Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength
Abstract and Figures
Background:
We investigated the effects of 2 different resistance training (RT) protocols on muscle hypertrophy and strength. The first group (n = 8) performed a single drop set (DS) and the second group (n = 8) performed 3 sets of conventional RT (normal set, NS).
Methods:
Eight young men in each group completed 6 weeks of RT. Muscle hypertrophy was assessed via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and strength via 12 RM tests before and after the 6 weeks. Acute stress markers such as muscle thickness (MT), blood lactate (BL), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) before and after one bout of RT.
Results:
Both groups showed significant increases in triceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) (10.0 ± 3.7%, effect size (ES) = 0.47 for DS and 5.1 ± 2.1%, ES = 0.25 for NS). Strength increased in both groups (16.1 ± 12.1%, ES = 0.88 for DS and 25.2 ± 17.5%, ES = 1.34 for NS). Acute pre/post measurements for one bout of RT showed significant changes in MT (18.3 ± 5.8%, p < 0.001) and MVC (-13.3 ± 7.1, p < 0.05) in the DS group only and a significant difference (p < 0.01) in RPE was observed between groups (7.7 ± 1.5 for DS and 5.3 ± 1.4 for NS).
Conclusions:
Superior muscle gains might be achieved with a single set of DS compared to 3 sets of conventional RT, probably due to higher stress experienced in the DS protocol.
Figures - uploaded by Koichi Nakazato
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Koichi Nakazato
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Although the use of DS as a training approach has gained widespread popularity, its effectiveness still must be established through rigorously controlled research studies. Several investigations have been conducted on this subject, yielding conflicting findings (Varovic et al., 2012;Enes et al., 2021;Fink et al., 2018;Ozaki et al., 2017;Angleri et al., 2017). To date, no study has been conducted to compare the anaerobic power outcomes between the DS method and traditional RT under conditions where the training volumes are equated. ...
... In contrast to our findings, Fink et al. (2018) reported an increase in triceps push-down 12RM strength of 16.1% for the DS group and 25.2% for the TRT group. However, it is important to note that these differences did not reach statistical significance (effect size: 0.88 vs. 1.34). ...
... However, it is important to note that these differences did not reach statistical significance (effect size: 0.88 vs. 1.34). The difference in outcomes can be attributed, at least in part, to differences in the study design employed by Fink et al. (2018) compared to our own investigation. Specifically, in their study, the DS group underwent training with 12 RM for only one set, while the TRT group engaged in 3 sets. ...
A comparative analysis of the effects of drop set and traditional resistance training on anaerobic power in young men. Turk J Kinesiol, 9(3), 225-232. Abstract Drop set is a popular time-efficient resistance training method. This study aimed to compare the impact of drop-set (DS) training versus traditional resistance training (TRT) while ensuring equalized total training volume on the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Twenty-four sports science students were assigned to either DS (n=12) or TRT (n=12) protocols according to their 1 RM values, and they trained twice a week for 6 weeks.1 RM test was only conducted at the beginning of the study, while the Wingate anaerobic power test was administered at baseline and after the intervention period. The study demonstrated a significant main effect of time for peak power (p< 0.001), and a between-group interaction effect was observed for peak power (p< 0.05). The DS group exhibited slightly higher peak power values compared to TRT (p< 0.05, 15% increase for DS, 13% for TRT, ES: 0,50 and 0,36 respectively), while both groups displayed significantly increased values from pre to post-testing (p < 0.001). Based on our findings, it can be inferred that DS training leads to slightly greater enhancements in anaerobic power when compared to TRT. Additionally, the study confirmed that a 6-week (12 sessions in total) resistance training program utilizing a load of 70% of 1 RM was sufficient to enhance anaerobic performance in young active men.
... Although drop sets could be a time-efficient and effective training strategy for enhancing muscle hypertrophy, the strategy has not been well-researched. A small number of studies with inconsistent findings have been carried out to compare the effects of drop sets vs. traditional sets on muscle hypertrophy [14][15][16][17][18]. Therefore, it may be important to synthesize the literature to draw conclusions on the current literature. ...
... Five studies included only men Fig. 1 A schematic representation of the search process to find eligible studies for this review. A PRISMA flowchart was used to illustrate the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in this review [14][15][16][17][18], and one study included both men and women [29]. One study involved untrained participants [17], and the rest of the studies involved active/resistance-trained participants. ...
... All six studies assessed muscle hypertrophy: Three measured muscle size by ultrasound [14,15,18], two used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [16,17], and one study assessed lean mass using a Bod Pod [29]. Two studies assessed hypertrophy in the arms [16,17], three assessed hypertrophy in the legs [14,15,18], and one study assessed whole body lean mass [29]. ...
Abstract Background One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure at a given load, then making a drop by reducing the load and immediately taking the next set to concentric or voluntary muscle failure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of drop sets over traditional sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Methods This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched on April 9, 2022, for all studies investigating the effects of the drop set training method on muscle hypertrophy that meets the predefined inclusion criteria. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) was used to run the statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry and statistically by Egger’s regression test with an alpha level of 0.10. Results Six studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The number of participants in the studies was 142 (28 women and 114 men) with an age range of 19.2–27 years. The average sample size was 23.6 ± 10.9 (range 9–41). Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that both the drop set and traditional training groups increased significantly from pre- to post-test regarding muscle hypertrophy (drop set standardized mean difference: 0.555, 95% CI 0.357–0.921, p
... In turn, the Drop-sets (DS) technique (also known as descending sets or breakdown sets) consists of performing a set of one exercise, and consequently in the same set, decrease (drops) the load (e.g., 20%) performing more repetitions without or with very little, interval rest between drops [6, 4,11,13]. Both of these techniques are very popular with ST practitioners, especially the DS for the more experienced. ...
... From our literature search, four studies measure muscle hypertrophy directly by MRI or ultrasound [11,4,15,22] and one measures muscle hypertrophy indirectly by bod pod [12]. We identi ed two studies that used a within-subject design (i.e. ...
... The Fink et al. [11] study had a smaller absolute gain in muscle CSA than Angleri et al. [4] and Ozaki et al. [22] studies. It is unclear why, but we speculate that perhaps the training protocol was not enough of a stimulus. ...
Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two strength training protocols, equated in volume, on the elbow flexor muscle thickness (MT) in women.
Methods Twenty-seven women (mean±sd, age 21.89±2.85 years; stature,167.82±5.90 cm; body mass 63.01±7.20 kg; estimate of body fat mass, 19.19±2.88%) were divided in three experimental groups: a drop-set (DS), a traditional (TR), and a control group (CG). The CG maintained regular strength training without perform any upper body exercises. The participants performed a dumbbell biceps curl for two days per week for 12 weeks 4 sets of 3 blocks of 10 repetitions at 75%, 55%, and 35% of their 1 Repetition Maximum (RM) for the DS group, and 8 sets of 11 repetitions at 75% of the 1RM for the TR protocol. Rest interval between sets was 120 seconds for both groups. The MT was acquired in the anterior face of both upper arms at 50% and 60% of the distance between the lateral epicondyle of the humerus and the acromial process of the scapula before (T0) and after the 24 training sessions (T1).
Results There was a significant increase in all MT measurements between T0 and T1for the training groups(p<0.05). In addition, significantly higher values of MT were found in the training groups compared to the control group for all local measurements in T1 (p<0.05). No significant differences were found between training the groups for MT.
Conclusion It appears that both training groups (DS and TR), were effective in promoting MT of the elbow flexors muscles of young women with no differences between training strategies.
... A recent meta-analysis comparing DS to TRT indicated trivial point estimates of the effect sizes for gains in muscle size and strength, however, only 5 studies met the inclusion criteria Furthermore, there were numerous methodological differences between studies, including large variations in DS protocols (Coleman et al., 2022). For example, Angleri et al. and Fink et al., utilized two-step reduction drop-set protocols (20% reduction per step) (Angleri, et al., 2017;Fink et al., 2018), the previous study showed participants had performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions plus one drop set of 6 repetitions (Enes et al., 2021), another study implemented a single drop-set beginning with a high load (80% 1-RM) with 4 descending sets to 30% 1-RM (Ozaki et al., 2018), and also in the other research had participants perform a 5-RM to failure, immediately reducing load by 20%, and then another drop by 10-15% (Varovic et al., 2019). Presently the optimal DS protocol is unknown. ...
... However, absolute change (post values minus pre values) was significantly greater for both drop set groups compared to TRT, which suggests a greater change over time for drop set training induced gains in lower body strength. In contrast, Fink et al. reported that after 6 weeks of resistance training with drop set training compared to traditional resistance training, there were similar increases in muscle strength and muscle cross sectional area (Fink et al., 2018). With regards to changes in muscular endurance, our results revealed that the DS-M group had greater improvements following training compared to DS-S or TRT. ...
The purpose was to examine two drop-set (DS) protocols (single step vs. multi-step) compared to traditional resistance training (TRT) over 8 weeks on changes in muscular strength, endurance and body composition. Twenty-seven trained males were randomized to one of three groups: traditional resistance training (TRT: n = 9), the single step drop set group (DS-S: n = 10) and the multi-step drop set group (DS-M: n = 8). Before and after training, body composition (percent body fat and skeletal muscle mass), and muscular strength and endurance (bench and leg press) were determined. Results: There was a significant interaction for leg press 1-RM (p < .001) and absolute change for leg-press 1-RM was significantly greater for both drop set protocols compared to TRT (p < .001). There were significant interactions for both leg press and bench press endurance (p < .001), with post hoc analyses revealing that only DS-M was superior to TRT (p < .001). There was a significant main effect of time for % body fat (p = .020), SMM (p < .001), however there were no differences between groups. Conclusions: Overall, single-step and multi-step drop-set training to failure appear to be effective strategies to enhance lower body strength, while only the multi-step drop set training enhanced muscular endurance compared to TRT.
... To date, no studies have investigated the effects of PR training on IGF-1, FLST, or MSTN levels. Some researchers have suggested that using different methods of resistance training can lead to a better anabolic environment and improve the effect of training on muscles [1,[18][19][20]. For example, a drop set increases the metabolic stress due to the large number of consecutive repetitions performed [19,20]. ...
... Some researchers have suggested that using different methods of resistance training can lead to a better anabolic environment and improve the effect of training on muscles [1,[18][19][20]. For example, a drop set increases the metabolic stress due to the large number of consecutive repetitions performed [19,20]. In addition, by extending the time spent at high loads, RP can help to increase the workload [1,2]. ...
A rest–pause (RP) technique involves performing one or more repetitions at high resistance to failure, followed by a short rest before performing one or more repetitions. These techniques can affect neuromuscular conditions and fatigue by changing the rest time between repetitions. This study compared the effect of 12 weeks of RP and traditional resistance training (TRT) on myokines (myostatin (MSTN), follistatin (FLST) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1)) and functional adaptations. The study recruited 29 men between the ages of 20 and 30 who had performed resistance training for at least 6 to 12 months. Participants were randomly divided into three groups: RP, TRT, and control; resistance training was performed 3 days per week for 12 weeks. The training methods of the two groups were largely similar. The results showed that RP increased IGF-1 and FLST/MSTN more than the TRT group (% change = 19.04, % change = 37.71), and only the RP and TRT groups had significant changes in the FLST/MSTN ratio compared to the control group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). In addition, FLST levels increased and MSTN decreased in the RP and TRT groups, but the rate of change in FLST was significant in the RP and TRT groups compared to the control group (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively). Leg press and bench press strength, and arm and thigh muscular cross-sectional area (MCSA) increased more in the RP group than in the others, and the percentage of body fat (PBF) decreased significantly. The change between strength and MCSA was significant (p ≤ 0.05), and the PBF change in RP and TRT compared to the control (ES RP group = 0.43; ES TRT group = 0.55; control group ES = 0.09) was significant (p = 0.005, p = 0.01; respectively). Based on the results, the RP training technique significantly affects strength and muscle hypertrophy more than the TRT method, which can be included in the training system to increase strength and hypertrophy.
... In general, the training is similar to the athletes within a group, club, bodybuilding gyms, nationality, depending on the training method and the specialized knowledge of the coach/instructor, etc. The effects of two of the training methods listed above were studied by the authors [17] who investigated the effects of two different resistance training (RT) protocols on hypertrophy and muscle strength in 16 athletes, divided into two groups, for 16 weeks. The first group (n = 8) performed a single drop set (DS) and the second group (n = 8) performed 3 sets of conventional RT (normal set, NS). ...
... However, these findings are not universal because a number of studies have found similar muscular adaptations with a single set compared with multiple-set training programs (8,9,23,24,29). One study even found greater increases in muscle size using a single drop set compared with 3 conventional sets of cable tricep pushdowns (10). Thus, the conflicting research findings have led to inconsistent resistance training exercise prescriptions, which could be unfavorable for individuals seeking to enhance muscle growth (30). ...
Pearson, JR, Moodie, N, Stout, KW, Hawkins, WC, Matuszek, M, Graham, ZA, Siedlik, JA, Vardiman, JP, and Gallagher, PM. Similar responses in the Akt/protein kinase B (PKB) signaling pathway after different lower-body exercise volumes in recreationally active men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-This project examined the differences between a single set (SS) compared to multiple sets (MS) of resistance exercise on the Akt/protein kinase B (PKB) signaling pathway, the expression of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and the receptor for IGF-1 (IGF-1R) to better understand the types of resistance training protocols that are most beneficial in stimulating the muscle hypertrophic response. Sixteen healthy men were randomly selected into 2 groups of 8. Subjects in each group received 3 biopsies: (a) before exercise, (b) 15 minutes postexercise, and (c) 180 minutes postexercise. Subjects in the SS group performed 1 set of leg press to failure at 80% of their predetermined 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Subjects in the MS group performed 2 sets of 10 repetitions and 1 set to failure at 80% of their predetermined 1RM, with 3 minutes of rest between each set. Our results indicated no group 3 time interactions in the concentration of Akt signaling proteins. Furthermore, there were no group 3 time interactions in IGF-1 or IGF-1R expression. However, phosphorylated 4E-binding protein 1 levels increased 150% from pre to 180 minutes post (p 5 0.005). In addition, there was a significantly greater increase in IGF-1R expression in the SS group compared with the MS group (7.99 6 10.07 vs. 4.41 6 6.28; p 5 0.026). Collectively, we found that a SS of resistance training evokes a similar acute Akt/PKB pathway response as MS in recreationally active men.
A common obstacle to achieving recommended physical activity and desired training goals is time. This is true for recreationally trained adults and athletes, particularly at the collegiate level, where greater restrictions on practice time and training are in place. One possible solution is to implement time-saving and time-efficient training routines and methods that may limit the amount of time needed to attain desired physiological adaptations—by decreasing the time needed to train and/or by increasing the frequency with which brief workouts are completed throughout the week (e.g., “microdosing”). To provide the most optimal training stimulus, the correct method must be used. Unfortunately, numerous terms describe routines and methods discussed in the current body of available literature, many of which may seem similar and lead to confusion. The purpose of this article is to outline the similarities and differences of the numerous time-saving and time-efficient training routines and methods. Ultimately, this article synthesizes the current research into practical recommendations as programming options for strength and conditioning coaches and personal trainers. The information provided may also serve as a foundation for future research opportunities in time-saving and time-efficient training.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of static stretching (SS) of agonists and antagonists between sets on the total training volume (TTV) performed across multiple sets for the leg extension exercise. Twelve male subjects with experience in resistance training (RT) participated in this study. Subjects performed 10 repetition maximum (10RM) test and retest trials for the leg extension exercise. Four different protocols were randomly applied as follows: quadriceps stretching (AG); hamstrings stretching (AN); quadriceps and hamstrings stretching (AGN); and traditional control without stretching (TR). Significant differences (p≤0.05) were observed in the TTV between the AG (4855.42 ± 1279.38 kg) and AN (6002.08 ± 1805.18 kg), AGN (5977.50 ± 1778.49 kg), and TR (6206.04 ± 1796.15 kg) protocols. These results suggest that when practicing inter-set SS, it should be done for antagonist rather than agonist muscles when the intent is to maximize TTV.
We compared the effects of resistance training (ResisT) to pyramidal and traditional
weightlifting sets on men’s psychophysiological responses. In a randomized crossover design, 24 resistance-trained males performed drop-set, descending pyramid, and traditional ResisT in the barbell back squat, 45° leg press, and seated knee extension. We assessed participants’ rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) at the end of each set and at 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes post-session. No differences were detected across ResisT Methods in total training volume (p = 0.180). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher RPE (M 8.8 SD 0.7 arbitrary units) and lower FPD (M - 1.4 SD 1.5 arbitrary units) values compared to descending pyramid (M Set RPE 8.0 SD 0.9 arbitrary units and M Set FPD 0.4 SD 1.6 arbitrary units) and traditional set (M Set RPE 7.5 SD 1.1 arbitrary units and M Set FPD 1.3 SD 1.2 arbitrary units) schemes (p < 0.05). In addition, drop-set training elicited higher session RPE (M 8.1 SD 0.8 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD (M 0.2 SD 1.4 arbitrary units) values than descending pyramid and traditional ResisT (p < 0.001). Similarly, descending pyramid training elicited higher session RPE (M 6.6 SD 0.9 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD (M1.2 SD 1.4 arbitrary units) than traditional set (M Session RPE 5.9 SD 0.8 arbitrary units and M Session FPD 1.5 SD 1.2 arbitrary units) training (p = 0.015). No differences were found in the temporality of post-session metrics, suggesting that testing 10 and 15 minutes post-ResisT was sufficient to assess session RPE (p = 0.480) and session FPD (p = 0.855), respectively. In conclusion, even with similar total training volume, drop-set training elicited more pronounced psychophysiological responses than either pyramidal or traditional ResisT in resistance-trained males.
Many athletes, coaches, and support staff are taking an increasingly scientific approach to both designing and monitoring training programs. Appropriate load monitoring can aid in determining whether an athlete is adapting to a training program and in minimizing the risk of developing non-functional overreaching, illness, and/or injury. In order to gain an understanding of the training load and its effect on the athlete, a number of potential markers are available for use. However, very few of these markers have strong scientific evidence supporting their use, and there is yet to be a single, definitive marker described in the literature. Research has investigated a number of external load quantifying and monitoring tools, such as power output measuring devices, time-motion analysis, as well as internal load unit measures, including perception of effort, heart rate, blood lactate, and training impulse. Dissociation between external and internal load units may reveal the state of fatigue of an athlete. Other monitoring tools used by high-performance programs include heart rate recovery, neuromuscular function, biochemical/hormonal/immunological assessments, questionnaires and diaries, psychomotor speed, and sleep quality and quantity. The monitoring approach taken with athletes may depend on whether the athlete is engaging in individual or team sport activity; however, the importance of individualization of load monitoring cannot be over emphasized. Detecting meaningful changes with scientific and statistical approaches can provide confidence and certainty when implementing change. Appropriate monitoring of training load can provide important information to athletes and coaches; however, monitoring systems should be intuitive, provide efficient data analysis and interpretation, and enable efficient reporting of simple, yet scientifically valid, feedback.
The aim of this study was to compare the influence of including dropset exercises in different orders, both in the pre-exhaustion, as in the post-exhaustion method, and to analyze the performance of total work on the bench press and chest flying exercise. Twenty-two male volunteers with a recreational experience in ST were evaluated in six visits in non-consecutive days, at approximately the same time of the day. During the first visit, subjects signed an informed consent form and underwent an anthropometric evaluation and testing of 10RM. The second visit involved a re-test of 10RM. From third to sixth visits, the subjects were randomly grouped into the following experimental situations: 3rd Visit (V3 - Post-exhaustion): Bench Press (dropset) + Chest Flying (10RM); 4th visit (V4 - Post-exhaustion): Bench Press (10RM) + Chest Flying (dropset); 5th Visit (V5 - pre-exhaustion): Chest Flying (dropset) + Bench Press (10RM); 6th Visit (V6 - pre-exhaustion): Chest Flying (10RM) + Bench Press (dropset). The protocol of dropset was performed with 3 sets and no rest intervals 10RM + 80% 10RM + 60% 10RM. An interval between sets was adopted for 2 minutes. The primary results showed a significant difference in Total Work for visits V3 and V6, which was included in the dropset multiarticular exercises. These results suggest that the exercise order with the dropset method in the pre-exhaustion or post-exhaustion methods had an acute influence on Total Work.
It has been well-documented in the literature that resistance training can promote marked increases in skeletal muscle mass. Post-exercise hypertrophic adaptations are mediated by a complex enzymatic cascade whereby mechanical tension is molecularly transduced into anabolic and catabolic signals that ultimately leads to a compensatory response, shifting muscle protein balance to favor synthesis over degradation.Myocellular signaling is influenced, in part, by the endocrine system. Various hormones have been shown to alter the dynamic balance between anabolic and catabolic stimuli in muscle, helping to mediate an increase or decrease in muscle protein accretion.Resistance training can have an acute impact on the post-exercise secretion of several of these hormones including insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, testosterone, and growth hormone (GH). Studies show that hormonal spikes are magnified following hypertrophy-type exercise that involves training at moderate intensities with shortened rest intervals as compared to high-intensity strength-oriented training. The observed positive relationship between anabolic hormones and hypertrophy-type training has led to the hormone hypothesis, which postulates that acute post-exercise hormonal secretions mediate increases muscle size. Several researchers have suggested that these transient hormonal elevations may be more critical to hypertrophic adaptations than chronic changes in resting hormonal concentrations. Theoretically, high levels of circulating hormones increase the likelihood of interaction with receptors, which may have particular hypertrophic importance in the post-workout period when muscles are primed for anabolism. Moreover, hormonal spikes may enhance intracellular signaling so that post-exercise protein breakdown is rapidly attenuated and anabolic processes are heightened, thereby leading to a greater supercompensatory response. While the hormone hypothesis has received considerable support in the literature, however, several researchers have questioned its veracity, with some speculating that the purpose of post-exercise hormonal elevations is to mobilize fuel stores rather than promote tissue anabolism. Therefore, the purpose of this paper will be to critically and objectively review the current literature, and then draw relevant conclusions as to the potential role of acute systemic factors on muscle protein accretion.
The present study aimed to analyze neuromuscular, physiological and perceptual responses to a single bout of five different dynamic squat exercise protocols. In a randomized and counterbalanced order, fifteen male resistance-trained athletes (mean±SD; age: 23.1±1.9 years, body mass: 77.4±8.0 kg) completed a traditional multiple sets (MS: 4 x 6, 85% 1RM), drop sets (DS: 1 x 6, 85% 1RM + 3 drop sets), eccentric overload (EO: 4 x 6, 70% 1RM concentric, 100% 1RM eccentric), flywheel YoYo Squat (FW: 4 x 6, all-out), and a plyometric jump protocol (PJ: 4 x 15, all-out). Blood lactate (La), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), counter movement jump height (CMJ), multiple rebound jump performance (MRJ), maximal voluntary isometric contraction force (MVIC), serum creatine kinase (CK) and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) were measured. Immediately post-exercise, La was significantly (p<0.001) higher in FW (mean±95% CL; 12.2±0.9 mmol·L) and lower in PJ (3.0±0.8 mmol·L) compared to MS (7.7±1.5 mmol·L), DS (8.5±0.6 mmol·L) and EO (8.2±1.6 mmol L), accompanied by similar RPE responses. Neuromuscular performance (CMJ, MRJ) significantly remained decreased (p<0.001) from 0.5 to 48 h post-exercise in all protocols. There was a significant time x protocol interaction (p<0.05) in MRJ with a significant lower performance in DS, EO and FW compared to PJ (0.5 h post-exercise), and in EO compared to all other protocols (24 h post-exercise). A significant main time effect with peak values 24 h post-exercise was observed in CK serum concentrations (p<0.001), but there was no time x protocol interaction. In conclusion, (1.) metabolic and perceptual demands were higher in FW and EO compared to MS, DS and PJ, (2.) neuromuscular fatigue was consistent up to 48 h post-exercise in all protocols, and (3.) EO induced the greatest neuromuscular fatigue.
Intensive exercise like strength training increases blood lactate concentration [La]. [La] is commonly used to define the metabolic stress of an exercise and depends on the lactate production, transportation, metabolism, and elimination. This investigation compared multiple set training of different volumes to show the influence of exercise volume on [La]. Ten male subjects performed 3 sets of resistance exercises within 4 separate sessions: Arm Curl with 1 or 2 arms (AC1 or AC2), and Leg Extension with 1 or 2 legs (LE1 or LE2). Each set was performed at a standard velocity and at a previously determined 10RM load. Blood lactate samples were taken immediately before and after each set (pre1, post1, pre2, post2, pre3, post3). Maximum [La] was significantly higher after LE2 (6.8 ± 1.6mmol·L-1) and significantly lower after AC1 (2.8 ± 0.7mmol·L-1) in comparison with the other exercise protocols. There was no difference between AC2 (4.3 ± 1.1mmol·L-1) and LE1 (4.4 ± 1.1mmol·L-1). Surprisingly, [La] decreased during the 3rd set (for AC exercise), and during both the 2nd and 3rd sets (for LE exercise) and increased only during the recovery phases. In contrast to our expectations, blood [La] decreased during the 2nd and 3rd exercise sets and further increased only during recovery phases. However, from the increases observed following the first set, we know that lactate was produced and transported to the blood during our exercise protocol. We speculate that lactate is taken up and metabolized by distal muscle fibres or organs. In addition, as the decreases occurred within a short period of time, blood volume shifts and/or the muscle-to-blood gradient may account for the rapid decreases in [La].
A VARIETY OF SPECIALIZED TRAINING TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED AS A MEANS TO HEIGHTEN MUSCLE GROWTH. FORCED REPETITIONS/DROP SETS, SUPERSETS, AND HEAVY NEGATIVES, IN PARTICULAR, HAVE BEEN PURPORTED TO ENHANCE THE HYPERTROPHIC RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE EXERCISE. THIS ARTICLE WILL EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF THESE TECHNIQUES IN PROMOTING MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY AND PROVIDE AN INSIGHT INTO POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS TO RESISTANCE TRAINING PROGRAMS.
This study investigated the response of lactate [La], heart rate (HR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) to acute resistance exercise following a high volume weight training program. Twenty-three untrained male subjects were divided into experimental (GE, n = 15) and control groups (C, n = 8). A pretest (Pre) was performed consisting of full squats for 1 set of 10 repetitions (reps) at 45% of a 1-rep maximum (1-RM), 1 set of 10 reps at 55% 1-RM, and 5 sets of 10 reps at 62.5% 1-RM. Following 8 weeks of training by GE, all subjects were retested (Post) using the original Pre testing Protocol. Results showed that peak [La] decreased from 11.9 +/- 4.2 mmol [middle dot] L-1 to 5.1 +/- 2.6 mmol [middle dot] L-1 (p < 0.05) as a result of training. GE displayed a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in heart rate at the end of each set. Significant decreases in RPE during exercise were also observed. These findings suggest that an 8-week high volume weight training program emphasizing large muscle groups can reduce the physiological and perceived stress associated with resistance exercise. The reductions in [La], HR, and RPE following training may enhance an individual's ability to continue work during bouts of acute resistance exercise. (C) 1993 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The cause of muscle fatigue has been studied for more than 100 yr, yet its molecular basis remains poorly understood. Prevailing theories suggest that much of the fatigue-induced loss in force and velocity can be attributed to the inhibitory action of metabolites, principally phosphate (Pi) and hydrogen ions (H, i.e., acidosis), on the contractile proteins, but the precise detail of how this inhibition occurs has been difficult to visualize at the molecular level. However, recent technological developments in the areas of biophysics, molecular biology, and structural biology are enabling researchers to directly observe the function and dysfunction of muscle contractile proteins at the level of a single molecule. In fact, the first direct evidence that high levels of H and Pi inhibit the function of muscle's molecular motor, myosin, has recently been observed in a single molecule laser trap assay. Likewise, advances in structural biology are taking our understanding further, providing detail at the atomic level of how some metabolites might alter the internal motions of myosin and thereby inhibit its ability to generate force and motion. Finally, new insights are also being gained into the indirect role that muscle regulatory proteins troponin (Tn) and tropomyosin (Tn) play in the fatigue process. In vitro studies, incorporating TnTm, suggest that a significant portion of the decreased force and motion during fatigue may be mediated through a disruption of the molecular motions of specific regions within Tn and Tm. These recent advances are providing unprecedented molecular insight into the structure and function of the contractile proteins and, in the process, are reshaping our understanding of the process of fatigue.
The training of competitive athletes can be assessed by retrospective questionnaires, diaries, physiological monitoring and direct observation of training behaviour. Questionnaires represent the most economical, most comprehensive and least accurate method. Diaries are more valid, but their drawbacks for long term quantitative studies are poor compliance and difficulties in processing the data they generate. Physiological monitoring (of oxygen consumption, heart rate or blood lactate concentration) provides objective measures of training intensity, and direct observation gives valid measures of most aspects of training; however, these methods are impractical for continuous, long term use.
Coaches and athletes quantify training for purposes of motivation, systematisation of training and training prescription, but there has been little study of the use of training quantification by these practitioners. Motivation and systematisation are probably achieved best with diaries. Direct observation appears to be the best method of ensuring compliance with a training prescription, although heart rate monitoring is also a promising method for prescribing endurance training intensity.
Sport scientists quantify training to study its effects on the performance and health status of competitive athletes. Most studies have been descriptive rather than experimental, and unvalidated questionnaires have been the predominant method of assaying training. The main areas of research include performance prediction and enhancement, overtraining, reproductive dysfunction, injury, illness, and nutritional status. Training has substantial effects in all of these areas. There is a need for more experimental studies that utilise validated measures of training to investigate how to reduce sports injuries and enhance competitive sports performance. More attention could also be given to methodological issues of training quantification.