A comparison of low volume ‘high-intensity-training’ and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training

Abstract

Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n=13; females, n=17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume 'High Intensity Training' (HIT; n=16) or high volume 'Body-building' (3ST; n=14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular performance, body composition, and participant's subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved muscular performance significantly (as indicated by 95% confidence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had significantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9 tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition did not significantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively). Significant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome.

Full text

Biology of Sport, Vol. 33 No3, 2016 241
Ecologically valid resistance training methods
INTRODUCTION
Resistance training (RT) is widely recognised as a mode of exercise
that offers considerable value for optimising health and longevity.
Participation in such exercise and the increased strength and muscle
mass it produces has been evidenced to reduce the risk of numerous
morbidities [1,2] in addition to all-cause mortality [3-8]. Thus, un-
derstanding which RT approaches are most efcacious is of consider-
able interest. A frequently debated topic in RT is volume, with num-
ber of sets of repetitions (sets x repetitions e.g. 1 x 12, 3 x 12 etc.)
commonly being considered. Numerous reviews and meta-analyses
have examined this area with contrasting ndings [9-22] and further
empirical work continues to offer contrasting results; some studies
support multiple set approaches [23-25] and some studies report no
differences between single and multiple set routines [25-32].
Research has examined set volume experimentally by controlling
all other RT variables and only varying the set number. Though this
allows examination of this variable in isolation, it does not necessar-
ily represent ecologically valid programmes employed by people
outside of an exercise laboratory gym. Examination of studies con-
sidering low and high set volumes [33] suggests intensity of effort[34]
A comparison of low volume ‘high-intensity-training’ and high volume
traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance,
body composition, and subjective assessments of training
AUTHORS: Giessing J1, Eichmann B1, Steele J2, Fisher J2
1 Institut für Sportwissenschaft, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
2 Centre for Health, Exercise and Sport Science, Southampton Solent University, UK
ABSTRACT: Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training
practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices
are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n=13;
females, n=17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume ‘High Intensity Training’ (HIT; n=16)
or high volume ‘Body-building’ (3ST; n=14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular
performance, body composition, and participant’s subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved
muscular performance signicantly (as indicated by 95% condence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97
to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had signicantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9
tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition
did not signicantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were
slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition
to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively).
Signicant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance
gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically
valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome.
CITATION:
Giessing J, Eichmann B, Steele J, Fisher J. A comparison of low volume ‘high-intensity-training’
and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition,
and subjective assessments of training Biol Sport. 2016;33(3):241–249.
Received: 2015-07-15; Reviewed: 2016-01-19; Re-submitted: 2016-01-27; Accepted: 2016-04-19; Published: 2016-05-10.
applied often differs. Surveys of strength and conditioning practic-
es[35-40] highlight single set routines are most commonly performed
to momentary muscular failure (MMF (a)) and multiple set routines
often do not specify but tend to be performed to xed repetition
numbers/ranges or a repetition maximum (RM (b)).
Advocates of low volume RT typically suggest an approach col-
loquially called ‘High Intensity Training’ [41-46] which involves per-
formance of a single set per exercise to MMF using a relatively
moderate to long repetition duration and often utilises advanced
techniques to allow the trainee to exercise ‘beyond’ MMF (i.e. drop
sets, forced repetitions, rest-pause etc.). Advocates of multiple set
RT, however, often suggest performance of >3 sets of between 8-12
repetitions using a relatively shorter repetition duration [47,48].
Whether sets are performed to RM or to MMF is often unspecied
as the two concepts have not been clearly differentiated [33,49,50].
In fact some authors propose avoiding training to MMF as it is argued
repeated training to MMF may lead to overtraining [51]. Willard-
son[50] highlights there is insufcient evidence to suggest multiple
set RT should be performed to MMF. A recent survey of male body-
Original Paper Biol. Sport 2016;33:241-249
DOI:10.5604/20831862.1201813
Key words:
Muscular failure
Repetition maximum
Drop-sets
Volitional fatigue
Corresponding author:
James Steele
Centre for Health, Exercise and
Sport Science,
Southampton Solent University,
East Park Terrace,
Southampton,
Hampshire,
United Kingdom
SO14 0YN
E-mail: james.steele@solent.ac.uk
- - - - -

242
Giessing J et al.
builders training practices did not distinguish between RM and MMF,
but indicated respondents generally performed ~3-6 sets of 7-12RM
with 61-120 seconds rest between sets [52]. Its unclear but, based
upon the above recommendations [50-51], such multiple set ‘Body-
building’ routines likely employ training to a self-determined RM.
These two ecologically valid approaches to low and high volume
RT have seldom been empirically examined within the literature and,
where they have, often with inclusion of load periodization for mul-
tiple set groups [53-56]. Two studies directly compared low volume
RT to MMF and higher volume RT not to MMF. Kramer et al. [53]
examined three groups; a single set to MMF (SS), 3 sets of 10 rep-
etitions (MS), and a 3 set periodized loading group (MSV). They
reported signicantly greater improvements in 1RM squat from both
week 0-5 and 0-14 for the MS and MSV groups compared with the
SS group. McGee et al. [54] also compared a single set to MMF (N),
3 sets of 10 repetitions (H), and a 3 set periodized loading group
(P) upon cycling time to exhaustion and muscular performance us-
ing a squat endurance test reporting for both outcomes that H>P>N.
The reasons for these results are uncertain considering the unclear
data regarding set volume as a key RT variable [9-32] in addition to
evidence suggesting superiority of training to MMF [21,22] and that
training to MMF signicantly improves cardiovascular tness and
endurance [57].
Since the present body of research regarding ecologically valid
RT approaches is equivocal and studies have also not included use
of advanced training techniques often employed in single-set training;
the aims of the present study were to compare the use of ‘High In-
tensity Training’ and ‘Body-building’ style RT upon both muscular
performance and body composition in addition to participant subjec-
tive assessments of training.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Design
A randomised trial was conducted with two experimental groups
examining ecologically valid low and high volume RT interventions
upon muscular performance and body composition. The study design
was ethically approved by the author’s institution. All procedures
were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the
Helsinki Declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from
all participants.
Participants
Participants were healthy university sports students engaged in rec-
reational sports. Power analysis of low and high volume RT research
in participants without prior RT experience [26] was conducted to
determine participant numbers (n) using an effect size (ES), calcu-
lated using Cohen’s d [58] of ~1.1-1.3 for improvements in mus-
cular performance. Participant numbers were calculated using equa-
tions from Whitley and Ball [59] revealing each group required
between 9 and 13 participants to meet required power of 0.8 at an
alpha value of p<.0.05. Thirty participants were initially identied
and recruited. No initial dropouts were recorded after eligibility as-
sessment so 30 participants were randomised to one of two groups
using an online randomisation programme (Research Randomizer vs
3.0); a group performing a single set of each exercise to MMF plus
drop-sets (HIT; n=16), or a group performing three sets of each
exercise to a self-determined RM (3ST; n=14).
Equipment
Muscular performance measurement and training were performed
using chest press, heel raise, rear deltoid, elbow exion, seated row,
knee extension, and knee exion resistance machines (Nautilus Inc.,
USA). Body composition including body mass, whole body muscle
and fat mass and percentage, visceral fat rating (total abdominal fat
– see below), bone mass, muscle and fat mass and percentage for
individual body segments (Left and right upper and lower limbs and
trunk), total body water, and both extra- and intra-cellular water was
estimated using bioelectrical impedance (Tanita MC 180, Tanita
Europe B.V., Amsterdam). This device is reported as valid compared
with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for estimating total and seg-
mental body composition in healthy adults [60], however, ‘visceral
fat rating’ has been reported better representative of total abdominal
fat compared with magnetic resonance imaging [61] and is referred
to as such herein.
Participant Testing
Pre and post muscular performance testing was performed in the
following order with 2-3 minutes rest between exercises; chest press,
heel raise, rear deltoid, elbow exion, seated row, knee extension,
knee exion, abdominal exion, push-ups. A 10RM was determined
for all exercises with the exception of push-ups following National
Strength and Conditioning Association guidelines for RM testing [62].
To avoid any specic learning effect in post testing from training at
a particular relative load, 50% of the absolute load for each partici-
pants 10RM was used for testing. For the push-up exercises no
additional load was used. Participants performed repetitions to MMF
at a repetition duration of 2 seconds concentric, 2 seconds eccentric.
Pre and post testing utilised the same absolute load allowing com-
parison of repetitions performed due to the direct relationship between
muscular strength and the number of repetitions possible at an ab-
solute submaximal load [63]. This removed the need for 1RM test-
ing and provides greater ecological validity as most persons rarely
test or use their maximal strength but rather test muscular perfor-
mance using repeated repetitions. Body composition was measured
on a separate day from muscular performance testing both before
and after the intervention following the manufacturer’s guidelines.
Participants also completed a questionnaire to determine their resis-
tance training experience prior to the study (either ‘total beginner’,
‘some experience’, or ‘advanced’ rated 1 to 3 respectively), time
spent on other exercise/sport activities each week (minutes), sever-
ity of delayed onset muscular soreness (DOMS) from training sessions
(0-10, low to high respectively), duration of DOMS after training
- - - - -

Biology of Sport, Vol. 33 No3, 2016
243
Ecologically valid resistance training methods
sessions (hours), satisfaction with muscular performance changes
from the training intervention (0-10, low to high respectively), sat-
isfaction with body composition changes from the training interven-
tion (0-10, low to high respectively), and motivations to continue
with the training they completed (0-10, low to high respectively).
Participant Training
Training was supervised and conducted 2x/week (at least 48 hours
between sessions) for 10 weeks. Both groups performed a general
warm-up on a stationary cycle ergometer for 5-10 minutes followed
by a single set of low load chest press, seated row and bodyweight
squats prior to each training session. Each group performed the
following exercises in this order in circuit fashion; chest press, heel
raise, rear deltoid, elbow exion, seated row, knee extension, knee
exion, abdominal exion, push-ups. The HIT group completed the
circuit once performing a single set of each exercise with additional
drop sets performed immediately upon reaching MMF. The 3ST group
completed the circuit three times performing a single set of each
exercise each time (3 sets per exercise in total). Rest between each
exercise lasted as long as required for participants to move from one
exercise to the next and normalise breathing for both groups. The
3ST group rested a further 2-3 minutes between each circuit. Both
groups began the intervention using a 10RM load, but used body-
weight for the push-ups exercise. The HIT group used a repetition
duration of 2 seconds concentric, 1 second isometric contraction at
the top of the range of motion, and 4 seconds eccentric (2-1-4
seconds). The 3ST group trained using a repetition duration of 2
seconds concentric and 2 seconds eccentric (2-2 seconds). Both
groups used a full range of motion. The HIT group performed repeti-
tions to the point of MMF and then performed drop-sets, immedi-
ately reducing the load by 10-15% and continuing repetitions to
MMF again (~2-3 further repetitions). Two drop-sets were performed
(i.e. 10-15% drop from initial load followed by a further drop of
10-15% from the reduced load). Drop-sets for the push-ups exercise
were as follows; rst push-ups with feet elevated, followed by push-
ups with feet on the oor, followed by push-ups from the knees. The
3ST group performed repetitions to a self-determined RM. Load was
progressed for each group by 5% once participants could achieve
greater than 15 repetitions before reaching MMF or RM for the HIT
and 3ST groups respectively.
Data Analysis
No drop outs were recorded at any stage of the study thus data were
available for 30 participants. Muscular performance and body com-
position outcomes met assumptions of normality using a Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test thus parametric analysis was utilised for these outcomes.
Questionnaire data did not meet assumptions of normality so non-
parametric analysis was utilised. Baseline demographic, muscular
performance, and body composition data in addition to absolute
changes in strength and body composition were compared between
groups using an independent T-test. Questionnaire data was compared
between groups using a Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical analysis
was performed using SPSS statistics computer package (vs.20) and
p<.05 set as the limit for statistical signicance. Further, 95% con-
dence intervals (CI) were calculated in addition to within participant
ES using Cohen’s d [58] for muscular performance and body com-
position outcomes to compare magnitude of effects between groups
where an ES of 0.20-0.49 was considered as small, 0.50-0.79 as
moderate and ≥0.80 as large.
RESULTS
Participants Demographics. Participant demographics are shown
in Table 1. Comparison between groups revealed a signicant between
groups difference for stature (t(28)=2.140, p=0.031) and BMI
(t(28)=-3.988, p < 0.001).
Muscular performance
Table 2 shows pre and post, mean changes, ES and 95%CIs for
muscular performance for each training group and exercise. Com-
parison between HIT and 3ST groups at baseline revealed a signicant
difference for the heel raise exercise (t(28)=2.316, p=0.031) but
not for any other exercise. Comparison between groups for changes
in muscular performance revealed differences between HIT and 3ST
for heel raise (t(28)=2.812, p=0.009), elbow exion (t(28)=2.503,
p=0.018), and knee exion (t(28)=2.325, p=0.028). 95%CIs
indicated that both HIT and 3ST groups improved signicantly in all
exercises with the exception of the push-up. ESs for signicant mus-
cular performance changes in the HIT and 3ST groups were all
considered large (0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively).
Body Composition
Table 3 shows pre and post, mean changes and ES for body com-
position data for each group. Comparison between HIT and 3ST
groups at baseline revealed a signicant difference for the whole body
fat mass (t(28)=-5.439, p < 0.001) and percentage (t(28)=-5.294,
p < 0.001) in addition to trunk fat mass (t(28)=2.711, p=0.011)
and percentage (t(28)=2.880, p=0.008). Comparisons between
groups for changes in body composition data revealed no signicant
between group effects. 95%CIs indicated that there were no signi-
TABLE 1.
Participant’s demographic characteristics.
HIT (n=16) 3ST (n=14)
Age (years) 23 ± 3 22 ± 2
Stature (cm)* 175.50 ± 8.16 169.21 ± 7.91
Body Mass (kg) 68.58 ± 9.04 73.30 ± 11.65
BMI (kg · m-2)* 22.22 ± 1.97 25.49 ± 2.51
Gender Ratio (Males:Females) 9:7 4:10
Note: Results are mean ±SD; *denotes signicant difference between
groups.
- - - - -

244
Giessing J et al.
cant changes for any body composition outcome for any of the groups
with the exception of left leg fat mass and fat percentage. This change
would seem likely a type I error.
Participant Subjective Assessments
Table 4 shows the questionnaire data for each group. No signicant
differences between groups were found for any of the questions.
DISCUSSION
This study compared two ecologically valid RT approaches upon
muscular performance improvements and body composition chang-
es. Results suggested that both HIT and 3ST produced signicant
improvements in muscular performance, however, HIT produced
signicantly greater muscular performance gains than 3ST for 3 of
the tested exercises and had larger ESs for eight of the tested exer-
cises. No signicant changes in any body composition measures
occurred for either group; however, ESs indicated small effects favour-
ing the HIT group. Reasons for the greater muscular performance
gains in the HIT group are not wholly clear as, due to examining
ecologically valid RT methods, a number of variables differed between
the two training groups (i.e. set volume, intensity of effort, the use
of drop-sets, and repetition duration).
As noted, it is unclear whether set volume indeed impacts strength
gains [9-32]. It may be that the lower volume HIT group (performing
a total of ~14-16 repetitions [sets x repetitions; 1 x ~10 + 2 x
~2-3]) avoided overtraining compared with the higher volume 3ST
group (performing a total of ~30 repetitions [sets x repetitions; 3 x
~10]) allowing greater improvement. However, no other data sug-
gests superiority for single set RT nor has this been claimed by
other authors elsewhere [19]. It is unlikely the difference in set
volume affected results through this mechanism. The HIT group also
employed drop-sets on every exercise which might actually contrib-
ute to overtraining if employed too regularly [64]. Whether use of
techniques, such as drop-sets, common in HIT style RT are necessary
in addition to training to MMF for enhancing adaptations is uncertain.
Goto et al. [65] compared training to MMF with and without use of
Group Pre Post Change 95% CI ES p
Chest Press
HIT 32.06 ± 15.04 57.69 ± 18.81 25.63 ± 16.09 17.05 to 34.20 1.59† 0.073
3ST 31.07 ± 13.85 46.93 ± 19.26 15.86 ± 12.02 8.92 to 22.80 1.32†
Heel Raise
HIT 32.81 ± 12.53 60.63 ± 22.44 27.81 ± 16.04 19.26 to 36.36 1.73† 0.009*
3ST 24.79 ± 5.55 37.86 ± 14.13 13.07 ± 12.04 6.12 to 20.02 1.09†
Rear Deltoid
HIT 30.50 ± 11.51 64.25 ± 32.94 33.75 ± 27.16 19.28 to 48.22 1.24† 0.056
3ST 40.93 ± 25.36 57.79 ± 25.19 16.86 ± 17.38 6.82 to26.89 0.97†
Elbow Flexion
HIT 27.38 ± 6.82 48.69 ± 11.69 21.31 ± 12.41 14.70 to 27.92 1.72† 0.018*
3ST 23.86 ± 8.38 35.50 ± 9.88 11.64 ± 7.90 7.08 to 16.20 1.47†
Seated Row
HIT 36.00 ± 13.82 76.31 ± 32.25 40.31 ± 27.37 25.73 to 54.90 1.47† 0.062
3ST 31.07 ± 13.85 66.21 ± 20.05 23.64 ± 17.93 13.29 to 34.00 1.32†
Knee Extension
HIT 35.69 ± 13.08 53.25 ± 19.70 17.56 ± 18.13 7.90 to 27.22 0.97† 0.975
3ST 36.00 ± 17.55 53.79 ± 25.19 17.79 ± 20.25 6.10 to 29.48 0.88†
Knee Flexion
HIT 37.5 ± 20.48 65.19 ± 35.80 27.69 ± 19.09 17.52 to 37.86 1.45† 0.028*
3ST 44.5 ± 18.68 58.43 ± 17.25 13.93 ± 11.95 7.03 to 20.83 1.17†
Abdominal Flexion
HIT 19.75 ± 10.44 35.44 ± 12.54 15.69 ± 11.15 9.75 to 21.63 1.41† 0.898
3ST 21.43 ± 9.89 36.64 ± 11.32 15.21 ± 8.58 10.26 to 20.17 1.77†
Push-up
HIT 21.81 ± 13.15 41.00 ± 41.04 19.19 ± 40.21 -2.24 to 40.61 0.47 0.196
3ST 21.14 ± 13.98 27.54 ± 11.38 4.43 ± 11.40 -2.15 to 11.01 0.39
TABLE 2.
Pre, post, mean change and effect sizes for muscular performance data.
Note: Results are mean ±SD; 95% CI for changes; ES=Cohen’s d; p values for between group comparisons of change in strength analysed using an
independent T-test; *denotes signicant difference between groups; ᶧ†denotes signicant difference from pre to post
- - - - -

Biology of Sport, Vol. 33 No3, 2016
245
Ecologically valid resistance training methods
Group Pre Post Change 95% CI ES P
Body Mass (kg) HIT 68.58 ± 9.04 69.04 ± 9.35 0.46 ± 2.27 -0.75 to 1.67 0.20 0.222
3ST 73.30 ± 11.65 74.04 ± 11.07 0.75 ± 2.35 -0.61 to 2.10 0.32
Fat Free Mass (kg) HIT 55.47 ± 9.28 55.88 ± 8.80 0.42 ± 1.59 -0.43 to 1.26 0.26 0.117
3ST 51.05 ± 9.03 50.50 ± 9.16 -0.55 ± 1.66 -1.51 to 0.41 -0.33
Whole body
Muscle Mass (kg) HIT 52.69 ± 8.85 53.09 ± 8.40 0.40 ± 1.50 -0.40 to 1.20 0.27 0.108
3ST 48.49 ± 8.60 47.95 ± 8.73 -0.54 ± 1.61 -1.47 to 0.39 -0.34
Fat Mass (kg) HIT 13.12 ± 4.13 13.16 ± 4.53 0.05 ± 1.74 -0.88 to 0.97 0.03 0.170
3ST 22.25 ± 5.07 23.54 ± 4.77 1.29 ± 3.02 -0.45 to 3.03 0.43
Fat Percentage HIT 19.31 ± 6.07 19.11 ± 5.98 -0.20 ± 2.03 -1.28 to 0.88 -0.10 0.098
3ST 30.34 ± 5.23 31.92 ± 5.21 1.58 ± 3.55 -0.47 to 3.63 0.44
Total Abdominal Fat
(rated 1 to 59) HIT 1.88 ± 1.15 1.82 ± 1.22 -0.06 ± 0.57 -0.37 to 0.24 -0.11 0.259
3ST 1.29 ± 0.73 1.43 ± 0.76 0.14 ± 0.36 -0.07 to 0.35 0.39
Bone Mass (kg) HIT 2.79 ± 0.44 2.81 ± 0.41 0.02 ± 0.09 -0.02 to 0.07 0.26 0.090
3ST 2.58 ± 0.43 2.55 ± 0.44 -0.03 ± 0.08 -0.08 to 0.02 -0.39
Right Leg
Muscle Mass (kg) HIT 9.10 ± 1.67 9.13 ± 1.63 0.03 ± 0.24 -0.09 to 0.16 0.14 0.064
3ST 8.18 ± 1.79 7.78 ± 1.75 -0.40 ± 0.86 -0.89 to 0.10 -0.46
Fat Mass (kg) HIT 2.40 ± 1.13 2.44 ± 1.21 0.04 ± 0.23 -0.08 to 0.16 0.18 0.302
3ST 2.57 ± 0.89 3.84 ± 3.92 1.27 ± 4.27 -1.20 to 3.73 0.30
Fat Percentage HIT 20.23 ± 9.83 20.34 ± 9.98 0.12 ± 1.43 -0.64 to 0.88 0.08 0.107
3ST 23.51 ± 8.78 26.44 ± 8.13 2.93 ± 6.59 -0.88 to 6.73 0.44
Left Leg
Muscle Mass (kg) HIT 8.82 ± 1.62 8.87 ± 1.57 0.05 ± 0.23 -0.07 to 0.17 0.22 0.151
3ST 7.99 ± 1.70 7.90 ± 1.74 -0.09 ± 0.30 -0.27 to 0.08 -0.31
Fat Mass (kg) HIT 2.41 ± 1.09 2.45 ± 1.15 0.04 ± 0.24 -0.09 to 0.17 0.17 0.320
3ST 2.50 ± 0.82 2.62 ± 0.78 0.12 ± 0.16 0.02 to 0.21 0.72†
Fat Percentage HIT 20.79 ± 9.65 20.84 ± 9.71 0.04 ± 1.54 -0.78 to 0.86 0.03 0.620
3ST 23.31 ± 8.06 24.48 ± 8.22 1.17 ± 1.64 0.23 to 2.12 0.72†
Right Arm
Muscle Mass (kg) HIT 2.92 ± 0.81 2.92 ± 0.79 0.01 ± 0.10 -0.05 to 0.06 0.06 0.379
3ST 2.49 ± 0.73 2.93 ± 2.08 0.44 ± 1.78 -0.59 to 1.47 0.25
Fat Mass (kg) HIT 0.66 ± 0.22 0.68 ± 0.26 0.01 ± 0.10 -0.04 to 0.07 0.13 0.420
3ST 0.58 ± 0.15 0.65 ± 0.26 0.07 ± 0.27 -0.08 to 0.23 0.27
Fat Percentage HIT 18.54 ± 7.33 18.64 ± 7.42 0.10 ± 2.14 -1.04 to 1.24 0.05 0.672
3ST 18.61 ± 4.70 19.14 ± 4.92 0.53 ± 3.29 -1.37 to 2.43 0.16
Left Arm
Muscle Mass (kg) HIT 2.90 ± 0.84 2.91 ± 0.82 0.02 ± 0.12 -0.05 to 0.08 0.13 0.411
3ST 2.45 ± 0.75 2.43 ± 0.76 -0.02 ± 0.12 -0.09 to 0.05 -0.17
Fat Mass (kg) HIT 0.69 ± 0.24 0.71 ± 0.27 0.02 ± 0.09 -0.03 to 0.07 0.23 0.990
3ST 0.61 ± 0.16 0.64 ± 0.16 0.02 ± 0.10 -0.03 to 0.08 0.22
Fat Percentage HIT 19.52 ± 7.89 19.43 ± 7.78 -0.09 ± 2.13 -1.22 to 1.05 -0.04 0.378
3ST 19.65 ± 4.99 20.42 ± 5.43 0.77 ± 3.09 -1.01 to 2.56 0.25
Trunk
Muscle Mass (kg) HIT 28.96 ± 4.09 29.26 ± 3.82 0.29 ± 0.91 -0.19 to 0.78 0.32 0.168
3ST 27.38 ± 3.77 25.23 ± 7.32 -2.15 ± 6.86 -6.12 to 1.81 -0.31
Fat Mass (kg) HIT 6.95 ± 2.10 6.88 ± 2.40 -0.07 ± 1.16 -0.68 to 0.55 -0.06 0.996
3ST 4.86 ± 2.12 4.79 ± 2.35 -0.07 ± 1.90 -1.17 to 1.03 -0.04
Fat Percentage HIT 18.54 ± 4.44 18.08 ± 4.65 -0.46 ± 2.60 -1.85 to 0.92 -0.18 0.290
3ST 14.02 ± 4.10 14.81 ± 3.85 0.79 ± 3.74 -1.37 to 2.95 0.21
Total Body Water (kg) HIT 40.02 ± 6.59 40.27 ± 6.21 0.27 ± 1.26 -0.42 to 0.93 0.20 0.126
3ST 36.85 ± 6.53 36.40 ± 6.55 -0.86 ± 1.81 -1.15 to 0.24 -0.38
Extra-cellular Water (kg) HIT 16.03 ± 2.24 16.12 ± 2.15 0.09 ± 0.40 -0.12 to 0.30 0.23 0.074
3ST 14.66 ± 2.37 14.49 ± 2.40 -0.17 ± 0.37 -0.39 to 0.04 -0.46
Intra-cellular Water (kg) HIT 23.97 ± 4.39 24.17 ± 4.13 0.19 ± 0.86 -0.27 to 0.65 0.22 0.138
3ST 22.20 ± 4.16 21.90 ± 4.16 -0.29 ± 0.86 -0.79 to 0.21 -0.34
TABLE 3.
Pre, post, mean change and effect sizes for body composition data.
Note: Results are mean ±SD; 95% CI for changes; ES=Cohen’s d; p values for between group differences for change in body composition data
analysed using Independent t-test; † denotes signicant difference from pre to post
- - - - -

246
Giessing J et al.
drop-sets upon hypertrophy. Their results suggested greater hyper-
trophy using a drop-set; however, this also provided additional volume.
In the present study the HIT group, though employing drop-sets, still
performed a lower total training volume (sets x repetitions) than the
3ST group yet still produced greater muscular performance gains
suggesting additional volume from drop-sets may not be the inuenc-
ing factor.
Different intensities of effort between the two groups, however,
may have inuenced the different muscular performance gains. The
HIT group trained to MMF (and used drop-sets) whilst the 3ST group
trained to a self-determined RM. As highlighted multiple set training
is often not performed to MMF as it is suggested there is lack of
evidence for its recommendation [50] and its potential to promote
overtraining [51]. Evidence, however, suggests training to MMF does
confer greater adaptations [21,22]. It has also been reported even
experienced trainees under-predict the number of possible repetitions
to MMF [66] suggesting that many persons including those initiating
RT likely under-predict also. Thus, though the 3ST group trained
with a greater volume, they perhaps did not train to a sufciently
high intensity of effort (i.e. ended sets more than 1 repetition away
from MMF), questioning the use of ‘intuitive’ approaches to control
RT effort. Indeed some have argued the success of low volume RT,
such as HIT, is dependent upon achieving sufcient intensity of effort
by training to MMF [33]. A recent study found, in advanced trainees,
a single set RT intervention performed to a self-determined RM does
not improve strength [67]. Our results indicate that, though multiple
sets to RM produce muscular performance improvement, they may
not fully recompense avoiding training to MMF. This does contrast
with prior investigations of single sets to MMF compared with mul-
tiple sets not to MMF [53,54]. This might suggest that, though no
evidence suggests single set training as superior to multiple set train-
ing when other factors are controlled, single set training may produce
greater adaptations when training to MMF is combined with drop-sets
perhaps owing to greater intensity of effort and fatigue related stim-
uli [68,69].
The lack of signicant body composition changes reported in this
study may be owing to the sample size used. It has been noted that,
though studies of strength and muscular performance gains can be
sufciently powered with the sample size used here (which was
calculated for strength outcomes), studies examining changes in body
composition and particularly changes in muscle mass are highly
prone to type II errors [18]. A recent study employing the same body
composition testing with a larger sample size reported signicant
changes in muscle mass and fat percentages after a single set to
MMF protocol in trained participants reinforcing the likelihood of a
type II error in the present study [67]. Indeed, though they did not
achieve signicance, whole body muscle mass changes were slight-
ly more favourable in the HIT group (0.40+1.50kg, 95%CIs -0.40
to 1.20, ES=0.27) compared with the 3ST group (-0.54+1.61kg,
95%CIs -1.47 to 0.39, ES=-0.34). With regards to whole body fat
mass changes there was no change in the HIT group (0.05+1.74,
95%CIs -0.88 to 0.97, ES=0.03) and an increase in the 3ST group
(1.29+3.02, 95%CIs -0.45 to 3.03, ES=0.43). These factors com-
bined to result in the HIT group producing a slightly more favourable
change in whole body fat percentage also (-0.20+2.03, 95%CIs
-1.28 to 0.88, ES=-0.10) compared with the 3ST group (1.58+3.55,
95%CIs -0.47 to 3.63, ES=0.44). Our participants also subjec-
tively reported some content with body composition outcomes yet
with no differences between groups which might indicate aesthetic
improvements not represented in objective measurement.
Average duration of the workouts is worth considering in context
of the results presented. Without considering between exercise rest
durations and assuming ~10 repetitions per exercise at the repeti-
tions durations used, per session the HIT group trained for ~10.5
minutes, whereas the 3ST group trained for between ~24 and ~27
minutes. The practical implications of these ndings combined with
the questionnaire data are also notable. Participant subjective as-
sessments of training were similar for both groups. Thus it would
seem reasonable to suggest that HIT is a more desirable approach
as it has the potential to produce greater gains in muscular perfor-
mance despite being perceived similarly in a number of subjective
outcomes including severity and duration of DOMS from training
sessions, satisfaction with muscular performance and body compo-
sition changes, and motivations to continue with the training they
completed. It is notable that motivation to continue training was
similar between groups. Hass et al. [70] previously reported that
dropout rate was higher for a multiple set RT program compared
with one employing single sets. Twenty ve percent dropped out from
HIT 3ST p
Other Weekly Activity (minutes) 106 ± 62.20 119.64 ± 107.58 0.758
Training Experience (rated 1 to 3) 1.31 ± 0.48 1.36 ± 0.50 0.799
DOMS Severity (rated 1 to 10) 2.94 ± 2.05 3.08 ± 2.15 0.887
DOMS Duration (hours) 27.06 ± 19.20 26.57 ± 14.26 0.700
Satisfaction with Muscular Performance Outcomes (rated 1 to 10) 7.56 ± 1.41 6.86 ± 1.23 0.209
Satisfaction with Body Composition Outcomes (rated 1 to 10) 5.7 ± 1.79 4.64 ± 3.03 0.522
Motivation to Continue Training (rated 1 to 10) 6.5 ± 2.99 7.88 ± 1.17 0.279
TABLE 4.
Questionnaire data.
Note: Results are mean +SD; p values for between group comparisons using a Mann-Whitney U test.
- - - - -

Biology of Sport, Vol. 33 No3, 2016
247
Ecologically valid resistance training methods
the multiple set group (5 for lack of adherence and 2 for injuries)
compared with none in the single set group. In their study the mul-
tiple set group took ~1 hour to complete their training compared
with 25 minutes for the single set group and programs lasting >1
hour per session are known to have higher drop outs [71]. We did
not have any drop outs in our study perhaps due to the fact that both
interventions took <1 hour. Further, the drop outs from the study of
Hass et al. may be due to the fact that both single and multiple set
groups trained to MMF. This perhaps highlights that the fact our 3ST
group did not train to MMF may be a reason for similar motivation
to continue with higher volume training. In other exercise modalities
(i.e. aerobic exercise modes) it has been shown that participants
report greater enjoyment of both moderate effort continuous and
shorter duration higher effort exercise as opposed to continuous du-
ration high effort exercise [72,73].
Limitations of the present study should be noted. First the sample
size used appeared insufcient to detect changes in the body com-
position measures taken and in addition participant’s nutritional
intakes were not assessed. As research comparing these two eco-
logically valid methods of RT has focused upon strength and mus-
cular performance outcomes thus far [53,54] future work should
examine body composition and muscular hypertrophy using larger
sample sizes and controlling for nutritional factors. Also, due to not
using a gender counterbalanced approach to randomisation, gender
ratio differences between groups may have affected our outcomes.
Our research design may have been improved by use of a gender
counterbalanced approach to randomisation. However, outcomes in
this study were examined using absolute changes as opposed to
relative changes the former of which has been shown to not differ
between genders despite differences in relative changes [74]. Further,
though it could be considered a strength that this study examined
ecologically valid RT approaches, as a number of variables differed
between the groups (set volume, intensity of effort, the use of drop-
sets, and repetition duration) conclusions can only be drawn as to
the efcacy of the two approaches as a whole. Indeed it could be
argued that ‘Body-building’ style training also utilises advanced tech-
niques such as drop sets and so future work might compare the
effects of set volume whilst controlling inclusion of advanced training
techniques. Finally, recent studies considering the effects of set vol-
ume have included greater than 3 sets and suggested that both
5[43] and 8 sets [42] may produce greater strength and hypertro-
phic adaptations. Whether low volume RT whilst utilising advanced
techniques such as in ‘High Intensity Training’ produces similar ad-
aptations to these even higher set volumes remains to be investi-
gated.
CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, the results of this study suggest signicant muscular
performance gains can be produced using either a ‘High Intensity
Training’ style (HIT) or ‘Body-building’ style (3ST) RT approach.
However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using
HIT, therefore we recommend HIT for maximising muscular perfor-
mance gains over a 10 week period.
Conict of interests: the authors declared no conict of interests
regarding the publication of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD.
Combined associations of muscle-
strengthening activities and
accelerometer-assessed physical activity
on multimorbidity: Findings from
NHANES. Am J Health Promot. 2016;
Epub ahead of print
2. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD.
Participation in muscle-strengthening
activites as an altenrative method for the
prevention of multimorbidity. Prev Med.
2015;81:54-57
3. Buckner SL, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD.
Lower extremeity strength, systemic
inammation and all-cause mortality:
Application to the “fat but t” paradigm
using cross-sectional and longitudinal
designs. Physiol Behav. 2015;149:199-
202
4. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD.
Determining the importance of meeting
muscle-strengthening activity guidelines:
Is the behaviour or the outcome of the
behaviour (Strength) a more important
determinant of all-cause mortality? Mayo
Clin Proc. 2015; Epub ahead of print
5. Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M,
Simonsick EM, Goodpaster BH,
Kritchevsky SB, Tylavsky FA, Rubin SM,
Harris TB. Strength, but not muscle
mass, is associated with mortality in the
health, aging and body composition
study cohort. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med
Sci. 2006; 61(1):72–77
6. Ruiz JR, Sui X, Lobelo F, Morrow JR,
Jackson JW, Sjostrom M, Blair SN.
Association between muscular strength
and mortality in men: prospective cohort
study. BMJ. 2008;337:439.
7. Artero EG, Lee DC, Ruiz JR, Sui X, Ortega
FB, Church TS, Lavie CJ, Castillo MJ,
Balir SN. A prospective study of muscular
strength and all-cause mortality in men
with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2011;57(18):1831–1837
Endnote:
(a) Momentary muscular failure (MMF) has been dened as “the inability to perform anymore concentric contractions without signicant
change to posture or repetition duration” [21], and occurs when a person cannot match the required force to continue moving a given load
[50] thus representing a maximal intensity of effort [43].
(b) In contrast to MMF, Repetition maximum (RM) would best be described as the number of complete repetitions prior to MMF [33]. In
practice, however, prescription of training to an RM necessitates prior load determination regularly for a true RM. Should the exercise be
ended once the trainee determines they could not complete further repetitions if attempted (i.e. they predict MMF on the next repetition),
this might be considered volitional fatigue or self-determined RM, not a true RM or MMF, thus it represents a somewhat ambiguous end-
point to a set of exercise.
- - - - -

248
Giessing J et al.
8. Srikanthan P, Karlamangla AS. Muscle
mass index as a predictor of longevity in
older adults. Am J Med.
2014;127(6):547-553
9. Carpinelli RN, Otto RM. Strength
training: single versus multiple sets.
Sports Med. 1998;26(2):73-84
10. Smith D, Bruce-Low S. Strength training
methods and the work of Arthur Jones. J
Exerc Physiol. 2004;7(6):52-68
11. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD.
A meta-analysis to determine the dose
response for strength development. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(3):456-464
12. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Maximizing strength development in
athletes: a meta-analysis to determine
the dose-response relationship. J
Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):377-
382
13. Wolfe BL, LeMura LM, Cole PJ.
Quantitative analysis of single- vs
multiple-set programs in resistance
training. J Strength Cond Res.
2004;18(1):35-47
14. Winett RA. Meta-analyses do not support
performance of multiple sets or high
volume resistance training. J Exerc
Physiol. 2004;7(5):10-20
15. Otto RM, Carpinelli RN. A critical
analysis of the single versus multiple set
debate. J Exerc Physiol. 2006;9(1):32-
57
16. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of
resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J
Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1890-
1901
17. Frohlich M, Emrich E, Schmidtbleicher
D. Outcome effects of single-set versus
multiple-set training – an advanced
replication study. Res Sports Med.
2010;18:157-175
18. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of
resistance exercise for muscle
hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010;24(4):1150-1159
19. Carpinelli RN. Critical review of a
meta-analysis for the effect of single and
multiple sets of resistance training on
strength gains. Medicina Sportiva.
2012;16(3):122-130
20. Fisher J. Beware the meta-analysis: is
multiple set training really better than
single set training for muscle
hypertrophy? J Exerc Physiol
.2012;15(6):23-30
21. Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D.
Evidence-Based Resistance Training
Recommendations. Medicina Sportiva.
2011;15(3):147-162
22. Fisher J, Steele J, Smith D. Evidence-
based resistance training
recommendations for muscular
hypertrophy. Medicina Sportiva.
2013;17(4):217-235
23. Marshall PWM, McEwen M, Robbins
DW. Strength and neuromuscular
adaptation following on, four, and eight
sets of high intensity resistance exercise
in trained males. Eur J Apply Physiol.
2011;111:3007-3016
24. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, Leite RD,
Pinto RS, Fernandes L, Simao R. Does
respsonse of 1, 3 and 5 sets of resistance
exercise on strength, local muscular
endurance and hypertrophy. J Strength
Cond Res. 2014; Epub ahead of print
25. Radaelli R, Botton, CE, Wilhelm EN,
Bottaro M, Brown LE, Lacerda F, Gaya A,
Moraes K, Peruzzolo A, Pinto RS. Time
course of low- and high-volume strength
training on neuromuscular adaptations
and muscle quality in older women. Age.
2014;36:881-892
26. Radaelli R, Wilhelm EN, Botton CE, Rech
A, Bottaro M, Brown LE, Pinto RS.
Effects of single vs. multiple-set
short-term strength training in elderly
women. Age. 2014; 36(6):9720
27. Raedelli R, Wilhelm EN, Botton CE,
Bottaro M, Cadore EL, Brown LE, Pinto
RS. Effect of two difference strength
training volumes on muscle hypertrophy
and quality in elderly women. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness.
2013;53(Suppl1-3):1-6
28. Raedelli R, Botton CE, Wilhelm EN,
Bottaro M, Lacerda F, Gaya A, Moraes K,
Peruzzolo A, Brown LE, Pinto RS. Low-
and high-volume strength training
induces similar neuromuscular
improvements in muscle quality in
elderly women. Exp Gerontol.
2013;48(8):710-716
29. Kadir ZA, Nadzalan AM, Yusof SM,
Aiman S, Shapie MNM. Single- versus
three-set resistance training on strength
and power among untrained men. In:
Adnan R, Ismail SI, Sulaiman N, eds.
Proceedings of the International
Colloquium on Sports Science, Exercise,
Engineering and Technology 2014
(ICoSSEET 2014). London: Springer;
2014:177-187
30. Adnan MA, Kadir ZA, Yusof SM,
Mazaulan M, Mohamed MAAR. Single
versus two sets of resistance training on
muscular endurance, strength and fat
percentages among recreationally trained
men. In: Adnan R, Ismail SI, Sulaiman
N, eds. Proceedings of the International
Colloquium on Sports Science, Exercise,
Engineering and Technology 2014
(ICoSSEET 2014). London: Springer;
2014:249-258
31. Correa CS, Teixeira BC, Bittencourt A,
Lemos L, Marques NR, Radaelli R,
Kruger RL, Reischak-Oliveira A, Pinto
RS. Effects of high and low volume of
strength training on muscle strength,
muscle volume and lipid prole in
postmenopausal women. J Exerc Sci
Fitness. 2014;12(2):62-67
32. Baker JS, Davies D, Cooper SM, Wong
DP, Buchan DS, Kilgore L. Strength and
body composition changes I
recreationally strength-trained
individuals: comparison of one versus
three sets resistance-training
programmes. BioMed Res Int. 2013.
33. Giessing J, Preuss P, Greiwing A, Goebel
S, Muller A, Schischek A, Stephan A.
Fundamental denitions of decisive
training parameters of single-set training
and multiple-set training for muscle
hypertrophy. In: Giessing J, Frohlich M,
Preuss P, eds. Current Results of Strength
Training Research. Goettingen: Cuvillier;
2005:9-23
34. Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1.
Often used ambiguously within
resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop
the term altogether? Br J Sports Med.
2014;48:1586-1588.
35. Duehring MD, Feldmann CR, Ebben WP.
Strength and conditioning practices of
united states high school strength and
conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond
Res. 2009;23(8):2188-2203
36. Durrell DL, Pujol TJ, Barnes JT. A survey
of the scientic data and training
methods utilized by collegiate strength
and conditioning coaches. J Strength
Cond Res. 2003;17(2):268-373
37. Ebben WP, Blackard DO. Strength and
conditioning practices of national football
league strength and conditioning
coaches. J Strength Cond Res.
2001;15(1):48-58
38. Ebben WP, Carroll RM, Simenz CJ.
Strength and conditioning practices of
national hockey league strength and
conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond
Res. 2004;18(4):889-897
39. Ebben WP, Hintz MJ, Simenz CJ.
Strength and conditioning practices of
major league baseball strength and
conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond
Res. 2004;19(3):538-546
40. Simenz CJ, Dugan CA, Ebben WP.
Strength and conditioning practices of
national basketball association strength
and conditioning coaches. J Strength
Cond Res. 2005;19(3):495-504
41. Jones A. Nautilus bulletin #1. DeLand,
FL: Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries;
1970
42. Jones A. Nautilus bulletin #2. DeLand,
FL: Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries;
1971
43. Darden E. The Nautilus Book. McGraw
Hill; 1980
44. Darden E. The Nautilus Bodybulding
Book. McGraw Hill; 1982
45. Darden E. The New High Intensity
Training. Rodale; 2004
46. Bryzcki M. A Practical Approach to
Strength Training. Blue River Press;
2012
47. Kraemer WJ, Adams K. Cafarelli E,
Dudley DA, Dooly C, Feigenbaum MS,
Fleck SJ, Franklin B, Fry AC, Hoffman
JR, Newton RU, Potteiger J, Stone MH,
Ratamess NA, Triplett-McBride T.
American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults.
- - - - -

Biology of Sport, Vol. 33 No3, 2016
249
Ecologically valid resistance training methods
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(2):364-
380
48.
American College of Sports Medicine.
American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687-708
49. Giessing J. How intense are your weight
training workouts? NSCA’s Performance
Training J. 2007;6:11-13
50. Willardson JM. The application of
training to failure in periodized
multiple-set resistance exercise training
programs. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21:628-631
51. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ. Resistance exercise
overtraining and overreaching:
neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med.
1997;23(2):106-129
52. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Chow C.
Training practices and ergogenic aids
used by male bodybuilders. J Strength
Cond Res. 2013;27(6):1609-1617
53. Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS,
Conley MS, Johnson RL, Nieman DC,
Honeycutt DR, Hoke TP. Effects of single
vs. multiple sets of weight training:
impact of volume, intensity, and
variation. J Strength Cond Res.
1997;11(3):143-147
54. McGee D, Jessee TC, Stone MH, Blessing
D. Leg and hip endurance adaptations to
three-weight programs. J Appl Sport Sci
Res. 1992;6(2):92-95
55. Sanborn K, Boros R, Hruby J, Schilling B,
O’Bryant HS, Johnson RL, Hoke T, Stone
ME, Stone MH. Short-term performance
effects of weight training with multiple
sets not to failure vs. a single set to
failure in women. J Strength Cond Res.
2000;14(3):328-331
56. Stowers T, McMillan J, Scala D, Davis V,
Wilson D, Stone M. The short-term effects
of three difference strength-power training
methods. NSCA J. 1983;5(3):24-27
57. Steele J, Fisher J, McGuff D, Bruce-Low
S, Smith D. Resistance training to
momentary muscular failure improves
cardiovascular tness in humans: a
review of acute physiological responses
and chronic physiological adaptations. J
Exerc Physiol. 2012;15(3):53-80
58. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull.
1992;112:155-159
59. Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4:
sample size calculations. Crit Care.
2002;6:335-341
60. Leahy S, O’Neil C, Sohun R, Jakeman P.
A comparison of dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry and bioelectrical
impedance analysis to measure total and
segmental body composition in healthy
young adults. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2012;112:589-595
61. Browning LM, Mugridge O, Dixon AK,
Aitken SW, Prentice AM, Jebb SA.
Measuring abdominal adipose tissue:
comparison of simpler methods with
MRI. Obes Facts. 2011;4:9-15
62. Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of
Strength and Conditioning. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2008
63. Carpinelli R. Assessment of one repetition
maximum (1RM) and 1RM prediction
equations: Are they really necessary?
Medicina Sportiva. 2011;15(2):91-102
64. Schoenfeld B. The use of specialized
training techniques to maximize muscle
hypertrophy. Strength Cond J.
2011;33(4):60-65
65. Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O,
Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K. Muscular
adaptation to combinations of high- and
low-intensity resistance exercises. J
Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):730-
737
66. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Halaki M,
Chow CM. A novel scale to assess
resistance-exercise effort. J Sports Sci.
2012;30:1405-1413
67. Giessing J, Fisher J, Steele J, Rothe F,
Raubold K, Eichmann B. The effects of
low volume resistance training with and
without advanced techniques in trained
participants. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
2016;56(3):249-258
68. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of
muscle hypertrophy and their application
to resistance training. J Strength Cond
Res. 2010;24:2857-2872
69. Schoenfeld BJ. Potential mechanisms for
a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic
adaptations to resistance training. Sports
Med. 2013;43:179-194
70. Hass CJ, Garzarella L, De Hoyos D,
Pollock ML. Single versus multiple sets in
long term recreational weightlifters. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(1):235-242
71. Pollock ML. Prescribing exercise for
tness and adherence. In: Dishman RK,
eds. Exercise Adherence: Its Impacts on
Public Health. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 1988:259-277
72. Jung ME, Bourne JE, Little JP. Where
does HIT t? An examination of the
affective response to high-intervals in
comparison to continuous moderate- and
vigorous-intensity exercise in the exercise
intensity-affect continuum. PLoS One.
2014;8(9):e114541
73. Martinez N, Kilpatrick MW, Salomon K,
Jung ME, Little JP. Affective and
enjoyment responses to high-intensity
interval training in overweight-to-obese
and insufciently active adults. J Sport
Exerc Psychol. 2015;37(2):138-149
74. Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H,
Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP,
Angelopoulos TJ, Gordon PM, Moyna
NM, Pescatello LS, Visich PS, Zoeller RF,
Seip RL, Clarkson PM. Variability in
muscle size and strength gain after
unilateral resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2005;37(6):964-972
- - - - -