaxed as possible.
As a time ecient training approach participants were
also encouraged to move from one exercise to the next
without signicant rest, generally < seconds. All machines
were prepared for the clients prior to beginning each exercise
session to make this possible. With an average of exercises
per session, at ∼ seconds per exercise, total workout time
is approximately minutes. Indeed the trainers and the
exercise facility specically advertise that sessions will not
exceed minutes in total time commitment per training
session. is represents an ecologically valid approach to
applying the aforementioned recommendations with strin-
gent, yet practical methods of increasing load.
Mean (±SD) numbers of training sessions are presented
in Table which equate to study duration of 𝑀 = 12 ± 6.7
weeks for males and 𝑀 = 19 ± 10.9 weeks for females.
e SDs suggest large dierences in actual duration between
participants. However, this is likely representative of real
people, where some people train for extended periods whilst
othersceaseexerciseintermittentlyasaresultofother
commitments.
2.5. Outcomes. Strength gains as progression in load used
during exercise was the primary outcome for this study.
As all participants had completed torso arm (pull down),
chest press, seated row, overhead press, and leg press, load
progression was examined for these exercises only. As partic-
ipants continuously performed a standardised intervention,
T : Participant training session data.
Exercise Number of training sessions (𝑀±SD)
Males Females
Torso arm (pull down) ± ±∗
Chest press ± ±
Seated row ± ±∗
Overhead press ± ±
Leg press ± ±∗
Exercises per session
(number) ±±
∗Signicant compared to males (𝑃 < 0.05).
whereby the exercises were performed in the same order and
used a self-determined RM load (meaning that they deter-
mined inability to complete further repetitions if attempted
that is, predicted momentary muscular failure on the next
repetition) through a full range of motion using a repetition
duration of seconds concentric and seconds eccentric
throughout the training period, the increase in training load
was considered to be adequate to determine strength gains
as a result of the training completed. is was calculated as
the training load in the most recent exercise session available
for analysis minus the training load for the participants rst
training session.
2.6. Data Analysis. Training record data was available from
participants (male, 𝑛=14;female,𝑛=19). Descriptive
statistics including means and standard deviations were
calculatedfornumberofexercisesperformedeachsession,
number of sessions completed for chest press, leg press, torso
arm (pull down), seated row, and overhead press exercises,
and load progression for these exercises. Data met assump-
tions of normality when examined using a Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test. Gender comparisons were performed for
demographic characteristics, number of exercises performed
each session, number of sessions completed per exercise,
andstrengthoutcomes,includingbothabsoluteandrelative
change in training load and strength change relative to body
mass, using an independent samples 𝑡-test. % condence
intervals (CI) were calculated in addition to ES using Cohen’s
𝑑[] for each absolute strength outcome to examine the
signicance and magnitude of eects where an outcome was
considered to be signicantly improved if the CI did not cross
zero. Eect sizes (ESs) of .–. were considered as small,
.–. as moderate and ≥. as large.
3. Results
3.1. Participants. Participant baseline demographics are
shown in Table .AgeandBMIdidnotsignicantlydier
between groups. Males had a signicantly higher stature
(𝑡(31) = 5.106,𝑃 < 0.001)andbodymass(𝑡(29) = 2.983,
𝑃 = 0.005) than females.
Journal of Sports Medicine
T : Beginning training loads.
Males Females
Mean (±SD) training load (Kgs)
Tors o arm . ±. . ±.∗
Chest press . ±. . ±. ∗
Seated row . ±. . ±. ∗
Overhead press . ±. . ±.∗
Leg press . ±. . ±. ∗
∗Signicant compared to males (𝑃 < 0.05).
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Change in training load (kgs)
Torso arm Chest press Seated row
Exercises
Leg pressOverhead
press
Males
Females
F : Mean change in absolute training load with % CIs for
males and females.
3.2. Training Sessions. Training session data including num-
ber of training sessions per exercise and exercises per sessions
are presented in Ta b l e . Females had performed signicantly
more sessions than males for torso arm (𝑡(31) = −2.301,𝑃=
0.028), seated row (𝑡(31) = −2.238,𝑃 = 0.033), and leg press
(𝑡(30) = −2.126,𝑃 = 0.026) exercises. ere was no dierence
in number of exercises performed per session between males
and females.
3.3. Strength Outcomes. Beginning training loads are pre-
sented in Table . Males had a signicantly higher absolute
training load at baseline than females for torso arm (𝑡(31) =
3.488,𝑃 = 0.002), chest press (𝑡(31) = 4.215,𝑃 < 0.001),
seated row (𝑡(30) = 2.603,𝑃 = 0.014), overhead press
(𝑡(30) = 4.087,𝑃 < 0.001), and leg press (𝑡(30) = 3.898,
𝑃 = 0.001) exercises. Strength relative to body mass did not
dier at baseline between males and females for any exercise.
Figure presents changes in absolute training load from rst
to last training sessions for each exercise for males and
females. Change in absolute training load did not signicantly
dier between males and females for any exercise. % CIs
suggest signicant improvements in absolute strength for
every exercise with large ESs for both males and females,
respectively, of . and . for torso arm, . and . for
chest press, . and . for seated row, . and . for
overhead press, and . and . for leg press exercises.
Relative increases in training load did not dier between
males and females, respectively, for torso arm (68.7 ± 40.1%
60
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
Torso arm Chest press Seated row
Exercises
Leg pressOverhead
press
Change in training load relative
to body mass (%)
Males
Females
∗
F : Mean change in training load relative to body mass with
% CIs for males and females; ∗signicant compared to males (𝑃<
0.05).
versus 90.8 ± 38.1%), chest press (55.8 ± 39.4%versus.
±.%), seated row (. ±. versus . ±.%), and
overhead press (. ±.% versus . ±.%) exercises
but was signicantly greater for females for the leg press
exercise (. ±.% versus . ±.%; 𝑡(30) = −2.297,
𝑃 = 0.018). Figure presents changes in training load relative
to body mass from rst to last training sessions for each
exercise for males and females. Changes in training load
relative to body mass did not dier between genders for torso
arm,chestpress,seatedrow,oroverheadpress;however,they
were signicantly greater for females for the leg press exercise
(𝑡(30) = −2.091,𝑃 = 0.045).
4. Discussion
is study presents data from a retrospective single arm
trial of resistance training in older adults. Previous rec-
ommendations (e.g. []) have suggested single sets of an
exercise to a high intensity of eort performed -×/week as
producing the same strength adaptations as larger training
volumes/frequencies and yet presenting far greater time
eciency. Training interventions of similar methodology in a
similar population sample have reported signicant strength
gains [].However,thepresentstudyexaminedanapproach
which used an average of two training sessions per week
consisting of ∼ exercises to activate most muscle groups,
equating to a total time commitment of approximately
minutes per week, a signicantly lower volume of exercise
than Westcott et al. []. Previous research has suggested that
the addition of single-joint (SJ) to multijoint (MJ) exercises
does not increase muscle hypertrophy beyond that of MJ
exercises alone []. Further research has reported similar
strength and hypertrophy increases when comparing SJ and
MJ exercises independently []. e eciency of perform-
ing only exercises compared to larger volumes suggests
practical benets if the same adaptations are obtainable.
Participants within the present study showed signicant
meaningful increases in both absolute and relative to body
mass strength ( RM) as evidenced by % CIs (Figures
Journal of Sports Medicine
and ) and large ESs for all exercises tested. Female
participants reported similar increases in absolute load to
male participants albeit with a greater number of training
sessions, for example, a longer training duration. However,
female participants also showed a signicantly greater relative
increase in strength, and increase relative to body mass, for
the leg press exercise than males and qualitatively greater rel-
ative increases for all other exercises. Evidence has supported
a greater magnitude of improvement in upper body compared
to lower body strength between males and females []and
also a potentially smaller age related decline in lower body
strength and muscle quality in females compared to males
[]. However, there appears no prior evidence supporting
the present data that females show greater relative increases in
lower-body strength than males. We suggest these dierences
in relative strength increase may be a result of the signicant
strength dierences at baseline between males and females
and also that females engaged in a longer duration of training
than males in the present study.
We have previously discussed that intensity of eort,
andintenttomaximallyrecruitmusclebresappearstobe
the most signicant variable aecting strength and hyper-
trophic increases (e.g., training to momentary muscular
failure (MMF)) [,]. However, the present data suggests
that untrained older adults can make signicant increases in
strength by training to RM, which might best be thought of
as volitional fatigue. Self-determined RM does not represent
a quantiable measure of intensity of eort as is evidenced by
trained participants providing poor estimates at the number
of repetitions possible before MMF []. As such, RM
might not be scientically meaningful regarding intensity
of eort compared to MMF. However, training to volitional
fatigue represents a very pragmatic approach, especially in
the present population group. e data herein represents “real
people, doing real resistance exercise”fromwhichtheyare
intending to acquire the aforementioned health and tness
benets. We might surmise that their aims are to function
more eciently and for greater longevity in their day-to-
day life. As the discomfort and debilitation associated with
delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) which might arise as
a result of high volume and/or very high intensity of eort
(e.g., MMF) resistance exercise seems counterintuitive to a
person wishing to have a more functional life.
Previous research suggests that perceived diculty and
misinformation about expected outcomes are barriers to
older persons performing resistance exercise []. is study
presents data from a UK based exercise facility where sessions
are performed on a : basis (client : trainer). e study
shows that resistance training need not be time consuming,
dauntingly complex, or overly dicult, and that considerable
increases in strength can be achieved. A potential limita-
tion to this approach might be the nancial expense and
practicality of a : (trainer to client) session. Certainly the
signicant improvements seen within this intervention and
other resistance training research might be a result of the
individual coaching and motivation received by each partic-
ipant. In considering transference from research to practical
application, improvements to the same degree might not be
possible in most health clubs/gyms and so forth, where this
ratio is expensive/inappropriate. However, future research
might consider the ecacy of small group resistance exercise
sessions (e.g., – participants : trainer). Previous research
has shown signicant improvements in function as a result
of group exercise (𝑛=∼ and 𝑛= – persons) in studies
where mean age = years []andyears[]. However,
Gentil and Bottaro [] reported greater increases in upper
and lower body strength in high supervision ( : ; trainer to
athlete ratio) compared to a low supervision ( : ) group.
Certainly improvements to the magnitude shown within the
present study are possible from such a low frequency and
volume of training suggests that there is scope to further
evaluate this approach.
In the interests of transparency we have previously
discussed that publishing data which does not identify
control/clarity of variables potentially oers little to trainers
or trainees with regard to how they might optimise training
adaptations []. However, the protocol reported herein is
highly standardised between participants and we oer the
present ndings to highlight the concept of undertaking this
protocol and similar ones given the ecological validity of the
study.
In summary our data suggests that when training to RM
signicant strength increases are possible from brief (<
minutes/∼ exercises per workout), infrequent -×/week,
resistance exercise sessions. As previous research has indi-
cated that strength is an independent risk factor for all-
cause mortality [], these results are meaningful for reducing
this risk in the population examined. Previous research has
shown that resistance exercise in older adults can signicantly
increase strength, muscle mass, and bone mineral density,
improve gene expression and mitochondrial characteristics,
and reduce the risk of falls, obesity, and type diabetes
and, as noted, reduce the risk of all-cause mortality. Since
the present data suggest that strength can be signicantly
increased by following the aforementioned protocol, future
research should consider whether other health markers such
as blood pressure and glycemic control respond to the same
low volume stimulus.
Conflict of Interests
e authors have no conict of interests to declare.
References
[] L. Warming, C. Hassager, and C. Christiansen, “Changes in
bone mineral density with age in men and women: a longitudi-
nal study,” Osteoporosis International,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] D. B. Burr, “Muscle strength, bone mass, and age-related bone
loss,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[]I.Janssen,S.B.Heymseld,Z.Wang,andR.Ross,“Skeletal
muscle mass and distribution in men and women aged -
yr,” Journal of Applied Physiology,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] I.Janssen,S.B.Heymseld,andR.Ross,“Lowrelativeskeletal
muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with
Journal of Sports Medicine
functional impairment and physical disability,” Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] K. Strong, C. Mathers, S. Leeder, and R. Beaglehole, “Preventing
chronic diseases: how many lives can we save?” Lancet,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] J.Fisher,J.Steele,S.Bruce-Low,andD.Smith,“Evidence-based
resistance training recommendations,” Medicina Sportiva,vol.
, no. , pp. –, .
[] J. Fisher, J. Steele, and D. Smith, “Evidence-based resistance
training recommendations for muscular hypertrophy,” Medic-
ina Sportiva,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Steele, J. Fisher, D. McGu, S. Bruce-Low, and D. Smith,
“Resistance training to momentary muscular failure improves
cardiovascular tness in humans: a review of acute physiolog-
ical responses and chronic physiological Adaptations,” Journal
of Exercise Physiology Online,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. O. Holloszy, “Invited review: exercise-induced increase in
muscle insulin sensitivity,” Journal of Applied Physiology,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] G. A. Kelley, K. S. Kelley, and Z. V. Tran, “Resistance training
and bone mineral density in women: a meta-analysis of con-
trolled trials,” e American Journal of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] M. H. Stone, “Muscle conditioning and muscle injuries,”
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] J. B. Lauersen, D. M. Bertelsen, and L. B. Andersen, “e
eectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries:
a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled
trials,” British Journal of Sports Medicine,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] B. F. Hurley and S. M. Roth, “Strength training in the elderly:
eects on risk factors for age-related diseases,” Sports Medicine,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] A. B. Newman, V. Kupelian, M. Visser et al., “Strength, but not
muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the health, aging
and body composition study cohort,” Journals of Gerontology—
Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences,vol.,no.,
pp. –, .
[] S.Melov,M.A.Tamopolsky,K.Bechman,K.Felkey,andA.
Hubbard, “Resistance exercise reverses aging in human skeletal
muscle,” PLoS ONE,vol.,no.,articlee,.
[] J.R.Ruiz,X.Sui,F.Lobeloetal.,“Associationbetweenmuscular
strength and mor tality in men: prospect ive cohort study,” British
Medical Journal,vol.,p.a,.
[] E. G. Artero, D.-C. Lee, J. R. Ruiz et al., “A prospective study
of muscular strength and all-cause mortality in men with
hypertension,” JournaloftheAmericanCollegeofCardiology,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] O. Seynnes, M. A. F. Singh, O. Hue, P. Pras, P. Legros, and
P. L. Bernard, “Physiological and functional responses to low-
moderate versus high-intensity progressive resistance training
in frail elders,” Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological
Sciences and Medical Sciences,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] H.T.Rabelo,R.J.Oliveira,andM.Bottaro,“Eectsofresistance
training on activities of daily living in older women,” Biology of
Sport,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] I. G. Fatouros, A. Kambas, I. Katrabasas et al., “Strength training
and detraining eects on muscular strength, anaerobic power,
and mobility of inactive older men are intensity dependent,” e
British Journal of Sports Medicine,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] S. Steib, D. Schoene, and K. Pfeifer, “Dose-response relationship
of resistance training in older adults: a meta-analysis,” Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] J. Fisher and D. Smith, “Attempting to better dene “intensity”
for muscular performance: is it all wasted eort,” European
Journal of Applied Physiology,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] M. Tanimoto and N. Ishii, “Eects of low-intensity resistance
exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on
muscular function in young men,” Journal of Applied Physiolog y,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] M. Tanimoto, K. Sanada, K. Yamamoto et al., “Eects of whole-
body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and
tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young
men,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] E. van Roie, C. Delecluse, W. Coudyzer, S. Boonen, and I. Baut-
mans, “Strength training at high versus low external resistance
in older adults: eects on muscle volume, muscle strength, and
force-velocity characteristics,” Experimental Gerontology,vol.
, no. , pp. –, .
[] M. L. Pollock, J. F. Carroll, J. E. Graves et al., “Injuries and
adherence to walk/jog and resistance training programs in the
elderly,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] P. M. Tiidus and C. D. Ianuzzo, “Eects of i ntensity and duration
of muscular exercise on delayed soreness and serum enzyme
activities,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] R . N.C arpinelliand R. M. O tto, “Strength training: single versus
multiple sets,” Sports Medicine, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] R. A. Winett, “Meta-analyses do not support performance of
multiple sets or high volume resistance training,” Journal of
Exercise Physiology Online,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] R. M. Otto and R. N. Carpinelli, “A critical analysis of the single
versus multiple set debate,” Journal of Exercise Physiology,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[]N.L.Silva,R.B.Oliveira,S.J.Fleck,A.C.Leon,andP.
Farinatti, “Inuence of strength training variables on strength
gains in adults over years-old: a meta-analysis of dose-
response relat ionships,” JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] W. L. Westcott, R. A. Winett, E. S. Anderson et al., “Eects of
regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength,”
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] P. F. Lachance and T. Hortobagyi, “Inuence of cadence on
muscular performance during push-up and pull-up exercises,”
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,vol.,pp.–,
.
[] M.C.Morrissey,E.A.Harman,P.N.Frykman,andK.H.Han,
“Early phase dierential eects of slow and fast barbell squat
training,” e American Journal of Sports Medicine,vol.,no.
,pp.–,.
[] A. Sakamoto and P. J. Sinclair, “Eect of movement velocity
on the relationship between training load and the number of
repetitions of bench press,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[]R.A.Winett,D.M.Williams,andB.M.Davy,“Initiating
and maintaining resistance training in older adults: a social
Journal of Sports Medicine
cognitive theory-based approach,” e British Journal of Sports
Medicine,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J.Fisher,J.Steele,M.Brzycki,andB.DeSimone,“Primumnon
nocere: a commentary on avoidable injuries and safe resistance
training techniques,” Journal of Trainology,vol.,pp.–,
.
[] J. Cohen, “A power primer,” Psychological Bulletin,vol.,no.
,pp.–,.
[] M. Fr¨
ohlich, E. Emrich, and D. Schmidtbleicher, “Outcome
eects of single-set versus multiple-set training—an advanced
replication study,” Research in Sports Medicine,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] E. Whitley and J. Ball, “Statistics review : sample size calcula-
tions,” Critical Care,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] P. Gentil, S. R. S. Soares, M. C. Pereira et al., “Eect of
adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance-
training program on strength and hypertrophy in untrained
subjects,” Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[]P.Gentil,S.Soares,andM.Bottaro,“Singlevs.Multi-joint
resistance exercise: eects on muscle strength and hypertrophy,”
Asian Journal of Sports Medicine.Inpress.
[]A.E.J.Miller,J.D.MacDougall,M.A.Tarnopolsky,and
D. G. Sale, “Gender dierences in strength and muscle ber
characteristics,” European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] R. S. Lindle, E. J. Metter, N. A. Lynch et al., “Age and gender
comparisons of muscle strength in women and men aged
– yr,” Journal of Applied Physiology,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] D. A. Hackett, N. A. Johnson, M. Halaki, and C.-M. Chow, “A
novel scale to assess resistance-exercise eort,” Journal of Sports
Sciences, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[]A.Barnett,B.Smith,S.R.Lord,M.Williams,andA.Bau-
mand, “Community-based group exercise improves balance
and reduces falls in at-risk older people: a randomised con-
trolled trial,” Age and Ageing,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] L. Z. Rubenstein, K. R. Josephson, P. R. Trueblood et al., “Eects
of a group exercise program on strength, mobility, and falls
among fall-prone elderly men,” Journals of Gerontology Series A
Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences,vol.,no.,pp.M–
M, .
[]P.GentilandM.Bottaro,“Inuenceofsupervisionratio
on muscle adaptations to resistance training in nontrained
subjects,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] J. Fisher, “A critical commentar y on the practical application of
resistance training studies,” Journal of Trainology,vol.,pp.–
, .
Submit your manuscripts at
http://www.hindawi.com
Stem Cells
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
M E D I ATO R S
INFLA M MAT I O N
of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Behavioural
Neurology
Endocrinology
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Disease Markers
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioMed
Research International
Oncology
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Oxidative Medicine and
Cellular Longevity
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
PPAR Research
The Scientic
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Immunology Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
Obesity
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Computational and
Mathematical Methods
in Medicine
Ophthalmology
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Diabetes Research
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Research and Treatment
AIDS
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Gastroenterology
Research and Practice
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Parkinson’s
Disease
Evidence-Based
Complementary and
Alternative Medicine
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
