Content uploaded by Carlos Ugrinowitsch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carlos Ugrinowitsch on Feb 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Eur J Appl Physiol
DOI 10.1007/s00421-016-3529-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Crescent pyramid anddrop-set systems donotpromote greater
strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, andchanges onmuscle
architecture compared withtraditional resistance training inwell-
trained men
VitorAngleri1· CarlosUgrinowitsch2· CleitonAugustoLibardi1
Received: 28 September 2016 / Accepted: 28 December 2016
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Conclusion CP and DS systems do not promote greater
gains in strength, muscle hypertrophy and changes in mus-
cle architecture compared to traditional resistance training.
Keywords Resistance training· Total training volume·
Muscle cross-sectional area· Muscle strength· Pennation
angle· Fascicle length
Abbreviations
1-RM One-repetition maximum
CP Crescent pyramid
CSA Muscle cross-sectional area
DS Drop-set
FL Fascicle length
PA Pennation angle
PI Principal investigator
RT Resistance training
TRAD Traditional resistance training
TTV Total training volume
US Ultrasound
VL Vastus lateralis
Introduction
Resistance training (RT) is considered as the most effective
method to increase muscle strength and mass (i.e., muscle
hypertrophy), and to change muscle architecture param-
eters (e.g., increases in pennation angle and fascicle length)
(Aagaard etal. 2002; ACSM 2002, 2009, 2011; Ades
etal. 2005; Blazevich etal. 2007; Kraemer and Ratamess
2004; Seynnes etal. 2007). To maximize, or to prevent the
stagnation of gains in muscle strength and mass, coaches
and well-trained lifters have used advanced RT systems
(Charro etal. 2010; Fleck and Kraemer 2014; Kraemer and
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the effects
of crescent pyramid (CP) and drop-set (DS) systems with
traditional resistance training (TRAD) with equalized total
training volume (TTV) on maximum dynamic strength
(1-RM), muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation
angle (PA), and fascicle length (FL).
Methods Thirty-two volunteers had their legs rand-
omized in a within-subject design in TRAD (3–5 sets of
6–12 repetitions at 75% 1-RM), CP (3–5 sets of 6–15 rep-
etitions at 65–85% 1-RM), and DS (3–5 sets of ~50–75%
1-RM to muscle failure) protocols. Each leg was trained
for 12weeks. Participants had one leg fixed in the TRAD
while the contralateral leg performed either CP or DS to
allow for TTV equalization.
Results The CSA increased significantly and similarly
for all protocols (TRAD: 7.6%; CP: 7.5%; DS: 7.8%).
All protocols showed significant and similar increases in
leg press (TRAD = 25.9%; CP = 25.9%; DS = 24.9%) and
leg extension 1-RM loads (TRAD = 16.6%; CP = 16.4%;
DS = 17.1%). All protocols increased PA (TRAD = 10.6%;
CP = 11.0%; DS = 10.3%) and FL (TRAD = 8.9%;
CP = 8.9%; DS = 9.1%) similarly.
Communicated by: Nicolas Place.
* Cleiton Augusto Libardi
c.libardi@ufscar.br
1 Laboratory ofNeuromuscular Adaptations toResistance
Training, Department ofPhysical Education, Federal
University ofSão Carlos-UFSCar, Rod. Washington Luiz,
km 235-SP 310, CEP13565-905SãoCarlos, SP, Brazil
2 School ofPhysical Education andSport, University
ofSão Paulo-USP, Av. Prof. Mello de Morais, 65,
05508-03SãoPaulo, SP, Brazil
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
Ratamess 2004; Ribeiro etal. 2016; Schoenfeld 2011). RT
systems encompass a variety of training techniques that
emphasize different RT variables (e.g., intensity, volume,
muscle action, type and order of exercises, and repetition
velocity) aiming to maximize specific training-induced
adaptations (e.g., muscle strength or muscle hypertrophy).
Albeit RT systems are recommended for trained individu-
als (Fleck and Kraemer 2014; Schoenfeld 2011), little is
known if these systems indeed produce superior muscle
adaptations when compared to traditional RT (TRAD)
protocol.
Crescent Pyramid (CP) is a very popular RT system
among RT practitioners. CP requires increasing intensity
and decreasing the number of repetitions after each exercise
set (ACSM 2009; Charro etal. 2010; Delorme and Watkins
1948; Fish etal. 2003; Fleck and Kraemer 2014; Zinovieff
1951). It is suggested that CP induces high mechanical ten-
sion in the muscle due to increments in exercise intensity
and total training volume (TTV− sets× repetitions× load
[kg]), increasing the recruitment of fast motor units and,
therefore, inducing greater gains in muscle strength com-
pared to TRAD (Fleck and Kraemer 2014; Mangine etal.
2015; Schoenfeld 2010). However, to the best of our knowl-
edge, there are no studies comparing training-induced
gains in muscle strength and mass between CP and TRAD
protocols.
Besides the CP system, Drop-set (DS) is another popu-
lar RT system among bodybuilders. This system is char-
acterized by sets performed to muscle failure; after failure
exercise load is immediately reduced (e.g., ~20%), allow-
ing individuals to perform additional repetitions to muscle
failure on each set (Bentes etal. 2012; Fleck and Kraemer
2014). In this regard, it is suggested that DS produces a
high metabolic stress due to a high number of repetitions
performed on each set, and, therefore TTV, which may pro-
mote greater increases in muscle mass than TRAD (Goto
etal. 2004; Mangine etal. 2015; Schoenfeld 2010, 2011,
2013b). Similar to CP, there are no studies that have com-
pared training-induced adaptations between DS and TRAD
protocols.
It has been shown that increases in muscle strength and
mass are strongly dependent on TTV of RT. Accordingly,
studies have shown greater increments in muscle strength
and hypertrophy for high TTV protocols when compared
to low TTV ones, regardless of the type of manipulation
of RT variables (e.g., intensity and volume) (Candow and
Burke 2007; Gentil etal. 2015; Kelly etal. 2007; Krieger
2009, 2010; Mitchell etal. 2012; Ronnestad etal. 2007;
Schoenfeld 2013a; Schoenfeld etal. 2016b; Sooneste etal.
2013). Conversely, equalized TTV RT protocols have not
shown differences in muscle strength and hypertrophy
responses in spite of distinct manipulations of RT variables
(Ahtiainen etal. 2003, 2005; Candow and Burke 2007;
Chestnut and Docherty 1999; Gentil etal. 2015; Kok etal.
2009; Moore etal. 2012). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest
that when TTV is equalized, the manipulation of training
variables when using CP and DS systems would not pro-
mote additional increases in muscle strength and hypertro-
phy when compared to TRAD.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the
effects of CP and DS systems with TRAD RT with equal-
ized TTV on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-
trained young men. As a secondary aim, we compared
the effects of these protocols on some muscle architecture
parameters. Our hypothesis was that CP, DS, and TRAD
promote similar increases in muscle strength and hypertro-
phy when TTV is equalized between RT protocols.
Methods
Participants
Thirty-two men (age: 27.0 ± 3.9years, height: 1.79 ± 0.0m,
body mass: 84.6 ± 8.6kg, RT experience: 6.4 ± 2.0years)
volunteered to participate in this study. Participants had
trained their lower limbs for at least 4years with a fre-
quency of two times per week, and were able to squat with
at least 130% of their body mass to be deemed as resist-
ance trained (ACSM 2009; Baker etal. 1994; Brandenburg
and Docherty 2002; Gibala etal. 1994; Ostrowski etal.
1997). Besides being deemed as resistance trained, par-
ticipants had to: (1) be free from using anabolic steroids;
(2) be free from musculoskeletal disorders or risk factors
as assessed by the PAR-Q Questionnaire; (3) perform 45°
leg press and leg extension exercises in their RT routines.
All of the assessments were performed at the same time
of the day, and participants were oriented to have a light
meal 2h prior to each testing session. Additionally, partici-
pants were advised to maintain their eating habits, and to
consume only the nutritional supplement provided by the
P.I., after each RT session (i.e., 30g Whey Protein–Whey
Select–3VS Nutrition–Brazil). Participants signed a con-
sent form, the study was conducted in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki, and ethical approval was granted
by the University’s ethics committee.
Experimental design
Initially, participants visited the laboratory to perform
a familiarization session with the 45° leg press (RT-
054–Tonus–Brazil–São Paulo) and leg extension (RT-
068–Tonus–Brazil–São Paulo) exercises 1-RM test. They
completed the first 1-RM test 48h after the familiarization
session. 1-RM was re-tested 72h after the first 1-RM test.
Seventy-two hours after, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
vastus lateralis (VL) muscle and muscle architecture vari-
ables [i.e., pennation angle (PA) and fascicle length (FL)]
were assessed. Self-reported training logs of the 2weeks
prior to the commencement of the study were used to deter-
mine the TTV usually performed by each participant. Then,
TTV was used to rank each limb of the participants into
quartiles to randomly and balanced allocate each of the
participants’ limbs to the following experimental condi-
tions: (1) Traditional (TRAD); (2) Crescent pyramid (CP);
(3) Drop-set (DS). The TRAD condition was defined as a
“positive” control for all of the participants. Thus, 32 limbs
were allocated to the TRAD protocol (16 dominant and 16
non-dominant limbs). Contralateral limbs were then allo-
cated to either CP (n = 16, 8 dominant and 8 non-dominant
limbs) or DS protocol (n = 16, 8 dominant and 8 non-domi-
nant limbs). These procedures were adopted to mitigate the
influence of previous TTV on training-induced adaptations.
Following, participants performed two familiarization ses-
sions with the assigned protocols, and then underwent 12
weeks of RT. 45° leg press and leg extension 1-RM were
re-tested at the end of week 6 to adjust training load. Addi-
tionally, muscle CSA and architecture, 45° leg press and
leg extension 1-RM loads were re-assessed 72h after the
last RT session at post-training.
Equalization andprogression ofthetotal training
volume
As TTV can greatly affect muscle strength and hypertro-
phy gains (Candow and Burke 2007; Gentil etal. 2015;
Kelly etal. 2007; Krieger 2009, 2010; Mitchell etal. 2012;
Ronnestad etal. 2007; Schoenfeld 2013a, 2016b; Sooneste
etal. 2013), we utilized RT records to determine initial
training load for each participant. Initial TTV was defined
as 120% of the TTV that each participant performed in
the 2weeks prior to the commencement of the study.
This procedure ensured the absence of abrupt increases or
decreases in TTV at the beginning of the study. The TTV
performed on each CP or DS session was equalized to the
TTV performed on the TRAD session (i.e., trained first).
70 and 30% of the TTV was performed in the 45° leg press,
and leg extension exercises, respectively. The TTV was
increased by ~7% every 3weeks (i.e., 6 RT sessions) for all
of the participants.
Resistance training protocols
Traditional resistance training (TRAD)
The TRAD protocol trained with an intensity correspond-
ing to 75% of the 1-RM load in the unilateral 45° leg press
and leg extension exercises. Overall, participants performed
3–5 sets of 6–12 repetitions on each exercise. As we used
75% of the 1-RM load on both exercises, a couple partici-
pants could not be close to failure in the first or second set,
but all of them were very close to, or reached, failure in the
last sets. The number of sets and repetitions were adjusted
every time that the TTV was increased. A 2-min rest was
allowed between sets and exercises.
Crescent pyramid system (CP)
In CP protocol, load (kg) was increased and repetitions
were reduced after each exercise set. Participants per-
formed the CP protocol with a similar TTV to the con-
tralateral leg. In this regard, the number of sets each par-
ticipant performed varied from 3 to 5 and the number of
repetitions performed on each set was ~15 in the first set
(65% 1-RM), ~12 in the second set (70% 1-RM), ~10 in
the third set (75% 1-RM), ~8 in the fourth set (80% 1-RM),
and ~6 in the fifth set (85% 1-RM). Similarly to the TRAD
protocol, a couple participants could not be close to fail-
ure in the first or second set, but all of them were close to,
or reached, failure in the last sets. Similar to the TRAD
protocol, the number of sets and repetitions were adjusted
every 3weeks, when TTV was increased. A 2-min rest was
granted between sets and exercises.
Drop-set system (DS)
The DS protocol used the same initial TTV and exercises
as the TRAD and CP protocols. Each set was conducted
to muscle failure. Then, participants performed up to
two drops after the initial failure on each set (e.g., initial
load—repetitions to muscle failure—short pause—reduc-
tion of 20% of the load—repetitions to muscle failure—
short pause—reduction of 20% of the load—repetitions to
failure). If the predetermined TTV for each exercise was
reached before the end of the second drop (e.g., the first
drop of the second set), the exercise was terminated to
ensure the equalization of the TTV with the TRAD pro-
tocol. A 2-min rest interval was granted between sets and
exercises.
Maximum dynamic strength test (1-RM)
Unilateral 1-RM test in the 45° leg press and leg exten-
sion exercises was performed following the recommenda-
tions described by Brown and Weir (2001). Initially, par-
ticipants performed a general warm-up in a cycle ergometer
at 20kmh− 1 for 5min, followed by two sets of specific
warm-up. The first set consisted of 8 repetitions with 50%
of the estimated 1-RM, and the second set comprised
3 repetitions with 70% of the estimated 1-RM with a
2-min rest between warm-up sets. After the warm-up, the
1-RM test was initiated. Participants had up to 5 attempts
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
to reach their 1-RM load on each exercise, with a rest of
3min between attempts. The greatest load lifted was con-
sidered as the 1-RM load. The coefficient of variation and
the typical error for the 45° leg press and leg extension
1-RM tests were 1.31% and 2.89kg, and 1.38% and 1.05kg
respectively.
Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA)
The CSA was obtained through an ultrasound imaging
(US) unit following the procedures described in our previ-
ously published validation study (Lixandrão etal. 2014).
Participants were instructed to abstain from vigorous phys-
ical activities for at least 72h prior to each CSA assess-
ment (Damas etal. 2016b; Newton etal. 2008). Prior to the
acquisition of images, participants laid in a supine position
for 20min to ensure fluid redistribution. A B-mode US,
with a linear probe set at 7.5MHz (Samsung, MySono U6,
São Paulo, Brasil), was used to acquire the images. Trans-
mission gel was applied in the area where the images were
obtained, ensuring acoustic coupling, without compress-
ing the epidermis. The point corresponding to 50% of the
distance between the greater trochanter and the lateral epi-
condyle of the femur was used for the acquisition of CSA
images. Images were acquired in the sagittal plane. To
guide the displacement of the probe, the skin was trans-
versely marked at intervals of 2cm. Sequential images of
the VL muscle started at the point of alignment of the upper
edge of the probe with the most medial skin mark (over
the rectus femoris muscle) and ended at the lateral aspect
of the thigh. Images were recorded every 2cm. Then, the
sequence of images were opened in Power Point (Micro-
soft, USA), manually rotated to reconstruct the entire fascia
of VL muscle, and saved as a new figure file. Figure files
were opened in the ImageJ software and the “polygonal”
function was used to determine VL CSA. ImageJ “polyg-
onal” functional was calibrated using a known distance
marked in the US unit. The CV and the TE of CSA meas-
ures was 1.05% and 0.33cm2, respectively.
Pennation angle (PA) andfascicle length (FL)
PA and FL of VL were measured at the same time and site
of the CSA acquisition, with the probe oriented longitudi-
nally to the muscle belly. The PA was defined as the angle
formed between the intersection of a fascicle and the deep
aponeurosis. FL was defined as the distance from fascicle
origin in the deep aponeurosis to insertion in the superficial
aponeurosis. The mean value of three images was used to
determine PA and FL using the “Angle” tool (Scanlon etal.
2014) and “Straight” tool (Erskine etal. 2009), respec-
tively, of the ImageJ software (1.50b). The coefficient of
variation and typical error for PA and FL assessments were
1.35% and 0.35°, and 1.05% and 0.05cm, respectively.
Statistical analysis
After visual inspection, data normality and variance homo-
geneity were confirmed by Shapiro–Wilk Levine’s tests,
respectively. As the TRAD condition had 32 “legs” (i.e.,
positive control condition), while the CP and DS condi-
tions (i.e., experimental conditions) had only 16 “legs”, we
performed 10 simulations in which 16 legs were randomly
removed from the TRAD condition. These simulations
were performed to test if different samples of 16 “legs” in
the TRAD condition would change the statistical findings
when compared to the situation in which the TRAD con-
dition had 32 “legs”. As none of the simulations produced
different statistical findings, for any of the dependent vari-
ables, we performed the actual analyses having 32 “legs” in
the TRAD condition and 16 “legs” in the CP and DS con-
ditions. To compare baseline values of the dependent vari-
ables between-protocols (TTV, 1-RM, CSA, PA and FL)
a repeated measures one-way ANOVA was implemented.
As there were no significant differences between protocols
at baseline, a mixed model having protocols and time as
fixed factors and subjects as random factor was performed
for each dependent variable to compare training effects
over time. In case of significant F-values, a Tukey adjust-
ment was implemented for pairwise comparisons. Statisti-
cal analyses were performed in the software SAS 9.2 and P
values was set as P < 0.05.
Results
Total training volume (TTV)
No significant differences in TTV (P > 0.05) were detected
between protocols TRAD, CP, and DS (Fig.1).
Maximum dynamic strength
All of the protocols showed significantly greater 1-RM
values from pre- to post-training for 45° leg press
(TRAD = 25.9%, CP = 25.9%, and DS = 24.9%; main
time effect, P < 0.0001) (Fig.2a) and leg extension
(TRAD = 16.6%, CP = 16.4% and DS = 17.1%; main
time effect, P < 0.0001) exercises (Fig.2b). Compound
1-RM values (unilateral 45° leg press plus unilateral
leg extension) significantly increased from pre- to post-
training (TRAD = 24.1; CP = 24.6; DS = 22.9; main time
effect, P < 0.0001) (Fig.2c). No significant differences
were detected between protocols (P > 0.05). Individual
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
relative changes (%) in compound 1-RM values are shown
in Fig.4a.
Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) andmuscle
architecture
In relation to CSA, all of the protocols significantly
increased values from pre- to post-training (TRAD = 7.6%,
CP = 7.5%, and DS = 7.8%; main time effect, P = 0.01)
(Figs.3a, 4b). Regarding increases in PA, all of the proto-
cols showed significant and similar increases from pre- to
post-training (TRAD = 10.6%; CP = 11.0%; DS = 10.3%;
main time effect, P = 0.001) (Fig.3b). FL values also
increased significantly and similarly from pre- to post-
training for all of the protocols (TRAD = 8.9%; CP = 8.9%;
DS = 9.1%; main time effect, P = 0.001) (Fig.3c). No
Fig. 1 Total training volume following 12weeks of traditional
(TRAD), crescent pyramid (CP), and drop-set (DS) protocols. Values
presented as mean ± SD
Fig. 2 Maximum dynamic
strength (1-RM) in unilateral
45° leg press (LP) (a), unilateral
leg extension (LE) (b) and com-
pound (LP plus LE) (c) meas-
ured at baseline (Pre) and after
12 weeks of training (Post) for
the traditional (TRAD), crescent
pyramid (CP), and drop-set
(DS) protocols. *Significantly
different from Pre (main time
effect, P < 0.0001). Values
presented as mean ± SD
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
significant differences between protocols were detected
(P > 0.05).
Discussion
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study comparing
the effects of Crescent Pyramid (CP) and Drop-set (DS) RT
systems with Traditional (TRAD) RT in a volume-equated
program on muscle strength, cross-sectional area (CSA),
and architecture parameters in well-trained individuals.
Our main finding is that CP and DS systems do not produce
additional gains in muscle strength and mass compared to
TRAD.
Accordingly, we found similar increases in mus-
cular strength between TRAD, CP, and DS protocols
(24.9–25.9% for leg press and 16.4–17.1% for leg exten-
sion). The increases in 1-RM values for the 45° leg press
and leg extension exercises reported herein are consistent
with other studies that performed TRAD in well-trained
individuals (~20% after 24 sessions) (Ahtiainen etal. 2005;
Schoenfeld etal. 2014b, 2015, 2016a).
Regarding the comparison between TRAD, CP, and
DS, it is suggested that the CP system may induce greater
increases in muscle strength compared to TRAD and DS
due to higher training intensity (Fleck and Kraemer 2014),
which can increase the recruitment of fast motor units (Sch-
oenfeld etal. 2014a). In fact, authors have suggested that
high-intensity RT protocols may promote greater gains in
Fig. 3 Muscle cross-sectional
area (CSA) (a), pennation angle
(PA) (b) and fascicle length
(FL) (c) measured at the base-
line (Pre) and after 12weeks of
training (Post) for the traditional
(TRAD), crescent pyramid (CP)
and drop-set (DS) protocols.
*Significantly different from Pre
(main time effect, P = 0.001).
Values presented as mean ± SD
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
muscle strength than low-intensity RT protocols in trained
individuals (~20 vs. ~9%) (Mangine etal. 2015; Schoen-
feld etal. 2015). In our study, 1-RM increased similarly
between TRAD, CP, and DS protocols (24.9–25.9% to 45°
leg press and 16.4–17.1% to leg extension). The range of
training intensities used in the present study (TRAD = 75%
1-RM; CP = 65–85% 1-RM; DS = ~60–75% 1-RM) may
partially explain the similar gains in muscle strength, which
may have ensured the recruitment of the motor unit pool
(Clamann 1993; De Luca and Contessa 2012). Addition-
ally, TTV equalization may have promoted similar muscle
overload between protocols, despite the differences in vol-
ume and intensity between protocols, and therefore strength
gains (Candow and Burke 2007; Gentil etal. 2015; Kelly
etal. 2007; Krieger 2009, 2010; Marshall etal. 2011;
Mitchell etal. 2012; Ronnestad etal. 2007; Schoenfeld
2013a; Sooneste etal. 2013). Our data support the hypoth-
esis that RT systems are not needed to maximize muscle
strength gains in trained individuals in TTV-equalized
conditions.
Increases in VL CSA were also similar between TRAD,
CP, and DS protocols (7.5–7.8%). Studies have reported
that muscle hypertrophy responses is lower in well-trained
individuals (Ahtiainen etal. 2003, 2005; Brandenburg and
Docherty 2002) compared to individuals with little or no
RT experience (Wernbom etal. 2007). However, in our
study, the increase in muscle CSA was higher than in other
studies on trained individuals. For instance, Ahtiainen etal.
(2003) reported increases in quadriceps CSA of ~5.6% after
21-weeks of RT (5 sets of leg extension carried out twice
a week) in bodybuilders and weightlifters. Following, the
same group observed an increase of only ~4% in quadriceps
CSA after 21-week of RT (3–4 sets of squats and 4–5 sets
of leg press of 10-RM carried out twice a week) in resist-
ance-trained individuals (Ahtiainen etal. 2005). Studies
from our group and others have demonstrated that RT-
induced changes in muscle CSA have a high between-sub-
ject variability (range: −11–30%) (Ahtiainen etal. 2016;
Brandenburg and Docherty 2002; Fonseca etal. 2014;
Hubal etal. 2005; Laurentino etal. 2012; Libardi etal.
2015; Vechin etal. 2015). In the present study, all of the
participants improved muscle CSA, and the between-sub-
ject variability was lower than previously reported (range:
1.7–13.3%) (Fig.4b). It is possible that the following char-
acteristics of our experimental design may have optimized
anabolic stimuli and minimized between-subject variabil-
ity even in trained individuals: (1) individuals had an ini-
tial training load that considered training history ensuring
an appropriate muscle overload; (2) TTV was frequently
increased (i.e., 7% every six training sessions) to ensure a
continuous progression and load-equalization between pro-
tocols (Krieger 2009, 2010; Schoenfeld etal. 2016b); (3) to
warrant maximal elevation in protein synthesis after each
RT session and to reduce the reduce diet-induced between-
subject variability, all of the participants ingested 30g
of whey protein after each RT session (Burd etal. 2010;
Damas etal. 2016a; Hartman etal. 2007; Mitchell etal.
2012); (4) our within-subject experimental design allowed
a more precise volume equalization between protocols and
minimized the effects of the between-subjects biological
variability when comparing training protocols.
Regarding the comparison between TRAD, CP, and
DS protocols, it has been suggested that sets performed
to failure in DS system, and the associated high TTV,
are advantageous for muscle hypertrophy due to a high
metabolic stress, and a consequent anabolic milieu com-
pared to TRAD and CP protocols (Mangine etal. 2015;
Morton etal. 2016; Schoenfeld 2013b; Schoenfeld etal.
2015). However, our DS protocol did not result in greater
increases in CSA when compared to the other protocols. As
Fig. 4 Individual relative
changes (%) in compound
maximum dynamic strength
(1-RM, unilateral 45° leg press
plus unilateral leg extension)
(a) and muscle cross-sectional
area (CSA) (b) in relation
to baseline values for the
traditional (TRAD), crescent
pyramid (CP), and drop-set
(DS) protocols
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
the TRAD and CP protocols do not require reaching muscle
failure on each set (ACSM 2009; Charro etal. 2010, 2012),
participants were not instructed to reach it on each set.
Despite the fact that achieving failure was not a prerequi-
site to TRAD and CP, sets were performed with high level
of effort and fatigue due to an initial high TTV (i.e., addi-
tion of 20% to the previous TTV) and periodical increases
in TTV throughout the experimental protocol. Although we
should consider that only the DS performed all sets to mus-
cle failure, to the best of our knowledge, there is no data
supporting the notion that individuals should reach mus-
cle failure on each set of the training routine (Davies etal.
2016; Nóbrega and Libardi 2016). At last, another unpub-
lished data set from our group (under review) shows that
sets performed to muscle failure or volitional interruption
(i.e., point in which participants voluntarily interrupted
the exercise prior to muscle failure) do not produce acute
differences in muscle hypertrophy. In spite of the lack of
studies investigating the effects of the standard DS system,
some studies compared blood lactate response (Goto etal.
2003) and changes in muscle strength and mass (Goto etal.
2004) between TRAD and a RT protocol that resembles
the DS system (i.e., addition of one set with reduced load
until muscle failure, which was performed at the end of
the session after a short pause). The results of these stud-
ies showed greater lactate concentrations immediately after
the session (Goto etal. 2003) and greater muscle adapta-
tion after 10 weeks of training (Goto etal. 2004) for the
DS system when compared to the TRAD. Importantly, a
higher number of repetitions was performed in the “DS sys-
tem” in both studies, resulting in greater TTVs than in the
other protocols, suggesting that the advantages offered by
DS may be due to a higher TTV and not to the system per
se (Schoenfeld 2011). Recently, Schoenfeld etal. (2016b)
demonstrated a graded dose–response relationship in which
increases in RT TTV produced greater gains in muscle
hypertrophy, highlighting the importance of TTV for mus-
cle hypertrophy. Taken together, it is possible to suggest
that DS cannot provide advantages to muscle CSA gains
over other RT protocols for resistance-trained individuals
when TTV is equalized.
Muscle hypertrophy was accompanied by similar
increases in PA and FL between protocols. To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the
effects of RT systems on muscle architecture parameters in
resistance-trained individuals. Given that changes in mus-
cle architecture accompany the changes on muscle CSA
(Aagaard etal. 2001), one should expect smaller changes
in PA and FL in trained individuals than in untrained
ones (Wernbom etal. 2007). However, our results showed
increases in PA and FL comparable to those observed in
recreationally active individuals (~10% to PA and ~8% to
FL) (Blazevich etal. 2007; Seynnes etal. 2007). Therefore,
it is possible to suggest that the strategies used herein to
ensure adaptive responses in well-trained individuals opti-
mized not only the increases in CSA, but also in PA and
FL. The changes in PA and FL allow us to suggest that the
increase in CSA was due to increased number of sarcom-
eres in parallel, and thus maximum force capacity (Aagaard
etal. 2001).
Our study provides some practical insights that should
be considered. First, as TRAD, CP, and DS produced simi-
lar changes in the assessed parameters, it is recommended
that the utilization of a RT system should take into account
individual preferences. Second, training-induced adapta-
tions seem to be optimized with periodical adjustments in
TTV throughout a training period. Finally, the manipula-
tion of intensity or volume does not interfere in muscle
strength and hypertrophy gains, at least when the TTV of
protocols is equalized and progressively increased.
This study is not without limitations. CSA was meas-
ured in a single point, which can limit the ability to assess
non-uniform muscle growth. However, non-uniform mus-
cle growth is more likely to occur when exercises are var-
ied throughout the training period (Fonseca etal. 2014),
which was not the case in the present study. The unilateral
training model employed in the present study may favor
the occurrence of cross-education, which may lead to
neurally-induced strength gains in untrained contralateral
muscles (Lee and Carroll 2007). However, we believe that
cross-education effects (at least at the post-training assess-
ment) have been minimized in our design due to the fol-
lowing factors: (a) the occurrence of neurally-induced
strength gains usually lasts less than the duration of our
experimental period (i.e., 12weeks); (b) in a meta-analysis,
Munn etal. (2004) demonstrated an average strength gain
of ~10% when undergoing cross-education in untrained
individuals. Our strength gains are 1.5 times greater than
the gains induced by cross-education, which may rule out
cross-education as a factor driving our training-induced
adaptations; (c) the participants of the present study
were deemed as strength-trained individuals, as they had
6.4 ± 2.0years of resistance training experience. Cross-
education is less likely to occur in trained individuals than
untrained ones; (d) the advantages of using a within-subject
design outgain those of a between-subject design. Bio-
logical variability (between-subject design) has a greater
effect on muscle strength and hypertrophy gains than cross-
education.; (e) a within-subject design is very effective in
controlling biological variability as between-leg responses
are equally affected by biological variability; (f) it was of
utmost importance to control TTV between protocols. A
between-subject design would not allow controlling TTV
precisely, as using TTV from one experimental group to
another could have produced a sub-par or an excessive
overload greatly affecting our findings.
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
Conclusions
Crescent Pyramid and Drop-set systems do not promote
greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy and changes
in muscle architecture compared with resistance train-
ing traditionally performed with constant intensities and
volumes.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by São Paulo
Research Foundation (FAPESP) Grants (#2015/16090-4 to VA and
#2013/21218-4 to CAL) National Council for Scientific and Tech-
nological Development (CNPq) Grant (#406609/2015-2 to CU). We
are grateful to 3VS Nutrition—Brazil for donation of Whey Protein.
Also, we would like to show appreciation to the participants who par-
ticipated on this study and to Sayão Futebol Clube—Araras for their
support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict
of interest.
Ethical standard All procedures performed herein were in accord-
ance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research
committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amend-
ments or comparable ethical standards.
References
Aagaard P etal (2001) A mechanism for increased contractile strength
of human pennate muscle in response to strength training:
changes in muscle architecture. J Physiol 534:613–623
Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen
P (2002) Increased rate of force development and neural drive
of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl
Physiol 93:1318–1326
ACSM (2002) American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 34:364–380
ACSM (2009) American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 41:687–708
ACSM (2011) American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintain-
ing cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness
in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:1334–1359
Ades PA, Savage PD, Brochu M, Tischler MD, Lee NM, Poehl-
man ET (2005) Resistance training increases total daily energy
expenditure in disabled older women with coronary heart dis-
ease. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985) 98:1280–1285.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00360.2004
Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K
(2003) Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength
development during strength training in strength-trained and
untrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 89:555–563. doi:10.1007/
s00421-003-0833-3
Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K (2005)
Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resist-
ance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal
adaptations in trained men. J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength
Cond Assoc 19:572–582. doi:10.1519/15604.1
Ahtiainen JP etal. (2016) Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced
muscle strength and mass responses in men and women of dif-
ferent ages. Age (Dordrecht, Netherlands) 38:10. doi:10.1007/
s11357-015-9870-1
Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R (1994) Periodization: the effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond
Res 8:235–242
Bentes CM, Simao R, Bunker T, Rhea MR, Miranda H, Gomes TM,
Novaes Jda S (2012) Acute effects of dropsets among different
resistance training methods in upper body performance. J Hum
Kinet 34:105–111. doi:10.2478/v10078-012-0069-6
Blazevich AJ, Cannavan D, Coleman DR, Horne S (2007) Influ-
ence of concentric and eccentric resistance training on archi-
tectural adaptation in human quadriceps muscles. J Appl
Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985) 103:1565–1575. doi:10.1152/
japplphysiol.00578.2007
Brandenburg JP, Docherty D (2002) The effects of accentuated eccen-
tric loading on strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural adapta-
tions in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength
Cond Assoc 16:25–32
Brown LE, Weir JP (2001) ASEP procedures recommendation I:
accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc
Physiol Online 4:1–21
Burd NA etal (2010) Low-load high volume resistance exercise
stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low
volume resistance exercise in young men. PloS One 5:e12033.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012033
Candow DG, Burke DG (2007) Effect of short-term equal-vol-
ume resistance training with different workout frequency on
muscle mass and strength in untrained men and women. J
Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 21:204–207.
doi:10.1519/R-19785.1
Charro MA, Aoki MS, Coutts AJ, Araujo RC, Bacurau RF (2010)
Hormonal, metabolic and perceptual responses to different
resistance training systems. J Sports Med Phys Fit 50:229–234
Charro MA, Aoki MS, Nosaka K, Foschini D, Figueira A, Bacurau
RF (2012) Comparison between multiple sets and half-pyramid
resistance exercise bouts for muscle damage profile European. J
Sport Sci 12:249–254. doi:10.1080/17461391.2011.566358
Chestnut JL, Docherty D (1999) The effects of 4 and 10 repetition
maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adapta-
tions in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 13:353–359
Clamann HP (1993) Motor unit recruitment and the gradation of mus-
cle force. Phys Ther 73:830–843
Damas F etal. (2016a) Resistance training-induced changes in inte-
grated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy
only after attenuation of muscle damage. J Physiol 594:5209–
5222. doi:10.1113/jp272472
Damas F etal. (2016b) Early resistance training-induced increases in
muscle cross-sectional area are concomitant with edema-induced
muscle swelling. Eur J Appl Physiol 116:49–56. doi:10.1007/
s00421-015-3243-4
Davies T, Orr R, Halaki M, Hackett D (2016) Effect of training
leading to repetition failure on muscular strength: a systematic
review and meta-analysis Sports Med (Auckland, NZ) 46:487–
502. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3
De Luca CJ, Contessa P (2012) Hierarchical control of motor units
in voluntary contractions. J Neurophysiol 107:178–195.
doi:10.1152/jn.00961.2010
Delorme TL, Watkins AL (1948) Technics of progressive resistance
exercise. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 29:263–273
Erskine RM, Jones DA, Maganaris CN, Degens H (2009) Invivo
specific tension of the human quadriceps femoris muscle. Eur J
Appl Physiol 106:827–838. doi:10.1007/s00421-009-1085-7
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
Fish DE, Krabak BJ, Johnson-Greene D, DeLateur BJ (2003) Opti-
mal resistance training: comparison of DeLorme with Oxford
techniques. Am J Phys Med Rehabil Assoc Acad Physiatr
82:903–909. doi:10.1097/01.phm.0000098505.57264.db
Fleck SJ, Kraemer W (2014) Designing resistance training pro-
grams, 4th edn. Human Kinetics Publisher, Colorado Springs
Fonseca RM etal. (2014) Changes in exercises are more effec-
tive than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. J
Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 28:3085–3092.
doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000539
Gentil P, Fischer B, Martorelli AS, Lima RM, Bottaro M (2015)
Effects of equal-volume resistance training performed one or
two times a week in upper body muscle size and strength of
untrained young men. J Sports Med Phys Fit 55:144–149
Gibala MJ, MacDougall JD, Sale DG (1994) The effects of tapering
on strength performance in trained athletes. Int J Sports Med
15:492–497. doi:10.1055/s-2007-1021093
Goto K, Sato K, Takamatsu K (2003) A single set of low intensity
resistance exercise immediately following high intensity resist-
ance exercise stimulates growth hormone secretion in men. J
Sports Med Phys Fit 43:243–249
Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu
K (2004) Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and
low-intensity resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res Natl
Strength Cond Assoc 18:730–737. doi:10.1519/r-13603.1
Hartman JW, Tang JE, Wilkinson SB, Tarnopolsky MA, Lawrence
RL, Fullerton AV, Phillips SM (2007) Consumption of fat-free
fluid milk after resistance exercise promotes greater lean mass
accretion than does consumption of soy or carbohydrate in
young, novice, male weightlifters. Am J Clin Nutr 86:373–381
Hubal MJ etal. (2005) Variability in muscle size and strength
gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
37:964–972
Kelly SB, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Zinder SM, Gardner LM, Nguyen
D (2007) The effect of single versus multiple sets on strength.
J Strength Condi Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 21:1003–
1006. doi:10.1519/r-22356.1
Kok LY, Hamer PW, Bishop DJ (2009) Enhancing muscular quali-
ties in untrained women: linear versus undulating periodi-
zation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:1797–1807. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e3181a154f3
Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA (2004) Fundamentals of resistance
training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 36:674–688
Krieger JW (2009) Single versus multiple sets of resist-
ance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res
Natl Strength Cond Assoc 23:1890–1901. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181b370be
Krieger JW (2010) Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise
for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond
Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 24:1150–1159 doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181d4d436
Laurentino GC etal. (2012) Strength training with blood
flow restriction diminishes myostatin gene expres-
sion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44:406–412. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e318233b4bc
Lee M, Carroll TJ (2007) Cross education: possible mechanisms for
the contralateral effects of unilateral resistance training Sports
medicine (Auckland, NZ) 37:1–14
Libardi CA etal. (2015) Effect of concurrent training with blood flow
restriction in the elderly. Int J Sports Med 36:395–399. doi:10.10
55/s-0034-1390496
Lixandrão ME etal. (2014) Vastus lateralis muscle cross-sec-
tional area ultrasonography validity for image fitting in
humans. J Strength Cond Res 28:3293–3297. doi:10.1519/
jsc.0000000000000532
Mangine GT etal. (2015) The effect of training volume and inten-
sity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resist-
ance-trained men. Physiol Rep 3. doi:10.14814/phy2.12472
Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW (2011) Strength and neu-
romuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of
high intensity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl
Physiol 111:3007–3016. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-1944-x
Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA, Breen
L, Baker SK, Phillips SM (2012) Resistance exercise load
does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in
young men J Appl Physiol (1985) 113:71–77. doi:10.1152/
japplphysiol.00307.2012
Moore DR, Young M, Phillips SM (2012) Similar increases in mus-
cle size and strength in young men after training with maxi-
mal shortening or lengthening contractions when matched for
total work. Eur J Appl Physiol 112:1587–1592. doi:10.1007/
s00421-011-2078-x
Morton RW etal (2016) Neither load nor systemic hormones deter-
mine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength
gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00154.2016
Munn J, Herbert RD, Gandevia SC (2004) Contralateral effects
of unilateral resistance training: a meta-analysis. J Appl
Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985) 96:1861–1866. doi:10.1152/
japplphysiol.00541.2003
Newton MJ, Morgan GT, Sacco P, Chapman DW, Nosaka K (2008)
Comparison of responses to strenuous eccentric exercise of the
elbow flexors between resistance-trained and untrained men.
J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 22:597–607.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181660003
Nóbrega SR, Libardi CA (2016) Is resistance training to mus-
cular failure necessary? Front Physiol 7:10. doi:10.3389/
fphys.2016.00010
Ostrowski KJ, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, Murphy PW, Lyttle AD
(1997) The effect of weight training volume on hormonal
output and muscular size and function. J Strength Cond Res
11:148–154
Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, Souza MF, Tomeleri CM, Venturini D,
Barbosa DS, Cyrino ES (2016) Traditional and pyramidal resist-
ance training systems improve muscle quality and metabolic
biomarkers in older women: a randomized crossover study. Exp
Gerontol 79:8–15. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2016.03.007
Ronnestad BR, Egeland W, Kvamme NH, Refsnes PE, Kadi F,
Raastad T (2007) Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength
training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower
body in untrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength
Cond Assoc 21:157–163 doi:R-19895 [pii]10.1519/R-19895.1
Scanlon TC, Fragala MS, Stout JR, Emerson NS, Beyer KS, Oliveira
LP, Hoffman JR (2014) Muscle architecture and strength: adap-
tations to short-term resistance training in older adults. Muscle
Nerve 49:584–592. doi:10.1002/mus.23969
Schoenfeld BJ (2010) The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy
and their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond
Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 24:2857–2872. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181e840f3
Schoenfeld B (2011) The use of specialized training techniques
to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength Cond J 33:60–65.
doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182221ec2
Schoenfeld BJ (2013a) Is there a minimum intensity threshold
for resistance training-induced hypertrophic adaptations?
Sports Med (Auckland, NZ) 43:1279–1288. doi:10.1007/
s40279-013-0088-z
Schoenfeld BJ (2013b) Potential mechanisms for a role of meta-
bolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance train-
ing. Sports Med (Auckland, NZ) 43:179–194. doi:10.1007/
s40279-013-0017-1
Eur J Appl Physiol
1 3
Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Willardson JM, Fontana F, Tiryaki-
Sonmez G (2014a) Muscle activation during low- versus high-
load resistance training in well-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol
114:2491–2497 doi:10.1007/s00421-014-2976-9
Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Sonmez
GT, Alvar BA (2014b) Effects of different volume-equated
resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in
well-trained men J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc
28:2909–2918. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000480
Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT
(2015) Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle
strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond
Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 29:2954–2963. doi:10.1519/
jsc.0000000000000958
Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Ogborn D, Galpin A, Krieger J, Sonmez
GT (2016a) Effects of varied versus constant loading zones on
muscular adaptations in trained men. Int J Sports Med 37:442–
447. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1569369
Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW (2016b) Dose-response
relationship between weekly resistance training volume and
increases in muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Sports Sci, 1–10. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
Seynnes OR, de Boer M, Narici MV (2007) Early skeletal muscle
hypertrophy and architectural changes in response to high-inten-
sity resistance training. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, Md:1985)
102:368–373. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00789.2006
Sooneste H, Tanimoto M, Kakigi R, Saga N, Katamoto S (2013)
Effects of training volume on strength and hypertrophy in young
men. J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 27:8–13.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182679215
Vechin FC etal. (2015) Comparisons between low-intensity resistance
training with blood flow restriction and high-intensity resistance
training on quadriceps muscle mass and strength in elderly. J
Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc 29:1071–1076.
doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000703
Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomee R (2007) The influence of fre-
quency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on
whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med
(Auckland, NZ) 37:225–264
Zinovieff AN (1951) Heavy-resistance exercises the “Oxford tech-
nique”. Br J Phys Med Incl Appl Ind 14:129–132
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from European Journal of Applied Physiology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
