Training for Strength and Hypertrophy: An Evidence-based Approach

Article (PDF Available) · April 2019with 18,566 Reads 
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
DOI: 10.1016/j.cophys.2019.04.006
Cite this publication
Abstract
Resistance exercise training (RET)-induced increases in voluntary 1RM strength are greater with higher loads and training by replicating (or close) the strength test. In contrast, RET-induced muscular hypertrophy is primarily mediated by intensity of effort, which is achieved by performing RET to volitional fatigue and with an internal focus on contracting a muscle throughout the exercise range of motion. In addition, RET-induced muscular hypertrophy is augmented by increasing training volume, but with diminishing returns. Other training variables such as volume-load, inter-set rest, and time under tension have negligible effects on RET-induced changes in muscle size or strength. We conclude that an uncomplicated, evidence-based approach to optimizing RET-induced changes in muscle size and strength follows the FITT principle: frequency, intensity (effort), type, and time.
Figures - uploaded by Stuart M Phillips
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stuart M Phillips
Content may be subject to copyright.
Advertisement
Training
for
strength
and
hypertrophy:
an
evidence-based
approach
Robert
W
Morton
1
,
Lauren
Colenso-Semple
2
and
Stuart
M
Phillips
1
Resistance
exercise
training
(RET)-induced
increases
in
voluntary
1RM
strength
are
greater
if
the
RET
is
performed
with
higher
loads
and
replication
(or
close)
of
the
strength
test.
In
contrast,
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
primarily
mediated
by
intensity
of
effort,
which
is
achieved
by
performing
RET
to
volitional
fatigue
and
with
an
internal
focus
on
contracting
a
muscle
throughout
the
exercise
range
of
motion.
In
addition,
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
augmented
by
increasing
training
volume,
but
with
diminishing
returns.
Other
training
variables
such
as
volume-load,
inter-set
rest,
and
time
under
tension
have
negligible
effects
on
RET-induced
changes
in
muscle
size
or
strength.
We
conclude
that
an
uncomplicated,
evidence-based
approach
to
optimizing
RET-
induced
changes
in
muscle
size
and
strength
follows
the
FITT
principle:
frequency,
intensity
(effort),
type,
and
time.
Addresses
1
Department
of
Kinesiology,
McMaster
University,
Hamilton,
Canada
2
Performance
and
Physique
Enhancement
Laboratory,
University
of
South
Florida,
Tampa,
USA
Corresponding
author:
Phillips,
Stuart
M
(phillis@mcmaster.ca)
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
This
review
comes
from
a
themed
issue
on
Exercise
physiology
Edited
by
Harry
B
Rossiter
and
Brian
Glancy
For
a
complete
overview
see
the
Issue
and
the
Editorial
Available
online
17th
April
2019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2019.04.006
2468-8673/ã
2019
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
Introduction
Skeletal
muscle
strength
is
important
to
human
health,
as
is
evidenced
by
the
inclusion
of
a
recommendation
to
practice
strengthening
activities
in
all
national
physical
activity
guidelines.
In
addition,
muscle
strength
and
size
are
often
core
components
of
athletic
performance.
Therefore,
the
aim
of
this
review
is
to
provide
evi-
denced-based
recommendations
on
resistance
exercise
training
(RET)
variables
that
impact
RET-induced
changes
in
muscle
strength
and
size
(hypertrophy).
Evidence-based
training
for
muscular
strength
Strength
is
measured
in
a
variety
of
ways
but
most
commonly
as
a
voluntary
isotonic
(unchanging
force
throughout
a
range
of
motion)
maximal
lift:
the
so-called
one
repetition
maximum
(1RM).
Other
forms
might
include
3–10
repetitions
to
fatigue:
3–10RM.
Tests
may
also
include
isometric
(unchanging
range
of
motion),
isokinetic
(unchanging
speed
of
contraction
throughout
a
range
of
motion),
or
power-based
tests
that
include
an
element
of
velocity.
Load
RET-induced
increases
in
1RM
are
optimized
when
performing
RET
with
nearer-to-maximal
loads
(e.g.
>85
%1RM)
[1,2,3

,4,5].
However,
when
muscular
strength
is
evaluated
using
an
unpracticed
test
(i.e.
an
outcome
that
is
not
performed
in
the
RET
protocol:
isometric
dynamometry),
RET
of
any
form
is
effective
at
increasing
strength
and
heavier
loads
are
not
superior
[2,3

,5,6,7

,8].
Moreover,
periodic
practice/training
of
a
1RM
test
nullifies,
or
at
least
diminishes,
the
difference
in
RET-induced
1RM
strength
between
heavier-load
and
lighter-load
RET
indicating
that
a
large
part
of
the
strength
differences
is
practice-related,
which
may
be
facilitated
by
various
neuromuscular
adaptations
[9].
Evi-
dently,
RET-induced
changes
in
muscular
strength
are
primarily
determined
by
load
(heavier
being
better)
and
training
specificity
(close
replication
of
the
test)
[4,7

].
Volume
Weekly
training
volume
(repetitions
sets)
can
be
altered
directly
by
manipulating
the
number
of
sets
per
session
[10–13],
the
number
of
repetitions
per
set
(e.g.
by
training
to
volitional
fatigue
or
not)
[14
,15,16],
or
the
number
of
training
sessions
per
week
[17–19];
however,
weekly
training
volume
is
also
indirectly
altered
by
manipulating
load
[5,6,9,20–22]
or
time
under
tension
[23].
Regardless,
increased
volume
(or
volume-load
[load
repetitions
sets])
does
not,
beyond
a
certain
point,
necessarily
augment
RET-induced
changes
in
muscular
strength
[5,7

,9–13,14
,15–19,21,22,24,25].
In
fact,
it
seems
that
performing
excessive
weekly
training
volume
results
in
a
plateau
or
inferior
changes
in
RET-induced
strength
(>15
sets
per
muscle
group
per
week)
[12,13],
which
is
likely
due
to
insufficient
recovery.
A
definitive
study
by
Mattocks
et
al.
[7

]
compared
individuals
that
performed
five
1RM
tests
(i.e.
five
repetitions)
per
session
to
a
traditional
RET
regime
(four
sets
of
8–12
repetitions
per
session)
and
found
that,
after
eight
weeks
of
RET
and
a
10-fold
difference
in
volume
and
volume-load,
1RM
strength
increased
similarly
between
conditions.
Evi-
dently,
specificity
of
the
RET
regime
supersedes
any
effect
of
increased
volume
or
volume-load
on
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
www.sciencedirect.com
RET-induced
changes
in
1RM
[5,7

,9–13,14
,15–
19,21,22,24,25].
Training
frequency
Increasing
the
number
of
weekly
training
sessions
(i.e.
increasing
training
frequency/decreasing
the
rest
between
sessions)
is
a
viable
way
to
increase
volume
and
volume-load
as
an
alternative
to
increasing
the
num-
ber
of
sets
or
repetitions
per
session
[17–19].
However,
both
when
volume
is
unmatched
[17–19]
and
matched
[25,26
,27–30],
higher
training
frequencies
do
not
inde-
pendently
improve
RET-induced
changes
in
muscular
strength.
Rest
A
recent
systematic
review
concluded
that
increasing
inter-set
rest
durations
does
not
result
in
superior
changes
in
RET-induced
muscular
strength;
however,
the
authors
concluded
by
hypothesizing
increasing
inter-set
rest
to
two
to
five
minutes
may
be
advantageous
in
resistance-
trained
individuals
[31].
Indeed,
it
is
apparent
that
this
thesis
is
dependent
on
the
strength
assessment
and
training
status
of
participants
(e.g.
1RM
testing
resis-
tance-trained
young
men
[32]
versus
isometric
dynamom-
etry
testing
in
comparatively
untrained
older
women
[33]);
so,
even
if
longer
rest
intervals
are
advantageous
in
trained
populations,
the
benefits
are
evidently
marginal
[31]
and
contingent
on
training
status
and
specificity
[32,33].
Other
variables
There
are
a
number
of
RET
variables
that
could
be
manipulated
in
effort
to
augment
RET-induced
muscular
strength,
but
most
appear
to
be
inconsequential.
For
example,
performing
RET
at
different
times
of
the
day
[34],
with
different
times
under
tension
[23],
with
or
without
autonomy
over
training
schedules
[35],
with
or
without
blood
flow
occlusion
[36],
or
on
or
avoiding
consecutive
days
[37]
has
little-to-no
effect
on
RET-induced
changes
in
muscular
strength.
However,
it
may
be
that
multi-joint
exercises
(e.g.
squats)
are
more
effective
than
single-joint
exercises
(e.g.
knee
extensions)
[38]
and
that
periodized
programs
are
more
efficacious
than
non-periodized
programs
[39],
but
those
results
are
seemingly
influenced
by
training
specificity.
Practical
and
evidence-based
recommendations
to
augment
RET-induced
strength
RET-induced
changes
in
muscular
strength
are
primarily
mediated
by
load
[1,2,3

,4,5]
and
training
specificity
[4,7

].
Accordingly,
as
recommended
by
both
the
Ameri-
can
College
of
Sports
Medicine
(ACSM)
[40]
and
National
Strength
and
Conditioning
Association
(NSCA)
[41],
recent
evidence
suggests
that
RET-induced
changes
in
1RM
strength
are
greater
when
participants
perform
regular
strength
assessments
with
near-maximal
loads
(>85
%1RM)
[1,2,3

,4,5].
In
addition,
recent
evi-
dence
suggests
that
increasing
inter-set
rest
(>2
min)
[31,32]
and
moderating
weekly
training
volume
(<15
sets/muscle
group/week)
[12,13]
may
improve
RET-
induced
muscular
strength
in
resistance-trained
individ-
uals.
Otherwise,
though
not
the
focus
of
this
review,
increased
protein
intake
up
to
at
least
1.6
g/kg
of
body
mass/day
may
provide
a
small
but
statistically
significant
benefit
on
RET-induced
muscular
strength
as
detailed
elsewhere
[42].
In
conclusion,
RET-induced
muscular
strength
is
primarily
mediated
by
load
and
specificity,
though
dietary
protein
intake,
volume,
and
inter-set
rest
warrant
consideration
with
increased
training
experience
(Figure
1).
Evidence-based
training
for
muscular
hypertrophy
Muscular
hypertrophy
describes
the
expansion
of
pro-
teins
within
a
given
muscle
fiber
and
subsequent
enlarge-
ment
of
the
fiber
cross-sectional
area
and
the
muscle
as
a
whole.
As
a
process,
hypertrophy
is
multifactorial
includ-
ing
changes
in
muscle
protein
turnover,
satellite
cells,
genetics,
and
multiple
molecular
regulatory
processes.
Indeed,
the
molecular
mechanisms
that
may
underpin
RET-induced
skeletal
muscle
hypertrophy
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
review;
thus,
we
direct
the
reader
elsewhere
if
interested
[43].
Load
A
recent
meta-analysis
(21
studies)
[2]
and
numerous
publications
since
[1,5,8,16,20–22,44]
showed
that
heavier
loads
are
not
necessary
for
RET-induced
muscu-
lar
hypertrophy.
Indeed,
muscular
hypertrophy
is
similar
between
lower-load
(30–50
%1RM)
and
higher-load
(>70
%1RM)
RET
when
loads
are
lifted
to
the
point
of
volitional
fatigue
[1,2,3

,5,8,16,20–22,44];
thus,
load
does
not
mediate
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy.
Volume
Some
have
proposed
that
there
is
a
dose–response
rela-
tionship
between
volume
(repetitions
sets)
and
RET-
induced
muscular
hypertrophy
[45].
In
contrast,
recent
data
have
revealed
that
increasing
volume
or
volume-load
by
manipulating
the
number
of
sets
per
session
[11,12],
number
of
repetitions
per
set
[14
,15,16],
number
of
sessions
per
week
[17,19],
or
load
lifted
per
repetition
[3

,5,9,20–22]
does
not
result
in
superior
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy.
However,
supplementing
a
group
of
participants
that
were
not
performing
RET
to
voli-
tional
fatigue
with
additional
volume
can
match
the
RET-induced
muscle
hypertrophy
of
a
group
of
partici-
pants
that
were
performing
RET
to
volitional
fatigue
[14
].
Thus,
though
second
to
performing
RET
to
voli-
tional
fatigue,
volume
may
have
a
small
effect
on
RET-
induced
muscular
hypertrophy
in
untrained
populations.
Otherwise,
studies
in
resistance-trained
individuals
have
found
superior
increases
in
muscle
size
with
increased
Evidenced-based
resistance
exercise
training
Morton,
Colenso-Semple
and
Phillips
91
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
training
volumes
[10,18]
but
only
up
to
15
sets
per
muscle
group
per
week
[12,13].
Moreover,
even
in
untrained
populations,
optimal
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
contingent
on
performing
a
sufficient
number
of
contractions
(>10
repetitions
per
muscle
per
week)
[7

].
In
conclusion,
volume
appears
to
be
an
ostensible
mediator
of
RET-induced
muscular
hypertro-
phy
in
resistance-trained
individuals
[10,18],
and
it
is
clear
that
individuals
should
perform
well
over
10
repeti-
tions/muscle/week
[7

]
but
less
than
15
sets/muscle/
week
[12,13]
to
amass
a
weekly
training
volume
that
is
necessary
for
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy.
Training
frequency
Evidently,
there
is
no
measurable
benefit
of
increased
training
frequency
on
RET-induced
muscular
hypertro-
phy
when
volume
is
equated
[25,26
,27–30,46].
However,
when
higher-training
frequency
conditions
are
not
vol-
ume-matched
to
lower-training
frequency
conditions
there
appears
to
be
a
modest
benefit
of
performing
RET
three
times
per
week
versus
one
time
per
week
on
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
[26
].
Indeed,
the
majority
of
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
appears
to
occur
with
a
single
session
of
RET
per
week,
but
increased
training
frequency
(i.e.
decreased
rest
between
sessions)
as
a
means
to
increase
training
volume
may
augment
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
with
diminishing
returns
[26
].
Rest
A
recent
systematic
review
(six
studies)
posited
that
RET-induced
muscle
hypertrophy
may
be
improved
by
increasing
inter-set
rest
upwards
of
60
s
[47].
However,
similar
to
the
effect
of
increased
rest
on
changes
in
1RM
strength,
the
benefit
of
increased
inter-set
rest
on
RET-
induced
muscular
hypertrophy
appears
to
be
contingent
on
increased
training
status
[32,47].
Other
variables
The
time
of
day
[34],
velocity
of
contraction
[23],
single-
joint
versus
multi-joint
resistance
exercise
[38],
days
of
recovery
between
training
sessions
[37],
occlusion
of
blood
flow
[5,36],
and
autonomy
over
RET
variables
[35]
appear
to
confer
little-to-no
benefit
on
RET-induced
92
Exercise
physiology
Figure
1
Strength Hypertrophy
1. Specificity 1. Intensity of Effort
2. Load 2. Volume
3. Volume 3. Training Frequency
4. Daily protein intake 4. Daily protein intake
5. Inter-set rest 5. Inter-set rest
training for the test (e.g., 1RM vs. dynamometry) volitional fatigue and internal focus
>85 %1RM
>60 seconds
>10 repititions/muscle/wk but <15 sets/muscle/wk
<15 sets/muscle/wk
1.6 g/kg of body mass/day 1.6 g/kg of body mass/day
3 sesions/wk
2-5 minutes
Current Opinion in Physiology
Resistance
exercise
training
variables
alongside
evidence-based
recommendations
to
increase
RET-induced
increases
in
muscle
strength
and
size.
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
www.sciencedirect.com
muscular
hypertrophy.
However,
a
recent
meta-analysis
(15
studies)
found
a
small
benefit
of
performing
eccentric-
only
versus
concentric-only
RET
on
changes
in
muscle
size,
which
warrants
consideration
to
include
eccentric
muscle
actions
throughout
each
repetition
[48].
Intensity
of
effort
Recently,
with
load,
volume,
number
of
repetitions,
and
training
to
volitional
fatigue
matched
between
condi-
tions,
Schoenfeld
et
al.
[49

]
demonstrated
that
focusing
on
maximally
contracting
a
muscle
group
throughout
the
exercise’s
range
of
motion
(i.e.
increased
internal
focus)
results
in
superior
RET-induced
increases
in
muscle
thickness
compared
with
simply
moving
the
load
through
the
exercise’s
range
of
motion
(i.e.
external
focus).
Indeed,
the
thesis
that
internal
focus
mediates
RET-
induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
anecdotally
supported
in
bodybuilding
practice,
and
provides
a
reasonable
hypothesis
for
explaining
the
results
from
the
no-load
RET
study
by
Counts
et
al.
[3

].
Intensity
of
effort
can
be
modulated
by
increasing
load
[1],
volume-load
[7

],
training
frequency
[26
],
inter-set
rest
[47],
time
under
tension
[23],
blood
flow
occlusion
[5,36],
mode
of
con-
traction
[48],
or
otherwise;
but,
it
is
implicit
when
RET
is
performed
to
volitional
fatigue
and
with
increased
inter-
nal
focus.
Therefore,
as
previously
hypothesized
[50],
maximizing
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
chiefly
determined
by
intensity
of
effort
and
not
by
categorical
manipulation
of
specific
RET
variables
[1,2,5,8,16,20–22,44]).
Practical
and
evidence-based
recommendations
to
augment
RET-induced
hypertrophy
In
contrast
with
RET
guidelines
from
the
ACSM
[40]
and
NSCA
[41],
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
not
confined
to
performing
RET
with
heavy
loads
since
lighter
loads
lifted
to
volitional
fatigue
result
in
similar
hypertrophy
[1,2,3

,9,20–22,44].
Instead,
we
propose
that
the
most
potent
regulator
of
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
intensity
of
effort,
which
is
sufficient
when
performing
RET
with
increased
internal
focus
[3

,49

]
or
to
volitional
fatigue
[1,2,5,8,16,20–22,44].
Additionally,
though
more
efficacious
in
resistance-trained
individuals,
it
appears
that
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
can
be
slightly
improved
with
additional
volume
[10,18],
rest
[47],
training
frequency
(via
increased
volume)
[26
],
and
daily
protein
intake
[42].
Thus,
to
enhance
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy,
RET
should
be
performed
with
high
intensity
of
effort
(i.e.
the
practice,
likely
not
exclu-
sively,
of
lifting
to
or
near
volitional
fatigue
with
increased
internal
focus)
along
with
adequate
volume
(i.e.
>10
repetitions
per
muscle
group
per
week
[7

,10,18]
but
<15
sets
per
muscle
group
per
week
[12,13]),
training
frequency
(at
least
three
training
sessions
per
week
[26
]),
inter-set
rest
(>60
s
[47]),
and
daily
protein
intake
(1.6
g/kg
of
body
mass/day)
[42]
(Figure
1).
Sex-based
differences
By
comparison
to
men,
there
is
far
less
work
done
in
women
on
their
respective
responses
to
RET.
Absolute
RET-induced
changes
in
muscle
strength
and
mass
are
greater
in
men
versus
women,
but
the
relative
changes
in
each
are
remarkably
similar
when
men
and
women
are
compared
[51].
Interestingly,
this
axiom
holds
true
despite
an
almost
10-fold
difference
in
circulating
testos-
terone
between
men
and
women
[52].
Moreover,
the
research
we
present
above
includes
and
is,
despite
a
much
smaller
volume
of
work,
consistent
with
research
performed
in
women.
That
is,
in
women
there
is
little-to-
no
influence
of
load
[8,22],
volume
[11,12],
velocity
of
contraction
[23],
or
inter-set
rest
duration
[33]
on
RET-
induced
changes
in
muscle
strength
and/or
mass,
and
the
efficacy
of
protein
supplementation
to
support
these
gains
while
small
is
apparently
no
different
in
women
[42].
In
addition,
we
do
not
find
evidence
to
support
that
per-
forming
RET
to
volitional
fatigue
is
the
only
driver
of
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
in
women
[14
].
Therefore,
though
untrained
men
have
higher
strength
and
muscle
mass
before
RET
[53],
which
may
be
related
to
biomechanical
differences
between
sexes,
women
have
a
similar
propensity
for
RET-induced
changes
in
muscle
mass
and
strength
[51]
and
are
not
differentially
affected
by
specific
RET-related
variables
[8,11,12,14
,22,23,33,42].
Conclusion
RET-induced
increases
in
skeletal
muscle
mass
and
strength
are
largely
independent
of
sex
and
specific
RET
variables.
Unless
an
individual
is
trying
to
selec-
tively
improve
1RM
strength
(e.g.
powerlifting
or
sport-
related
performance)
or
muscular
hypertrophy
(e.g.
body-
building
or
other
esthetically
oriented
sport),
it
is
prudent
to
recommend
that
any
RET
regime
performed
regularly
and
with
a
high
degree
of
effort
is
a
sufficient
stimulus
for
increasing
muscle
mass
and
strength.
Nonetheless,
RET-induced
changes
in
muscular
strength
are
chiefly
determined
by
load
and
the
specificity
of
training
(i.e.
practicing
the
strength
test
used
as
the
outcome:
1RM
test).
Accordingly,
to
optimize
RET-induced
increases
in
1RM,
the
evidence-based
recommendations
are
to
per-
form
the
specific
test
(e.g.
a
1RM)
with
or
near
maximal
loads
(>85
%1RM).
In
contrast,
the
principal
mediator
of
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
intensity
of
effort,
which
is
implicit
when
RET
is
performed
to
volitional
fatigue
or
with
increased
internal
focus
(i.e.
maximally
contracting
a
muscle
group
throughout
the
range
of
motion).
In
addition,
there
appears
to
be
a
window
of
volume
that
is
necessary
(>10
repetitions
and
<15
sets
per
muscle
group
per
week)
for
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy,
and
increased
training
frequency,
inter-set
rest,
and
eccentric
contractions
are
relevant
consider-
ations
for
continued
improvements
in
resistance-trained
individuals.
Indeed,
once
regular
performance
of
RET
is
accomplished,
the
efficacy
of
any
particular
RET
variable
Evidenced-based
resistance
exercise
training
Morton,
Colenso-Semple
and
Phillips
93
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
to
augment
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
is
diminished
in
comparison
to
intensity
of
effort
during
any
given
RET
session.
Therefore,
the
evidence-based
recommendations
to
a
greater
level
of
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy
are
first
to
prioritize
performing
the
RET
with
heightened
intensity
of
effort
(volitional
fatigue
and
internal
focus),
and
secondarily
to
include
a
sufficient
number
of
repetitions
(>10
per
muscle
group
per
week),
volume
(<15
sets
per
muscle
group
per
week),
training
frequency
(three
sessions
per
week),
inter-set
rest
(>60
s),
and
daily
protein
intake
(1.6
g
per
kg
of
body
weight
per
day).
Funding
RWM
was
supported
by
a
Natural
Sciences
and
Engi-
neering
Research
Council
of
Canada
(NSERC)
Fellow-
ship
during
the
completion
of
this
work.
SMP
is
sup-
ported
by
funding
from
the
Canada
Research
Chairs
program
and
holds
grants
from
NSERC
and
the
Canadian
Institutes
of
Health
Research
(CIHR)
and
wishes
to
acknowledge
those
sources
of
support.
Otherwise,
this
research
did
not
receive
any
specific
grant
from
funding
agencies
in
the
public,
commercial,
or
not-for-profit
sectors.
Conflict
of
interest
statement
Nothing
declared.
References
and
recommended
reading
Papers
of
particular
interest,
published
within
the
period
of
review,
have
been
highlighted
as:
of
special
interest

of
outstanding
interest
1.
Lasevicius
T,
Ugrinowitsch
C,
Schoenfeld
BJ
et
al.:
Effects
of
different
intensities
of
resistance
training
with
equated
volume
load
on
muscle
strength
and
hypertrophy.
Eur
J
Sport
Sci
2018,
18:772-780.
2.
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Grgic
J,
Ogborn
D,
Krieger
JW:
Strength
and
hypertrophy
adaptations
between
low-
vs.
high-load
resistance
training:
a
systematic
review
and
meta-analysis.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2017,
31:3508-3523.
3.

Counts
BR,
Buckner
SL,
Dankel
SJ
et
al.:
The
acute
and
chronic
effects
of
“NO
LOAD”
resistance
training.
Physiol
Behav
2016,
164:345-352.
This
study
demonstrated
equal
hypertrophy
between
biceps
curls
with
no
load
versus
70
%1RM,
which
is
convincing
illustration
of
the
lack
of
effect
that
load
and
volume-load
have
on
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy.
4.
Gentil
P,
Del
Vecchio
FB,
Paoli
A
et
al.:
Isokinetic
dynamometry
and
1RM
tests
produce
conflicting
results
for
assessing
alterations
in
muscle
strength.
J
Hum
Kinet
2017,
56:19-27.
5.
Jessee
MB,
Buckner
SL,
Mouser
JG
et
al.:
Muscle
adaptations
to
high-load
training
and
very
low-load
training
with
and
without
blood
flow
restriction.
Front
Physiol
2018,
9:1448.
6.
Fisher
JP,
Steele
J:
Heavier
and
lighter
load
resistance
training
to
momentary
failure
produce
similar
increases
in
strength
with
differing
degrees
of
discomfort.
Muscle
Nerve
2017,
56:797-803.
7.

Mattocks
KT,
Buckner
SL,
Jessee
MB
et
al.:
Practicing
the
test
produces
strength
equivalent
to
higher
volume
training.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc
2017,
49:1945-1954.
This
study
compared
performing
traditional
RET
(8–12
repetitions,
four
sets,
twice
per
week)
to
just
performing
five
attempts
at
a
1RM
twice
per
week
(i.e.
a
total
of
10
repetitions
per
week)
and
found
similar
changes
in
1RM
strength
but
dissimilar
changes
in
muscle
thickness.
Accordingly,
this
study
is
an
impressive
demonstration
that
RET-induced
changes
in
1RM
strength
are
a
function
of
specificity/practice
and
a
strong
repre-
sentation
that
increased
volume
is
necessary
if
near-maximal
loads
are
to
be
used
during
RET.
8.
Cholewa
J,
Rossi
FE
et
al.:
The
effects
of
moderate-
versus
high-load
training
on
body
composition,
muscle
growth,
and
performance
in
college
aged
females.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018:32.
9.
Morton
RW,
Oikawa
SY,
Wavell
CG
et
al.:
Neither
load
nor
systemic
hormones
determine
resistance
training-mediated
hypertrophy
or
strength
gains
in
resistance-trained
young
men.
J
Appl
Physiol
(1985)
2016,
121:129-138.
10.
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Contreras
B,
Krieger
J
et
al.:
Resistance
training
volume
enhances
muscle
hypertrophy
but
not
strength
in
trained
men.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc
2019,
51:94-103.
11.
Cunha
PM,
Nunes
JP,
Tomeleri
CM
et
al.:
Resistance
training
performed
with
single
and
multiple
sets
induces
similar
improvements
in
muscular
strength,
muscle
mass,
muscle
quality,
and
IGF-1
in
older
women:
a
randomized
controlled
trial.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002847.
Epub
ahead
of
print.
12.
Barbalho
M,
Coswig
VS,
Steele
J
et
al.:
Evidence
for
an
upper
threshold
for
resistance
training
volume
in
trained
women.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc
2018,
1.
13.
Amirthalingam
T,
Mavros
Y,
Wilson
GC
et
al.:
Effects
of
a
modified
German
volume
training
program
on
muscular
hypertrophy
and
strength.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2017,
31:3109-
3119.
14.
Martorelli
S,
Cadore
EL,
Izquierdo
M
et
al.:
Strength
training
with
repetitions
to
failure
does
not
provide
additional
strength
and
muscle
hypertrophy
gains
in
young
women.
Eur
J
Transl
Myol
2017,
27:6339.
This
study
demonstrated
that
training
to
volitional
fatigue
results
in
superior
increases
in
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy,
but
also
per-
forming
‘supplementary’
sets
to
volume-match
a
non-volitional
fatigue
condition
to
the
volitional
fatigue
condition
results
in
similar
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy.
Thus,
this
study
is
a
strong
case
for
the
efficacy
of
increasing
volume
during
moderate-load
RET.
15.
Sampson
JA,
Groeller
H:
Is
repetition
failure
critical
for
the
development
of
muscle
hypertrophy
and
strength?
Scand
J
Med
Sci
Sports
2016,
26:375-383.
16.
Nobrega
SR,
Ugrinowitsch
C,
Pintanel
L
et
al.:
Effect
of
resistance
training
to
muscle
failure
vs.
volitional
interruption
at
high-
and
low-intensities
on
muscle
mass
and
strength.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018,
32:162-169.
17.
Damas
F,
Barcelos
C,
Nobrega
SR
et
al.:
Individual
muscle
hypertrophy
and
strength
responses
to
high
vs.
low
resistance
training
frequencies.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018,
33:897-901.
18.
Heaselgrave
SR,
Blacker
J,
Smeuninx
B
et
al.:
Dose-response
relationship
of
weekly
resistance-training
volume
and
frequency
on
muscular
adaptations
in
trained
men.
Int
J
Sports
Physiol
Perform
2019:1-9.
19.
Barcelos
C,
Damas
F,
Nobrega
SR
et
al.:
High-frequency
resistance
training
does
not
promote
greater
muscular
adaptations
compared
to
low
frequencies
in
young
untrained
men.
Eur
J
Sport
Sci
2018,
18:1077-1082.
20.
Vargas
S,
Petro
JL,
Romance
R
et
al.:
Comparison
of
changes
in
lean
body
mass
with
a
strength-
versus
muscle
endurance-
based
resistance
training
program.
Eur
J
Appl
Physiol
2019,
119:933-940.
21.
Stefanaki
DGA,
Dzulkarnain
A,
Gray
SR:
Comparing
the
effects
of
low
and
high
load
resistance
exercise
to
failure
on
adaptive
responses
to
resistance
exercise
in
young
women.
J
Sports
Sci
2019:1-6.
22.
Franco
CMC,
Carneiro
MADS,
Alves
LTH
et
al.:
Lower-load
is
more
effective
than
higher-load
resistance
training
in
increasing
muscle
mass
in
young
women.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002970.
Epub
ahead
of
print.
94
Exercise
physiology
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
www.sciencedirect.com
23.
Carlson
L,
Jonker
B,
Westcott
WL
et
al.:
Neither
repetition
duration
nor
number
of
muscle
actions
affect
strength
increases,
body
composition,
muscle
size,
or
fasted
blood
glucose
in
trained
males
and
females.
Appl
Physiol
Nutr
Metab
2019,
44:200-207.
24.
Davies
T,
Orr
R,
Halaki
M,
Hackett
D:
Erratum
to:
effect
of
training
leading
to
repetition
failure
on
muscular
strength:
a
systematic
review
and
meta-analysis.
Sports
Med
2016,
46:605-610.
25.
Colquhoun
RJ,
Gai
CM,
Aguilar
D
et
al.:
Training
volume,
not
frequency,
indicative
of
maximal
strength
adaptations
to
resistance
training.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018,
32:1207-1213.
26.
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Grgic
J,
Krieger
J:
How
many
times
per
week
should
a
muscle
be
trained
to
maximize
muscle
hypertrophy?
A
systematic
review
and
meta-analysis
of
studies
examining
the
effects
of
resistance
training
frequency.
J
Sports
Sci
2018:1-10.
This
meta-analysis
shows
that
when
volume
is
equated,
increased
training
frequency
does
not
result
in
superior
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy;
however,
with
a
meta-regression
on
studies
that
were
not
volume-matched,
this
meta-analysis
identified
a
modest
benefit
of
per-
forming
three
or
more
weekly
RET
sessions
compared
to
just
one.
27.
Saric
J,
Lisica
D,
Orlic
I
et
al.:
Resistance
training
frequencies
of
3
and
6
times
per
week
produce
similar
muscular
adaptations
in
resistance-trained
men.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018
http://dx.
doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002909.
Epub
ahead
of
print.
28.
Brigatto
FA,
Braz
TV,
Zanini
T
et
al.:
Effect
of
resistance
training
frequency
on
neuromuscular
performance
and
muscle
morphology
after
eight
weeks
in
trained
men.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002563.
Epub
ahead
of
print.
29.
Gomes
GK,
Franco
CM,
Nunes
PRP,
Orsatti
FL:
High-frequency
resistance
training
is
not
more
effective
than
low-frequency
resistance
training
in
increasing
muscle
mass
and
strength
in
well-trained
men.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1519/JSC.0000000000003145.
Epub
ahead
of
print.
30.
Gentil
P,
Fisher
J,
Steele
J
et
al.:
Effects
of
equal-volume
resistance
training
with
different
training
frequencies
in
muscle
size
and
strength
in
trained
men.
PeerJ
2018,
6:e5020.
31.
Grgic
J,
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Skrepnik
M
et
al.:
Effects
of
rest
interval
duration
in
resistance
training
on
measures
of
muscular
strength:
a
systematic
review.
Sports
Med
2018,
48:137-151.
32.
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Pope
ZK,
Benik
FM
et
al.:
Longer
interset
rest
periods
enhance
muscle
strength
and
hypertrophy
in
resistance-trained
men.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2016,
30:1805-
1812.
33.
Jambassi
Filho
JC,
Gurjao
ALD,
Ceccato
M
et
al.:
Chronic
effects
of
different
rest
intervals
between
sets
on
dynamic
and
isometric
muscle
strength
and
muscle
activity
in
trained
older
women.
Am
J
Phys
Med
Rehabil
2017,
96:627-633.
34.
Grgic
J,
Lazinica
B,
Garofolini
A
et
al.:
The
effects
of
time
of
day-
specific
resistance
training
on
adaptations
in
skeletal
muscle
hypertrophy
and
muscle
strength:
a
systematic
review
and
meta-analysis.
Chronobiol
Int
2019:1-12.
35.
Colquhoun
RJ,
Gai
CM,
Walters
J
et
al.:
Comparison
of
powerlifting
performance
in
trained
men
using
traditional
and
flexible
daily
undulating
periodization.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2017,
31:283-291.
36.
Sieljacks
P,
Degn
R,
Hollaender
K
et
al.:
Non-failure
blood
flow
restricted
exercise
induces
similar
muscle
adaptations
and
less
discomfort
than
failure
protocols.
Scand
J
Med
Sci
Sports
2019,
29:336-347.
37.
Yang
Y,
Bay
PB,
Wang
YR
et
al.:
Effects
of
consecutive
versus
non-consecutive
days
of
resistance
training
on
strength,
body
composition,
and
red
blood
cells.
Front
Physiol
2018,
9:725.
38.
Paoli
A,
Gentil
P,
Moro
T
et
al.:
Resistance
training
with
single
vs.
multi-joint
exercises
at
equal
total
load
volume:
effects
on
body
composition,
cardiorespiratory
fitness,
and
muscle
strength.
Front
Physiol
2017,
8:1105.
39.
Williams
TD,
Tolusso
DV,
Fedewa
MV,
Esco
MR:
Comparison
of
periodized
and
non-periodized
resistance
training
on
maximal
strength:
a
meta-analysis.
Sports
Med
2017,
47:2083-2100.
40.
Ratamess
NA,
Alvar
BA,
Evetoch
TK
et
al.:
American
college
of
sports
medicine
position
stand.
Progression
models
in
resistance
training
for
healthy
adults.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc
2009,
41:687-708.
41.
Haff
GG,
Triplett-McBride
T:
Essentials
of
Strength
Training
and
Conditioning.
Champaign,
Illinois:
Human
Kinetics;
2016.
42.
Morton
RW,
Murphy
KT,
McKellar
SR
et
al.:
A
systematic
review,
meta-analysis
and
meta-regression
of
the
effect
of
protein
supplementation
on
resistance
training-induced
gains
in
muscle
mass
and
strength
in
healthy
adults.
Br
J
Sports
Med
2018,
52:376-384.
43.
Roberts
MD,
Haun
CT,
Mobley
CB
et
al.:
Physiological
differences
between
low
versus
high
skeletal
muscle
hypertrophic
responders
to
resistance
exercise
training:
current
perspectives
and
future
research
directions.
Front
Physiol
2018,
9:834.
44.
Cholewa
JM,
Rossi
FE,
MacDonald
C
et
al.:
The
effects
of
moderate-
versus
high-load
resistance
training
on
muscle
growth,
body
composition,
and
performance
in
collegiate
women.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2018,
32:1511-1524.
45.
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Ogborn
D,
Krieger
JW:
Dose-response
relationship
between
weekly
resistance
training
volume
and
increases
in
muscle
mass:
a
systematic
review
and
meta-
analysis.
J
Sports
Sci
2017,
35:1073-1082.
46.
Ochi
E,
Maruo
M,
Tsuchiya
Y
et
al.:
Higher
training
frequency
is
important
for
gaining
muscular
strength
under
volume-
matched
training.
Front
Physiol
2018,
9:744.
47.
Grgic
J,
Lazinica
B,
Mikulic
P
et
al.:
The
effects
of
short
versus
long
inter-set
rest
intervals
in
resistance
training
on
measures
of
muscle
hypertrophy:
a
systematic
review.
Eur
J
Sport
Sci
2017,
17:983-993.
48.
Schoenfeld
BJ,
Ogborn
DI,
Vigotsky
AD
et
al.:
Hypertrophic
effects
of
concentric
vs.
eccentric
muscle
actions:
a
systematic
review
and
meta-analysis.
J
Strength
Cond
Res
2017,
31:2599-2608.
49.

Schoenfeld
BJ,
Vigotsky
A,
Contreras
B
et
al.:
Differential
effects
of
attentional
focus
strategies
during
long-term
resistance
training.
Eur
J
Sport
Sci
2018,
18:705-712.
This
study
provides
an
explanation
for
Counts
et
al.
paper,
illustrating
that
increased
internal
focus
(i.e.
maximally
contracting
a
muscle
group
throughout
its
range
of
motion)
affects
RET-induced
muscular
hypertrophy.
50.
Morton
RW,
McGlory
C,
Phillips
SM:
Nutritional
interventions
to
augment
resistance
training-induced
skeletal
muscle
hypertrophy.
Front
Physiol
2015,
6:245.
51.
Hubal
MJ,
Gordish-Dressman
H
et
al.:
Variability
in
muscle
size
and
strength
gain
after
unilateral
resistance
training.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc
2005,
37.
52.
West
DW,
Burd
NA,
Churchward-Venne
TA
et
al.:
Sex-based
comparisons
of
myofibrillar
protein
synthesis
after
resistance
exercise
in
the
fed
state.
J
Appl
Physiol
(1985)
2012,
112:1805-
1813.
53.
Merrigan
JJ,
White
JB,
Hu
YE
et
al.:
Differences
in
elbow
extensor
muscle
characteristics
between
resistance-trained
men
and
women.
Eur
J
Appl
Physiol
2018,
118:2359-2366.
Evidenced-based
resistance
exercise
training
Morton,
Colenso-Semple
and
Phillips
95
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Physiology
2019,
10:90–95
  • ... [26][27][28][29][30] Strength training of lower intensity, volume, or timeframe might not increase BMD significantly, but can contribute to the maintenance of a certain level. 34 At this point, it is important to emphasize that in case of strength training, a crucial element are the resistance level and the nature of the training itself. 9 To impact muscles and bones sufficiently to prospectively increase BMD, the resistance level of strength training has to be a minimum of 70% of 1-repetition maximum or at least "moderate intensity." ...
    Article
    Clinical Scenario: Reduced bone mineral density (BMD) is a serious condition in older adults. The mild form, osteopenia, is often a precursor of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a pathological condition and a global health problem as it is one of the most common diseases in developed countries. Finding solutions for prevention and therapy should be prioritized. Therefore, the critically appraised topic focuses on strength training as a treatment to counteract a further decline in BMD in older adults. Clinical Question: Is strength training beneficial in increasing BMD in older people with osteopenia or osteoporosis? Summary of Key Findings: Four of the 5 reviewed studies with the highest evidence showed a significant increase in lumbar spine BMD after strength training interventions in comparison with control groups. The fifth study confirmed the maintenance of lumbar spine density due to conducted exercises. Moreover, 3 reviewed studies revealed increasing BMD at the femoral neck after strength training when compared with controls, which appeared significant in 2 of them. Clinical Bottom Line: The findings indicate that strength training has a significant positive influence on BMD in older women (ie, postmenopausal) with osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, it is not recommended to only rely on strength training as the increase of BMD may not appear fast enough to reach the minimal desired values. A combination of strength training and supplements/medication seems most adequate. Generalization of the findings to older men with reduced BMD should be done with caution due to the lack of studies. Strength of Recommendation: There is grade B of recommendation to support the validity of strength training for older women in postmenopausal phase with reduced BMD.
  • ... letter on our paper highlights a minor semantic dispute rather than a fundamental difference of opinion. Nonetheless, we provide here a more nuanced evidence-based explanation than was provided in our paper [1]. ...
  • ... We suggest future studies may want to consider examining the integration of goal based autoregulatory approaches of strength and conditioning in athletic populations. If hypertrophy is the goal, utilize the wide range of exercise loads (in combination with sufficient volume) which have been demonstrated to induce hypertrophy (20). The chosen load can be based on the athlete's recovery status/mood/preference. ...
    Article
    The periodization of resistance exercise is often touted as the most effective strategy for optimizing muscle size and strength adaptations. This narrative persists despite a lack of experimental evidence to demonstrate its superiority. In addition, the general adaptation syndrome, which provides the theoretical framework underlying periodization, does not appear to provide a strong physiological rationale that periodization is necessary. Hans Selye conducted a series of rodent studies which used toxic stressors to facilitate the development of the general adaptation syndrome. To our knowledge, normal exercise in humans has never been shown to produce a general adaptation syndrome. We question whether there is any physiological rationale that a periodized training approach would facilitate greater adaptations compared with nonperiodized approaches employing progressive overload. The purpose of this article is to briefly review currently debated topics within strength and conditioning and provide some practical insight regarding the implications these reevaluations of the literature may have for resistance exercise and periodization. In addition, we provide some suggestions for the continued advancement within the field of strength and conditioning.
  • ... Breath restriction post hyperventilation has been shown repeatedly to significantly improve immune response [5] Both uncomfortable doses of heat [4] and cold [9] have distinct restorative properties. Muscular hypertrophy (growth) is associated with training to muscular fatigue (uncomfortable experience) [7]. Novel eccentric contractions from such eccentric effort (like slowly lowering oneself from a pull up) often induces "delayed onset muscle soreness" [3] as part of the recovery/adaptation -also uncomfortable . ...
    Conference Paper
    According to the latest science of human performance, we are wired to thrive and adapt from discomfort. This workshop explores how to leverage that science to improve human wellbeing and to improve sustainability as a side-effect of designing ubiquitous technology to prepare, practice and perform discomfort, for social benefit. We will use Design Jams as a key activity to explore and build up this Uncomfortable Design Methodology. There will be prizes.
  • ... Finally, similar to the major ongoing discussions regarding which variables may be optimal to improve muscular adaptions, such as muscle hypertrophy or strength [376][377][378][379][380][381][382][383][384][385][386][387][388][389][390], the optimal exercise prescription (e.g., exercise variables and training variables) for resistance exercises and/ or resistance training with respect to brain health (including appropriate functional and structural brain changes as well as enhancement of cognitive functions) are largely unknown and have to be elucidated in future studies [105,108,110]. In addition, the interested reader may find further and more detailed information regarding the design of resistance exercise sessions or resistance training in the referenced literature [355,[391][392][393][394]. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Background: During the aging process, physical capabilities (e.g., muscular strength) and cognitive functions (e.g., memory) gradually decrease. Regarding cognitive functions, substantial functional (e.g., compensatory brain activity) and structural changes (e.g., shrinking of the hippocampus) in the brain cause this decline. Notably, growing evidence points towards a relationship between cognition and measures of muscular strength and muscle mass. Based on this emerging evidence, resistance exercises and/or resistance training, which contributes to the preservation and augmentation of muscular strength and muscle mass, may trigger beneficial neurobiological processes and could be crucial for healthy aging that includes preservation of the brain and cognition. Compared with the multitude of studies that have investigated the influence of endurance exercises and/or endurance training on cognitive performance and brain structure, considerably less work has focused on the effects of resistance exercises and/or resistance training. While the available evidence regarding resistance exercise-induced changes in cognitive functions is pooled, the underlying neurobiological processes, such as functional and structural brain changes, have yet to be summarized. Hence, the purpose of this systematic review is to provide an overview of resistance exercise-induced functional and/or structural brain changes that are related to cognitive functions. Methods and results: A systematic literature search was conducted by two independent researchers across six electronic databases; 5957 records were returned, of which 18 were considered relevant and were analyzed. Short conclusion: Based on our analyses, resistance exercises and resistance training evoked substantial functional brain changes, especially in the frontal lobe, which were accompanied by improvements in executive functions. Furthermore, resistance training led to lower white matter atrophy and smaller white matter lesion volumes. However, based on the relatively small number of studies available, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Hence, future studies are required to investigate the underlying neurobiological mechanisms and to verify whether the positive findings can be confirmed and transferred to other needy cohorts, such as older adults with dementia, sarcopenia and/or dynapenia. Keywords: Cognition, Neuroplasticity, Strength exercises, Strength training, Physical activity
  • Article
    Global health organizations have provided recommendations regarding exercise for the general population. Strength training has been included in several position statements due to its multi-systemic benefits. In this narrative review, we examine the available literature, first explaining how specific mechanical loading is converted into positive cellular responses. Secondly, benefits related to specific musculoskeletal tissues are discussed, with practical applications and training programmes clearly outlined for both common musculoskeletal disorders and primary prevention strategies.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    To date, there are several knowledge gaps on how to properly prescribe concurrent training to achieve the best dose-response, especially regarding the optimal intensity or volume of the aerobic component. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the effects of different aerobic exercise modes and intensities [i.e. aerobic high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (MICT) combined with a resistance training (RT) program] on metabolic outcomes in participants with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Thirty-nine men and women (67.0 ± 6.7 years) volunteered to a 12-weeks exercise intervention (3 week–1, 50 min/session) and were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) RT plus MICT (RT+MICT) (2 males; 11 females); (b) RT plus HIIT (RT+HIIT) (4 males; 9 females); and (c) control group (CON) – without formal exercise (4 males; 9 females). Intensity was established between 60 and 70% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) in RT+MICT and ranged from 55–65% to 80–90% HRmax in the RT+HIIT group. Dependent outcomes included morphological, metabolic and hemodynamic variables. Both training groups improved waist circumference (RT+MICT: P = 0.019; RT+HIIT: P = 0.003), but not body weight, fat mass or fat-free mass (P ≥ 0.114). RT+HIIT group improved fasting glucose (P = 0.014), low density lipoprotein [LDL (P = 0.022)], insulin (P = 0.034) and homeostatic model assessment (P = 0.028). RT+MICT group reduced triglycerides (P = 0.053). Both exercise interventions did not change high sensitivity C-reactive protein, glycated hemoglobin, high density lipoprotein and total cholesterol, systolic, diastolic or mean arterial blood pressure (P ≥ 0.05). The CON group reduced the LDL (P = 0.031). This trial suggests that short-term exercise mode and intensity may differently impact the metabolic profile of individuals with MetS. Further, our data suggests that both concurrent trainings promote important cardiometabolic gains, particularly in the RT+HIIT. Nonetheless, due to the small-to-moderate effect size and the short-term intervention length, our data suggests that the intervention length also has an important modulating role in these benefits in older adults with MetS. Therefore, more research is needed to confirm our results using longer exercise interventions and larger groups.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    A weight (resistance) training program includes training variables, such as exercises, sets, repetitions and training frequency. A training plan describes how the variables should be modified over time. In order to be effective, both training programs and plans should be based on some basic principles, applicable to all trainees. Based on the literature review, the most important and well supported is the principle of progressive overload, which states that the stimulus should be gradually increasing over time. The principle of specificity states that the training adaptations are specific to the stimulus applied, while the principle of variation (and periodization) states that the stimulus should change (within the specificity limits) to remain challenging. Although they are not necessary to increase performance, there is evidence supporting higher improvements. The principle of individuality states that the stimulus should be adjusted based on the individual's needs. Even though overlooked, limited data indicate that it may be more important than specificity and variation. This paper discusses the basic principles, the criticism against them, and how they should be applied when designing resistance training programs. Contribution/Originality: This study documents the principles that a weight training plan should be based on some basic principles, applicable to all trainees. This study contributes in the existing literature by clarifying the confusion and misconceptions on the topic.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Skeletal muscle plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of physical and metabolic health and, critically, mobility. Accordingly, strategies focused on increasing the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle are relevant, and resistance exercise is foundational to the process of functional hypertrophy. Much of our current understanding of skeletal muscle hypertrophy can be attributed to the development and utilization of stable isotopically labeled tracers. We know that resistance exercise and sufficient protein intake act synergistically and provide the most effective stimuli to enhance skeletal muscle mass; however, the molecular intricacies that underpin the tremendous response variability to resistance exercise-induced hypertrophy are complex. The purpose of this review is to discuss recent studies with the aim of shedding light on key regulatory mechanisms that dictate hypertrophic gains in skeletal muscle mass. We also aim to provide a brief up-to-date summary of the recent advances in our understanding of skeletal muscle hypertrophy in response to resistance training in humans.